Tyoyota and Georgetown, KY
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 764
From: Crystal Falls, MI USA
What is not discussed is the fact that it is the increased sale of imports that has caused the domestic plants to shut down in the first place.
The shame of it is that the people who worked for Ford, GM, and Chrysler who bought Toyotas, Nissans, and Hondas and parked them in the parking lots at Ford, GM, and Chrysler are the ones out of work and don't understand why.
EXAMPLE #1) A Ford employee buys two or three Hondas over a 10 year period because they are cheaper and he likes them better, loses his job because the plant is shut down due to low sales. He now has the option of taking a lesser job for lesser money and living a lesser lifestyle where he is, unless he is somewhat fortunate and can get retrained or has to relocate to another (southern apparently?) state to get an equivalent job. A plant is closed, a city's economy dies, schools suffer, families leave... Ghost-Town, USA.
EXAMPLE #2) A US Citizen buys imported goods over domestic ones because they are cheaper and more available, loses his job because the plant (he works in) is shut down due to offshore competition. He now has the option of taking a lesser job for lesser money and living a lesser lifestyle where he is, unless he is somewhat fortunate and can get retrained or has to relocate to another country (like China) to get an equivalent job. A nation's economy slowly dies, schools suffer, families leave... Ghost-Town, USA.
Why is this (responsible buying to support domestic business) so hard to see? Honestly?
There is ONE TV manufacturer left in the USA.
There are almost NO textile companies manufacturing here.
Electronics manufacture is dried-up in the USA.
Appliances, furniture, clothes, shoes, you name it.
If it keeps going out, what will replace it?
I challenge ANYONE to disprove to me in concrete fact that "the conversion of raw natural resouces into tangible, sellable goods (i.e. "manufacturing") is the generation of wealth for a nation."
It's the first thing hey teach us in Intro to Engineering 101.
Why are the middle-east nations wealthy? OIL.
Why has the USA become wealthy? Steel, Agriculture, and Machinery.
Why is Europe wealthy? Steel, Agriculture, and Machinery.
Those nations with natural resoucres and the means to use/sell them become wealthy.
You can not "maintain" a wealthy status (much less create more) if you are not manufacturing something "consumable" to others that is worth them deciding to give you their money for.
Service-providers only slide money around from party to party, they don't "create" any physical, tangible wealth.
So getting back to the spine of the article... why is it that we applaud foreign companies for coming in and building plants in our country and hiring our people...
* at lower hourly wage levels than they had 20 years ago...
* with less health care benefits...
* with less community service and investment...
* and for finding a loophole to circumvent having to pay a tariff if they had brought their product to the USA on a ship already assembled?
Damifino. I'm not cheering. Or buying their stuff either.
I'm sorry. I think Americans have screwed themselves into this pickle by buying foreign - even back when they were truely imported on ships - because of their "it doesn't matter" attitude. All they did for the last 20-30 years was finance this shift in manufacturing and obsolescence of American labor with every imported peice of sh1+ they bought. NOW, the fat lady is singing, and we fat, dumb Americans are STILL throwing our money into foreign pots as fast as we can with the same "it doesn't matter" attitude. Plants are closing like crazy, debt is at record highs, foreclosures are at record highs, schools are underfunded, our education systems suck, healthcare costs are rediculous, fuel costs are rediculous, 8 million homes sit empty inside the US, roads and highways are falling apart, and we can't even get a raise if we're lucky enough to work at the same place for a few years. Meanwhile, the Chinese economy is on fire, double-digit growth everywhere, Japan has come out of their 15-year recession, and foreign companies and nations own 2/3 of the US national Treasury.
BUT we refuse to say, "Hey, something's wrong."
Instead, we say, "Hey, I just saved $1200 on my new ToyNisHon, so I stopped at Wal-Mart and bought an intertainment center and a new DVD player with the money I saved! Cool, huh!"
I swear... the rooster will come home to roost one day... sooner than many of you think too. Just remember stupid 'ol me that said this day was coming when it gets here.
The shame of it is that the people who worked for Ford, GM, and Chrysler who bought Toyotas, Nissans, and Hondas and parked them in the parking lots at Ford, GM, and Chrysler are the ones out of work and don't understand why.
EXAMPLE #1) A Ford employee buys two or three Hondas over a 10 year period because they are cheaper and he likes them better, loses his job because the plant is shut down due to low sales. He now has the option of taking a lesser job for lesser money and living a lesser lifestyle where he is, unless he is somewhat fortunate and can get retrained or has to relocate to another (southern apparently?) state to get an equivalent job. A plant is closed, a city's economy dies, schools suffer, families leave... Ghost-Town, USA.
EXAMPLE #2) A US Citizen buys imported goods over domestic ones because they are cheaper and more available, loses his job because the plant (he works in) is shut down due to offshore competition. He now has the option of taking a lesser job for lesser money and living a lesser lifestyle where he is, unless he is somewhat fortunate and can get retrained or has to relocate to another country (like China) to get an equivalent job. A nation's economy slowly dies, schools suffer, families leave... Ghost-Town, USA.
Why is this (responsible buying to support domestic business) so hard to see? Honestly?
There is ONE TV manufacturer left in the USA.
There are almost NO textile companies manufacturing here.
Electronics manufacture is dried-up in the USA.
Appliances, furniture, clothes, shoes, you name it.
If it keeps going out, what will replace it?
I challenge ANYONE to disprove to me in concrete fact that "the conversion of raw natural resouces into tangible, sellable goods (i.e. "manufacturing") is the generation of wealth for a nation."
It's the first thing hey teach us in Intro to Engineering 101.
Why are the middle-east nations wealthy? OIL.
Why has the USA become wealthy? Steel, Agriculture, and Machinery.
Why is Europe wealthy? Steel, Agriculture, and Machinery.
Those nations with natural resoucres and the means to use/sell them become wealthy.
You can not "maintain" a wealthy status (much less create more) if you are not manufacturing something "consumable" to others that is worth them deciding to give you their money for.
Service-providers only slide money around from party to party, they don't "create" any physical, tangible wealth.
So getting back to the spine of the article... why is it that we applaud foreign companies for coming in and building plants in our country and hiring our people...
* at lower hourly wage levels than they had 20 years ago...
* with less health care benefits...
* with less community service and investment...
* and for finding a loophole to circumvent having to pay a tariff if they had brought their product to the USA on a ship already assembled?
Damifino. I'm not cheering. Or buying their stuff either.
I'm sorry. I think Americans have screwed themselves into this pickle by buying foreign - even back when they were truely imported on ships - because of their "it doesn't matter" attitude. All they did for the last 20-30 years was finance this shift in manufacturing and obsolescence of American labor with every imported peice of sh1+ they bought. NOW, the fat lady is singing, and we fat, dumb Americans are STILL throwing our money into foreign pots as fast as we can with the same "it doesn't matter" attitude. Plants are closing like crazy, debt is at record highs, foreclosures are at record highs, schools are underfunded, our education systems suck, healthcare costs are rediculous, fuel costs are rediculous, 8 million homes sit empty inside the US, roads and highways are falling apart, and we can't even get a raise if we're lucky enough to work at the same place for a few years. Meanwhile, the Chinese economy is on fire, double-digit growth everywhere, Japan has come out of their 15-year recession, and foreign companies and nations own 2/3 of the US national Treasury.
BUT we refuse to say, "Hey, something's wrong."
Instead, we say, "Hey, I just saved $1200 on my new ToyNisHon, so I stopped at Wal-Mart and bought an intertainment center and a new DVD player with the money I saved! Cool, huh!"
I swear... the rooster will come home to roost one day... sooner than many of you think too. Just remember stupid 'ol me that said this day was coming when it gets here.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,180
From: Yadkinville, NC USA
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,938
Proud,
There is quite a lot of what you say here that I agree with but certainly some I take exception to; especially when it comes to your statements of:
Do transplant automakers pay less for their workforce? Yes (although I doubt the “20 year” statement would hold up.)
Is a Toyota or Honda paying less wages a “bad thing”? Not necessarily nor is GM or Ford paying a larger wage necessarily a “good thing”.
I have no inside information but I suspect the wages GM pays its employees at the Saturn Spring Hill, TN plant are lower than they pay for the equivalent job it Michigan for two primary reasons…Tennessee has a lower COL than Michigan and the employee probably is new (and therefore has fewer years on the job) so the starting wage will be lower as it is/would be for any manufacturer coming to that area (if someone has specific information to the contrary please correct me).
A Nissan or Kia, building a new plant in the southern U.S. will pay lower wages for the same reasons PLUS they aren’t unionized.
That is not “unfair”, it’s just competition.
The “differences” in wages/benefits paid between a Toyota employee and a GM employee would also exist between a brand new wholly owned U.S. company’s employee should it decide to get into the car manufacturing business and if GM could shed itself of its union contracts and were in a plant building phase in the U.S. it would find the same advantages if it decided to build in the south and/or in areas of the country that haven’t had a tradition of heavy manufacturing.
Companies across the board are offering less health care insurance benefits to its employees, at least its new hires. That said, while not exactly equal, I think you would find that the overall benefit package offered to the average Toyota, Nissan or Honda employee is very comparable to that offered by GM and Ford and far better than is currently being offered by employers in most industries.
At any rate, let’s keep in mind that no company is required to offer health care insurance at all (nor should they be) and frankly, we need to get rid of the current health care insurance system anyway (as was discussed at length in this same forum a couple of weeks ago).
Health care is a very important issue for society and one that needs addressed but I think you are bit unfair with your assertion that the transplant manufacturers are offering substantially less than their Detroit counterparts.
Doubt that, very, very much. Go to any community in the U.S. where Toyota or Honda, etc. has built a plant and I believe you’ll find their community investment (be it in taxes, involvement in schools, volunteerism, charitable giving, etc, etc) is at least on par with anything GM or Ford has/would be doing in the communities where they have facilities.
A very recent case in point was raised in another thread which wound down just a couple of days ago regarding Katrina relief giving – once the figures were known, it was very obvious that the non-domestic manufacturers acquitted themselves very well compared to the domestic 2.5 and if you take their relative sizes into consideration (as in $ given as a percentage of their capital investment in the U.S.) the non-domestic nameplates gave well over what one might expect.
Loophole? Maybe we need to look at history a bit…
If memory serves (getting questionable at my advanced age), it was the domestic auto industry that lobbied Congress heavily to get those tariffs in place and which, consequently made building manufacturing plants in the U.S. rather than importing vehicles a wise financial decision for the import manufacturers.
Today, 60% of all “import’ vehicles sold in the U.S. are built in the U.S….is that really a bad thing? Would it be better if all the import vehicles sold in the U.S. were still built outside of the U.S.? Which scenario is actually better for the U.S. economy overall?
I realize many would like to see no (or virtually no) competition for GM at all (save perhaps for competition from Ford and DCX) but those days are very long gone and overall, the industry, including GM and Ford build far better cars today because of competition.
I am all for buying “American” products and keeping jobs and industry in the U.S. and I’m certainly in favor of the U.S. being VERY careful of who we choose to trade and do business with…you’ll get no argument from me that we should not be doing anything that helps true enemies of the U.S. and western democracy.
However, “foreign” companies (at least foreign companies that are not from enemies of the United States) that build facilities in the U.S. and add to the U.S. economy (rather than just take from it) are not the problem.
There is quite a lot of what you say here that I agree with but certainly some I take exception to; especially when it comes to your statements of:
* at lower hourly wage levels than they had 20 years ago...
Is a Toyota or Honda paying less wages a “bad thing”? Not necessarily nor is GM or Ford paying a larger wage necessarily a “good thing”.
I have no inside information but I suspect the wages GM pays its employees at the Saturn Spring Hill, TN plant are lower than they pay for the equivalent job it Michigan for two primary reasons…Tennessee has a lower COL than Michigan and the employee probably is new (and therefore has fewer years on the job) so the starting wage will be lower as it is/would be for any manufacturer coming to that area (if someone has specific information to the contrary please correct me).
A Nissan or Kia, building a new plant in the southern U.S. will pay lower wages for the same reasons PLUS they aren’t unionized.
That is not “unfair”, it’s just competition.
The “differences” in wages/benefits paid between a Toyota employee and a GM employee would also exist between a brand new wholly owned U.S. company’s employee should it decide to get into the car manufacturing business and if GM could shed itself of its union contracts and were in a plant building phase in the U.S. it would find the same advantages if it decided to build in the south and/or in areas of the country that haven’t had a tradition of heavy manufacturing.
* with less health care benefits...
At any rate, let’s keep in mind that no company is required to offer health care insurance at all (nor should they be) and frankly, we need to get rid of the current health care insurance system anyway (as was discussed at length in this same forum a couple of weeks ago).
Health care is a very important issue for society and one that needs addressed but I think you are bit unfair with your assertion that the transplant manufacturers are offering substantially less than their Detroit counterparts.
* with less community service and investment...
A very recent case in point was raised in another thread which wound down just a couple of days ago regarding Katrina relief giving – once the figures were known, it was very obvious that the non-domestic manufacturers acquitted themselves very well compared to the domestic 2.5 and if you take their relative sizes into consideration (as in $ given as a percentage of their capital investment in the U.S.) the non-domestic nameplates gave well over what one might expect.
* and for finding a loophole to circumvent having to pay a tariff if they had brought their product to the USA on a ship already assembled?
If memory serves (getting questionable at my advanced age), it was the domestic auto industry that lobbied Congress heavily to get those tariffs in place and which, consequently made building manufacturing plants in the U.S. rather than importing vehicles a wise financial decision for the import manufacturers.
Today, 60% of all “import’ vehicles sold in the U.S. are built in the U.S….is that really a bad thing? Would it be better if all the import vehicles sold in the U.S. were still built outside of the U.S.? Which scenario is actually better for the U.S. economy overall?
I realize many would like to see no (or virtually no) competition for GM at all (save perhaps for competition from Ford and DCX) but those days are very long gone and overall, the industry, including GM and Ford build far better cars today because of competition.
I am all for buying “American” products and keeping jobs and industry in the U.S. and I’m certainly in favor of the U.S. being VERY careful of who we choose to trade and do business with…you’ll get no argument from me that we should not be doing anything that helps true enemies of the U.S. and western democracy.
However, “foreign” companies (at least foreign companies that are not from enemies of the United States) that build facilities in the U.S. and add to the U.S. economy (rather than just take from it) are not the problem.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,165
From: Sterling Heights, MI
Go to any community in the U.S. where Toyota or Honda, etc. has built a plant and I believe you’ll find their community investment (be it in taxes, involvement in schools, volunteerism, charitable giving, etc, etc) is at least on par with anything GM or Ford has/would be doing in the communities where they have facilities.
A very recent case in point was raised in another thread which wound down just a couple of days ago regarding Katrina relief giving – once the figures were known, it was very obvious that the non-domestic manufacturers acquitted themselves very well compared to the domestic 2.5 and if you take their relative sizes into consideration (as in $ given as a percentage of their capital investment in the U.S.) the non-domestic nameplates gave well over what one might expect.
A very recent case in point was raised in another thread which wound down just a couple of days ago regarding Katrina relief giving – once the figures were known, it was very obvious that the non-domestic manufacturers acquitted themselves very well compared to the domestic 2.5 and if you take their relative sizes into consideration (as in $ given as a percentage of their capital investment in the U.S.) the non-domestic nameplates gave well over what one might expect.
A company like Toyota, which has been making record profits largely off the backs of Americans, also donated money.....whether it was "enough" or not is a matter of personal opinion, but let's be honest, it isn't like they couldn't afford to do it.
A company in the red that commits itself to helping America even in times of extremely tight budgets and money bleeding shows me something. And by the way, contributing to the community cannot be measured solely by where the plants are. Where are the suppliers, and how are those surrounding communities benefiting? What kind of charitable work are they doing? What other ways do they lift the community besides employing people?
The Big 3/2.5/whatever have been doing this for a century. It's time for a serious reality check if you think the "Community Benefits" field is now level....
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,180
From: Yadkinville, NC USA
Proud,
There is quite a lot of what you say here that I agree with but certainly some I take exception to; especially when it comes to your statements of:
Do transplant automakers pay less for their workforce? Yes (although I doubt the “20 year” statement would hold up.)
The 20-year comment is not intended to be factual... it is rhetorical, and based on my personal experiences with friends and family in the industry.
Is a Toyota or Honda paying less wages a “bad thing”? Not necessarily nor is GM or Ford paying a larger wage necessarily a “good thing”.
You got me there, pal. More money in the pocket - regardless of where you live - typically means more spending, and "economic fuel". Conservatives tout trickle-down economics... there it is.
I have no inside information but I suspect the wages GM pays its employees at the Saturn Spring Hill, TN plant are lower than they pay for the equivalent job it Michigan for two primary reasons…Tennessee has a lower COL than Michigan and the employee probably is new (and therefore has fewer years on the job) so the starting wage will be lower as it is/would be for any manufacturer coming to that area (if someone has specific information to the contrary please correct me).
I doubt it... the UAW steps in anywhere the company operates. But I don't have actual figures either so I'll leave it alone.
The “differences” in wages/benefits paid between a Toyota employee and a GM employee would also exist between a brand new wholly owned U.S. company’s employee should it decide to get into the car manufacturing business and if GM could shed itself of its union contracts and were in a plant building phase in the U.S. it would find the same advantages if it decided to build in the south and/or in areas of the country that haven’t had a tradition of heavy manufacturing.
Spot-on. The thing is, GM and Ford are not trying to "screw everyone" and walk away from the committments it made to employees and their families 20-50 years ago. They are standing behind those retirees and long-timers as best they can and I applaud them for that. Likewise, if Nissan decides to shut down all plants and leave the US, they can simply walk away and not have to worry or care about the people because they are based in another country and are almost legally untouchable in so far as lawsuits or governmental policy regarding pay and benefit continuations.
Companies across the board are offering less health care insurance benefits to its employees, at least its new hires. That said, while not exactly equal, I think you would find that the overall benefit package offered to the average Toyota, Nissan or Honda employee is very comparable to that offered by GM and Ford and far better than is currently being offered by employers in most industries.
Not true if they are intentially designing these plants to use minimal permanent labor and more outside contracted labor. That is the concept that has busted the "jobs-bank" used by the big 2.5 wide open (not that I agreed with paying people for doing nothing).
At any rate, let’s keep in mind that no company is required to offer health care insurance at all (nor should they be) and frankly, we need to get rid of the current health care insurance system anyway (as was discussed at length in this same forum a couple of weeks ago).
It makes no difference if the employer pays it or the employee... either way the layperson is taking home less money these days due to the costs. It was a benefit that was offered when that was the thing to do in the US, and I think GM and Ford are trying not to renig on that pledge.
Doubt that, very, very much. Go to any community in the U.S. where Toyota or Honda, etc. has built a plant and I believe you’ll find their community investment (be it in taxes, involvement in schools, volunteerism, charitable giving, etc, etc) is at least on par with anything GM or Ford has/would be doing in the communities where they have facilities.
A very recent case in point was raised in another thread which wound down just a couple of days ago regarding Katrina relief giving – once the figures were known, it was very obvious that the non-domestic manufacturers acquitted themselves very well compared to the domestic 2.5 and if you take their relative sizes into consideration (as in $ given as a percentage of their capital investment in the U.S.) the non-domestic nameplates gave well over what one might expect.
So you make more in one day than GM or Ford does in the entire year, yet you give the same amount to people/communities who lost everything - AND THAT'S FAIR? NOTEWORTHY? HONORABLE?
C'mon Robert... GM and Ford were already hurting financially, and they not only stepped-up first, but best. For a company like Toyota specifically, that earns enough cash each year to buy GM outright, to only give as much as GM... THAT'S EMBARRASING. NOT HONORABLE. I'm sure they didn't let the tax credits slide by for what they gave either.
I'm even more disheartened that I have to defend/debate something like this with a fellow American.
Loophole? Maybe we need to look at history a bit…
If memory serves (getting questionable at my advanced age), it was the domestic auto industry that lobbied Congress heavily to get those tariffs in place and which, consequently made building manufacturing plants in the U.S. rather than importing vehicles a wise financial decision for the import manufacturers.
Today, 60% of all “import’ vehicles sold in the U.S. are built in the U.S….is that really a bad thing? Would it be better if all the import vehicles sold in the U.S. were still built outside of the U.S.? Which scenario is actually better for the U.S. economy overall?
Yes, loophole. When the tarriffs were written, they expressly aimed at taxing vehicles in US Customs, as they debarqued the ship for inspection. No vehicle from the ship, no tarriff. Import companies saw a chance to invest a few $million in an ASSEMBLY (not manufacturing) PLANT on US soil and divert the 10, 20, 30% tarriffs they were being assessed, and the math made sense. To this day, there is still no significant tarriff on parts and peices being imported, hence the mass exodus of manufacturing offshore, and why more import companies wnat to assemble here. It's a 10-30% premium on each vehicle sold to them.
I realize many would like to see no (or virtually no) competition for GM at all (save perhaps for competition from Ford and DCX) but those days are very long gone and overall, the industry, including GM and Ford build far better cars today because of competition.
I welcome the competition... always have.
But play on EQUAL GROUND. Ford has manufacturing AND assembly plants in Europe and Australia and China. So does GM. They play by the rules of the land they are in. Only in America do you see outsiders bring their cheap sh1+ in by boxes, stick it together as cheap as possible, and sell it there.
I am all for buying “American” products and keeping jobs and industry in the U.S. and I’m certainly in favor of the U.S. being VERY careful of who we choose to trade and do business with…you’ll get no argument from me that we should not be doing anything that helps true enemies of the U.S. and western democracy.
Remember, an enemy might carry a pencil instead of a gun.
However, “foreign” companies (at least foreign companies that are not from enemies of the United States) that build facilities in the U.S. and add to the U.S. economy (rather than just take from it) are not the problem.
Might not be the problem, but they SURE AS HELL are NOT THE SOLUTION.
There is quite a lot of what you say here that I agree with but certainly some I take exception to; especially when it comes to your statements of:
Do transplant automakers pay less for their workforce? Yes (although I doubt the “20 year” statement would hold up.)
The 20-year comment is not intended to be factual... it is rhetorical, and based on my personal experiences with friends and family in the industry.
Is a Toyota or Honda paying less wages a “bad thing”? Not necessarily nor is GM or Ford paying a larger wage necessarily a “good thing”.
You got me there, pal. More money in the pocket - regardless of where you live - typically means more spending, and "economic fuel". Conservatives tout trickle-down economics... there it is.
I have no inside information but I suspect the wages GM pays its employees at the Saturn Spring Hill, TN plant are lower than they pay for the equivalent job it Michigan for two primary reasons…Tennessee has a lower COL than Michigan and the employee probably is new (and therefore has fewer years on the job) so the starting wage will be lower as it is/would be for any manufacturer coming to that area (if someone has specific information to the contrary please correct me).
I doubt it... the UAW steps in anywhere the company operates. But I don't have actual figures either so I'll leave it alone.
The “differences” in wages/benefits paid between a Toyota employee and a GM employee would also exist between a brand new wholly owned U.S. company’s employee should it decide to get into the car manufacturing business and if GM could shed itself of its union contracts and were in a plant building phase in the U.S. it would find the same advantages if it decided to build in the south and/or in areas of the country that haven’t had a tradition of heavy manufacturing.
Spot-on. The thing is, GM and Ford are not trying to "screw everyone" and walk away from the committments it made to employees and their families 20-50 years ago. They are standing behind those retirees and long-timers as best they can and I applaud them for that. Likewise, if Nissan decides to shut down all plants and leave the US, they can simply walk away and not have to worry or care about the people because they are based in another country and are almost legally untouchable in so far as lawsuits or governmental policy regarding pay and benefit continuations.
Companies across the board are offering less health care insurance benefits to its employees, at least its new hires. That said, while not exactly equal, I think you would find that the overall benefit package offered to the average Toyota, Nissan or Honda employee is very comparable to that offered by GM and Ford and far better than is currently being offered by employers in most industries.
Not true if they are intentially designing these plants to use minimal permanent labor and more outside contracted labor. That is the concept that has busted the "jobs-bank" used by the big 2.5 wide open (not that I agreed with paying people for doing nothing).
At any rate, let’s keep in mind that no company is required to offer health care insurance at all (nor should they be) and frankly, we need to get rid of the current health care insurance system anyway (as was discussed at length in this same forum a couple of weeks ago).
It makes no difference if the employer pays it or the employee... either way the layperson is taking home less money these days due to the costs. It was a benefit that was offered when that was the thing to do in the US, and I think GM and Ford are trying not to renig on that pledge.
Doubt that, very, very much. Go to any community in the U.S. where Toyota or Honda, etc. has built a plant and I believe you’ll find their community investment (be it in taxes, involvement in schools, volunteerism, charitable giving, etc, etc) is at least on par with anything GM or Ford has/would be doing in the communities where they have facilities.
A very recent case in point was raised in another thread which wound down just a couple of days ago regarding Katrina relief giving – once the figures were known, it was very obvious that the non-domestic manufacturers acquitted themselves very well compared to the domestic 2.5 and if you take their relative sizes into consideration (as in $ given as a percentage of their capital investment in the U.S.) the non-domestic nameplates gave well over what one might expect.
So you make more in one day than GM or Ford does in the entire year, yet you give the same amount to people/communities who lost everything - AND THAT'S FAIR? NOTEWORTHY? HONORABLE?
C'mon Robert... GM and Ford were already hurting financially, and they not only stepped-up first, but best. For a company like Toyota specifically, that earns enough cash each year to buy GM outright, to only give as much as GM... THAT'S EMBARRASING. NOT HONORABLE. I'm sure they didn't let the tax credits slide by for what they gave either.
I'm even more disheartened that I have to defend/debate something like this with a fellow American.
Loophole? Maybe we need to look at history a bit…
If memory serves (getting questionable at my advanced age), it was the domestic auto industry that lobbied Congress heavily to get those tariffs in place and which, consequently made building manufacturing plants in the U.S. rather than importing vehicles a wise financial decision for the import manufacturers.
Today, 60% of all “import’ vehicles sold in the U.S. are built in the U.S….is that really a bad thing? Would it be better if all the import vehicles sold in the U.S. were still built outside of the U.S.? Which scenario is actually better for the U.S. economy overall?
Yes, loophole. When the tarriffs were written, they expressly aimed at taxing vehicles in US Customs, as they debarqued the ship for inspection. No vehicle from the ship, no tarriff. Import companies saw a chance to invest a few $million in an ASSEMBLY (not manufacturing) PLANT on US soil and divert the 10, 20, 30% tarriffs they were being assessed, and the math made sense. To this day, there is still no significant tarriff on parts and peices being imported, hence the mass exodus of manufacturing offshore, and why more import companies wnat to assemble here. It's a 10-30% premium on each vehicle sold to them.
I realize many would like to see no (or virtually no) competition for GM at all (save perhaps for competition from Ford and DCX) but those days are very long gone and overall, the industry, including GM and Ford build far better cars today because of competition.
I welcome the competition... always have.
But play on EQUAL GROUND. Ford has manufacturing AND assembly plants in Europe and Australia and China. So does GM. They play by the rules of the land they are in. Only in America do you see outsiders bring their cheap sh1+ in by boxes, stick it together as cheap as possible, and sell it there.
I am all for buying “American” products and keeping jobs and industry in the U.S. and I’m certainly in favor of the U.S. being VERY careful of who we choose to trade and do business with…you’ll get no argument from me that we should not be doing anything that helps true enemies of the U.S. and western democracy.
Remember, an enemy might carry a pencil instead of a gun.
However, “foreign” companies (at least foreign companies that are not from enemies of the United States) that build facilities in the U.S. and add to the U.S. economy (rather than just take from it) are not the problem.
Might not be the problem, but they SURE AS HELL are NOT THE SOLUTION.
Last edited by ProudPony; Dec 7, 2006 at 02:38 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,000
From: TX Med Ctr
I am making an observation, and pointing out that Toyota is not aiming to be the savior of any small towns. It is in their economic interest, just as with any other manufacturer who moves out to a new town. Whether it is good or bad depends on your point of view of course. I felt the article was not much more than propaganda and advertising for Toyota. Would have felt the same if it was any other company that moved in their. However, I'm sure this really is just a part of the PR strategy of Toyota to make themselves as American as apple pie.
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,938
GM and Ford have been hurting for a long time now, yet still found enough in the budget to donate a lot of money and supplies (namely work trucks) to the Katrina-affected regions.
A company like Toyota, which has been making record profits largely off the backs of Americans, also donated money.....whether it was "enough" or not is a matter of personal opinion, but let's be honest, it isn't like they couldn't afford to do it. A company in the red that commits itself to helping America even in times of extremely tight budgets and money bleeding shows me something.
A company like Toyota, which has been making record profits largely off the backs of Americans, also donated money.....whether it was "enough" or not is a matter of personal opinion, but let's be honest, it isn't like they couldn't afford to do it. A company in the red that commits itself to helping America even in times of extremely tight budgets and money bleeding shows me something.
If we ever see a time when Toyota is loosing money in the U.S. and a catastrophe happens at the same time then we can look at their giving or lack thereof and see how they compare to GM’s current situation. Until then, there is no reason, other than your obvious hatred of imports, to dismiss out of hand or downplay the significance of what the transplants have given simply because they are profitable right now and GM isn’t.
It is more than possible to acknowledge what the Big 2.5 have given without taking a cheep shot at the imports and what they’ve also done.
The Big 3/2.5/whatever have been doing this for a century. It's time for a serious reality check if you think the "Community Benefits" field is now level....
Did I or anyone say that GM or Ford or DCX doesn’t have a long and significant history in the U.S. or downplay their contributions to America? In case you don’t know, the answer to that is “NO”.
Just a suggestion but how about we judge what the transplants have done since they've actually been here? One does not have to ignore Detroit's past to acknowledge the present.
And if you want to see some actual figures of what’s been done recently, I suggest you look here and at the posts preceding this one:
And by the way, contributing to the community cannot be measured solely by where the plants are. Where are the suppliers, and how are those surrounding communities benefiting? What kind of charitable work are they doing? What other ways do they lift the community besides employing people?
A specific case in point, when I worked for Dana we supplied rear ends and many other OEM parts to Nissan and other transplants…there is hardly a supplier more “American” than Dana corporation – do you think Dana didn’t benefit from its business with Nissan and Toyota?
And despite belief by some to the contrary, the plants being built here are not mere “assembly” plants…I can speak with a significant degree of confidence when I say these plants take in RAW MATERIALS as well as parts, largely made in the U.S. to turn them into vehicles….some would have you believe they get all the pieces shipped to them in crates from Japan and they simply bolt them together; that is simply and absolutely not the case.
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,938
Loophole? Maybe we need to look at history a bit…
If memory serves (getting questionable at my advanced age), it was the domestic auto industry that lobbied Congress heavily to get those tariffs in place and which, consequently made building manufacturing plants in the U.S. rather than importing vehicles a wise financial decision for the import manufacturers.
Today, 60% of all “import’ vehicles sold in the U.S. are built in the U.S….is that really a bad thing? Would it be better if all the import vehicles sold in the U.S. were still built outside of the U.S.? Which scenario is actually better for the U.S. economy overall?
Yes, loophole. When the tarriffs were written, they expressly aimed at taxing vehicles in US Customs, as they debarqued the ship for inspection. No vehicle from the ship, no tarriff. Import companies saw a chance to invest a few $million in an ASSEMBLY (not manufacturing) PLANT on US soil and divert the 10, 20, 30% tarriffs they were being assessed, and the math made sense. To this day, there is still no significant tarriff on parts and peices being imported, hence the mass exodus of manufacturing offshore, and why more import companies wnat to assemble here. It's a 10-30% premium on each vehicle sold to them.
If memory serves (getting questionable at my advanced age), it was the domestic auto industry that lobbied Congress heavily to get those tariffs in place and which, consequently made building manufacturing plants in the U.S. rather than importing vehicles a wise financial decision for the import manufacturers.
Today, 60% of all “import’ vehicles sold in the U.S. are built in the U.S….is that really a bad thing? Would it be better if all the import vehicles sold in the U.S. were still built outside of the U.S.? Which scenario is actually better for the U.S. economy overall?
Yes, loophole. When the tarriffs were written, they expressly aimed at taxing vehicles in US Customs, as they debarqued the ship for inspection. No vehicle from the ship, no tarriff. Import companies saw a chance to invest a few $million in an ASSEMBLY (not manufacturing) PLANT on US soil and divert the 10, 20, 30% tarriffs they were being assessed, and the math made sense. To this day, there is still no significant tarriff on parts and peices being imported, hence the mass exodus of manufacturing offshore, and why more import companies wnat to assemble here. It's a 10-30% premium on each vehicle sold to them.
I can't speak for every facility built by every transplant nameplate but I’m very familiar with more than a few of these facilities in North America and I can tell you that these plants are not simply "assembly plants".
”Assembly plants” don't take raw steel and stamp it into body panels or build frames or forge crankshafts and build plants (in the U.S.) where engines and transmissions are built or buy parts from Dana Corporation (who I’ve worked for) and most every other major U.S. born and bread supplier…these plants don’t get all the pieces shipped in on pallets from Japan and then simply bolt the pieces together as you seem to suggest.
I can also say that the transplants pay quit a lot of duty/tariffs and other fees for the stamping dies and other pieces they do bring in from Japan. Whether it's "significant" or "enough" I suppose you'll have to decide for yourself but one multi-million dollar die can sustain duty/tariffs exceeding $1M.
I’m not suggesting that a transplant’s facility is a mirror image for a typical GM or Ford plant or that the NA parts content of a typical transplant is equal to that of a Ford or GM vehicle but to simply label the plants being built by Toyota, and Nissan and the rest as only “assembly plants” is a significant misrepresentation.
Last edited by Robert_Nashville; Dec 7, 2006 at 05:13 PM.
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,938
I have no inside information but I suspect the wages GM pays its employees at the Saturn Spring Hill, TN plant are lower than they pay for the equivalent job it Michigan for two primary reasons…Tennessee has a lower COL than Michigan and the employee probably is new (and therefore has fewer years on the job) so the starting wage will be lower as it is/would be for any manufacturer coming to that area (if someone has specific information to the contrary please correct me).
I doubt it... the UAW steps in anywhere the company operates. But I don't have actual figures either so I'll leave it alone.
I doubt it... the UAW steps in anywhere the company operates. But I don't have actual figures either so I'll leave it alone.
The “differences” in wages/benefits paid between a Toyota employee and a GM employee would also exist between a brand new wholly owned U.S. company’s employee should it decide to get into the car manufacturing business and if GM could shed itself of its union contracts and were in a plant building phase in the U.S. it would find the same advantages if it decided to build in the south and/or in areas of the country that haven’t had a tradition of heavy manufacturing.
Spot-on. The thing is, GM and Ford are not trying to "screw everyone" and walk away from the committments it made to employees and their families 20-50 years ago. They are standing behind those retirees and long-timers as best they can and I applaud them for that. Likewise, if Nissan decides to shut down all plants and leave the US, they can simply walk away and not have to worry or care about the people because they are based in another country and are almost legally untouchable in so far as lawsuits or governmental policy regarding pay and benefit continuations.
Spot-on. The thing is, GM and Ford are not trying to "screw everyone" and walk away from the committments it made to employees and their families 20-50 years ago. They are standing behind those retirees and long-timers as best they can and I applaud them for that. Likewise, if Nissan decides to shut down all plants and leave the US, they can simply walk away and not have to worry or care about the people because they are based in another country and are almost legally untouchable in so far as lawsuits or governmental policy regarding pay and benefit continuations.
I’m not so sure that Nissan or Toyota could simply “walk away” from their pension obligations without consequence as you suggest; maybe, but I doubt it…even if they abandoned their U.S. based manufacturing, they, and every other Japanese company currently doing so, will want to continue to do business here…that would be difficult for them if Toyota or Nissan tried to cut and run. Japan needs the U.S. and its markets just as the U.S. needs markets outside of the U.S.
Companies across the board are offering less health care insurance benefits to its employees, at least its new hires. That said, while not exactly equal, I think you would find that the overall benefit package offered to the average Toyota, Nissan or Honda employee is very comparable to that offered by GM and Ford and far better than is currently being offered by employers in most industries.
Not true if they are intentially designing these plants to use minimal permanent labor and more outside contracted labor. That is the concept that has busted the "jobs-bank" used by the big 2.5 wide open (not that I agreed with paying people for doing nothing).
Not true if they are intentially designing these plants to use minimal permanent labor and more outside contracted labor. That is the concept that has busted the "jobs-bank" used by the big 2.5 wide open (not that I agreed with paying people for doing nothing).
However if you want to convince me that there is some plot by the transplants (or Detroit for that matter) to move most jobs to “temporary” or “contract” workers to avoid paying benefits I ask to see some real evidence of that.
A person may not need a college degree or be a MENSA member to work on a vehicle assembly line but you can’t just bring someone in off the street, train him for a day and then put him to work…a vehicle assembly line is simply too complicated and far too important to a manufacturer to not have a stable, dependable and well trained labor force.
An assembly line being shut-down for even one seemingly insignificant mistake can cost a plant tens of thousands of dollars PER MINUTE…one under-trained contract worker (or one worker who doesn’t give a @&(# about the job can erase any “savings” from benefits not paid very, very quickly.
That said, even if a plant was going to “contract” workers, they would have to be as well trained as a full-time, permanent employee and, consequently, would expect to be paid a comparable wage/benefit package.
At any rate, let’s keep in mind that no company is required to offer health care insurance at all (nor should they be) and frankly, we need to get rid of the current health care insurance system anyway (as was discussed at length in this same forum a couple of weeks ago).
It makes no difference if the employer pays it or the employee... either way the layperson is taking home less money these days due to the costs. It was a benefit that was offered when that was the thing to do in the US, and I think GM and Ford are trying not to renig on that pledge.
It makes no difference if the employer pays it or the employee... either way the layperson is taking home less money these days due to the costs. It was a benefit that was offered when that was the thing to do in the US, and I think GM and Ford are trying not to renig on that pledge.
Let’s be clear, health care and health care insurance costs are neither the fault of the auto manufacturers nor is it under their control and those costs hit everyone, whether they work for GM or Toyota. It’s a problem; a big problem, but it’s a problem every manufacturer has.
Doubt that, very, very much. Go to any community in the U.S. where Toyota or Honda, etc. has built a plant and I believe you’ll find their community investment (be it in taxes, involvement in schools, volunteerism, charitable giving, etc, etc) is at least on par with anything GM or Ford has/would be doing in the communities where they have facilities.
A very recent case in point was raised in another thread which wound down just a couple of days ago regarding Katrina relief giving – once the figures were known, it was very obvious that the non-domestic manufacturers acquitted themselves very well compared to the domestic 2.5 and if you take their relative sizes into consideration (as in $ given as a percentage of their capital investment in the U.S.) the non-domestic nameplates gave well over what one might expect.
So you make more in one day than GM or Ford does in the entire year, yet you give the same amount to people/communities who lost everything - AND THAT'S FAIR? NOTEWORTHY? HONORABLE?
C'mon Robert... GM and Ford were already hurting financially, and they not only stepped-up first, but best. For a company like Toyota specifically, that earns enough cash each year to buy GM outright, to only give as much as GM... THAT'S EMBARRASING. NOT HONORABLE. I'm sure they didn't let the tax credits slide by for what they gave either.
I'm even more disheartened that I have to defend/debate something like this with a fellow American.
A very recent case in point was raised in another thread which wound down just a couple of days ago regarding Katrina relief giving – once the figures were known, it was very obvious that the non-domestic manufacturers acquitted themselves very well compared to the domestic 2.5 and if you take their relative sizes into consideration (as in $ given as a percentage of their capital investment in the U.S.) the non-domestic nameplates gave well over what one might expect.
So you make more in one day than GM or Ford does in the entire year, yet you give the same amount to people/communities who lost everything - AND THAT'S FAIR? NOTEWORTHY? HONORABLE?
C'mon Robert... GM and Ford were already hurting financially, and they not only stepped-up first, but best. For a company like Toyota specifically, that earns enough cash each year to buy GM outright, to only give as much as GM... THAT'S EMBARRASING. NOT HONORABLE. I'm sure they didn't let the tax credits slide by for what they gave either.
I'm even more disheartened that I have to defend/debate something like this with a fellow American.
First?
Do you know that for a fact or are you just assuming that? Either way, does whether GM gave on Tuesday and Toyota gave on Friday really make that much difference??? Would it make a difference to anybody if we knew it was, say, actually Honda that gave first?
And how much is “enough”…what do we make that decision on?
Nissan and Honda and Toyota and the rest do sell a lot of cars here but combine them all, even with GM and Ford having lost market share, and the imports (both those that build in the U.S. and those that import everything) only sell approximately 40% of the total vehicles sold in the U.S. – that means 60% of the market is still held by the domestics. By that measure, who should be giving the lion’s share?
If you look specifically at Katrina related giving, the imports actually gave more than Detroit’s 2.5; certainly more than their share based on their share of the total U.S. market.
Based on the numbers I’ve seen, they were all generous...if you want to say that GM and Ford were especially generous based on their current financial status I won't argue that but I don’t think it serves anyone’s argument to throw around accusations or make assumptions about who gave "enough" and who didn’t.
Last edited by Robert_Nashville; Dec 7, 2006 at 05:50 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,579
From: The Land of Pleasant Living
Once I see it's the new york slimes, it's all over, for I know their agenda quite well, no need to go any further! Are they still in business? People..............cancel your subscriptions, they are for the enemy, don't you see? It's clear as day, if you just read between the lies!!!!!!!!!!!!
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,748
From: New England
WOW I knew you were going to say this..but like you usually tell others to do I say go back and read the first part of my post..
so here just so you dont have to go back your little rant about this being a "we only want GM only" does not hold water pal...and I knew you were going to try and argue about it but hell how the heck could you miss this how many times in the beggining of the post??
I put it in bold so you could see.
(1)I said auto industry..correct? not GM not Ford the auto industry as a whole..so yea I would figure it means everything..you..you think IM just talking about GM.. I stated the fact that this is a GM message board not about the FORUM..the BOARD that this FORUM you posted in is for the topics presented but the people you are most likley to have comment on the post.
(2) I said this was an automotive topic..again not GM not Ford not anything did I. Just stating who would be the ones responding in general to your post about Toyota on a message board devoted to GM even a forum that handles all info about the auto industry..???
But the first thing crying out of your mouth is:
so go back and fill me in where I state GM or Ford or heck anyone but pointing it at YOU. You are going to get the flak about this you are going to be the one trying to "enlighten" us again with your wording.
Do I see a repetition of your defense? How many times have you made the claim..and told us in so many way to take it up with the moderators or the Admin.
I think you come here to argue about something you think everyone else is wrong about.
Caps,
Last time I checked (about four seconds ago) the title of this forum is "Automotive News/Future Vehicle Discussion"...nothing in that title about it being only for "GM" news. In fact, I'd say you'll find far more posts about non-GM cars in this forum than you will GM if you actually researched it.
No one is required to read anything about non "GM" cars/news if they don't want to; likewise, people are free to not comment if they don't want to.
I would think the trend of automotive (and other) manufacturing moving to the southern U.S. would be of interest to peope; especially those who have depended on auto manufacturing in traditional parts of the country and regardless of whos plant it was that got build.
Last time I checked (about four seconds ago) the title of this forum is "Automotive News/Future Vehicle Discussion"...nothing in that title about it being only for "GM" news. In fact, I'd say you'll find far more posts about non-GM cars in this forum than you will GM if you actually researched it.
No one is required to read anything about non "GM" cars/news if they don't want to; likewise, people are free to not comment if they don't want to.
I would think the trend of automotive (and other) manufacturing moving to the southern U.S. would be of interest to peope; especially those who have depended on auto manufacturing in traditional parts of the country and regardless of whos plant it was that got build.
so here just so you dont have to go back your little rant about this being a "we only want GM only" does not hold water pal...and I knew you were going to try and argue about it but hell how the heck could you miss this how many times in the beggining of the post??
The thing is not the article Robert.. Its you posting about it. (1)You come in here to post all be it something about the auto industry. No less it IS Toyota, Well the thing is this is a board devoted to the competition GM.
You post it up then what think your not going to get any flak over it? Of course you are. First off your views some dont agree with. the material you present. (2)Again yes it is an automotive topic but again what site is this for?
You post it up then what think your not going to get any flak over it? Of course you are. First off your views some dont agree with. the material you present. (2)Again yes it is an automotive topic but again what site is this for?
(1)I said auto industry..correct? not GM not Ford the auto industry as a whole..so yea I would figure it means everything..you..you think IM just talking about GM.. I stated the fact that this is a GM message board not about the FORUM..the BOARD that this FORUM you posted in is for the topics presented but the people you are most likley to have comment on the post.
(2) I said this was an automotive topic..again not GM not Ford not anything did I. Just stating who would be the ones responding in general to your post about Toyota on a message board devoted to GM even a forum that handles all info about the auto industry..???
But the first thing crying out of your mouth is:
Last time I checked (about four seconds ago) the title of this forum is "Automotive News/Future Vehicle Discussion"...nothing in that title about it being only for "GM" news
Do I see a repetition of your defense? How many times have you made the claim..and told us in so many way to take it up with the moderators or the Admin.
I think you come here to argue about something you think everyone else is wrong about.
Last edited by Caps94ZODG; Dec 7, 2006 at 06:41 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 2,030
From: Frankfort, KY U.S.A.
I live in Frankfort, KY which is the neighboring city to the west of Georgetown. I live on the east-side of Frankfort, so Georgetown is about 15 mins. away from where I live. Frankfort is the capital city of Kentucky, and is slightly larger than Georgetown. But Georgetown's growth is out pacing the growth in our city. 20 years ago before Toyota, Georgetown was barely a dot on the map, but Frankfort was not much smaller than it is today. By constrast Georgetown has exploded. New housing is everywhere, shopping centers and restaurants. Georgetown has several restaurant chains that are not even in Frankfort, Cracker Barrel, Ruby Tuesday's and Golden Corral to name a few. Most of the growth is out by the interstate, but Georgetown also has one of the best downtown areas in KY, all the buildings have been renovated and are full of shoppes and cafes, and look very clean.
The effect that Toyota has had on Georgetown and been substantial, and the growth is not slowing down. Soon the amount of commercial property in Georgetown will soon pass what we have here in Frankfort.
The effect that Toyota has had on Georgetown and been substantial, and the growth is not slowing down. Soon the amount of commercial property in Georgetown will soon pass what we have here in Frankfort.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,748
From: New England
again I state that its not about the company moving in there..hell Kelloggs Corp could come in and build a new factory and distrobution center and you would get almost the same result. Economic boom. Any company that goes in there will help out a town..
The thing is Toyota can go in there and build without one big problem the UAW breathing down thier back. And Robert post it why??ohh its not cus its news..yea and what else wont you tell us??? yea I thought so...
cus he knows it gets to us..
The thing is Toyota can go in there and build without one big problem the UAW breathing down thier back. And Robert post it why??ohh its not cus its news..yea and what else wont you tell us??? yea I thought so...
cus he knows it gets to us..
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,165
From: Sterling Heights, MI
I'm glad they contribute. But like ProudPony said, I'm not sure international corporations are the problem or the solution.
Last edited by Z28Wilson; Dec 7, 2006 at 07:01 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,748
From: New England
Every time I hear the word "transplant" all I can think of is some transgender person getting something they need to complete the operation..making them something they are not..
wait...maybee they are transplants...
unless I get a better definition and call them what they are assembly plants..
unless they assemble transmissions.. not Transvestites..
wait...maybee they are transplants...unless I get a better definition and call them what they are assembly plants..
unless they assemble transmissions.. not Transvestites..