I just posted this in a thread in the Oil Filter subforum, but it seems appropriate here as well...
Here's a direct link to the 2014 American University Made in America Auto Index:
http://www.american.edu/kogod/autoindex/2014.cfm
I think it's interesting, but biased heavily on the "weights" the author assigns to various factors. From the study:
Quote:
Profit Margin, 6%: 6 if U.S. company; 0 if foreign | Labor, 6%: 6 if assembled in U.S.; 0 if foreign | Research & Development, 6%: 6 if U.S. company; 3 if foreign and assembled in U.S.; 1 if foreign and imported | Inventory, Capital, & Other Expenses, 11%: 11 if assembled in U.S.; 0 if assembled outside of U.S. | Engine, 14%: 14 if U.S. produced; 0 if not | Transmission, 7%: 7 if U.S. produced; 0 if not | Body, Interior, Chassis, Electrical & Other, 50%: 2014 AALA% divided by 2.
I fully recognize that the AALA is a simplistic look, but this index isn't any different in my opinion. Most of the factors are binary...you either get all the "points" or you get none of the "points". Look at Engine for example. The Ram's engine is made in Mexico, so it gets 0 points. But all of the R&D and testing of that engine was likely done in the United States. Does it deserve 0 here? Same with Transmission...but it's only worth half of Engine. Body decrements the AALA by half and gives it 50% of the weight, so the AALA still plays a significant role in this index.
And their note about points-gaming for Chrysler:
Quote:
**At the time most AALA data was reported in late Fall 2013, Chrysler was 41% owned by the UAW pension fund. In January 2014, Fiat completed its takeover of Chrysler and now holds 100% of its shares. The new entity Fiat Chrysler Automotive (FCA) is to be headquartered in the Netherlands with a tax domicile in London, and shares listed in New York. As such, because of the hybrid nature of its organizational structure and its large production footprint in the U.S., we assigned a value of 3 for profit margin and R&D, rather than 6 or 0.
Probably the biggest thing I disagree with is their Profit category, and their all-or-nothing points assignment for that (except for Chrysler). Chevrolet, for example, is certainly based in the United States, but its profit is distributed to shareholders around the world and invested in new projects around the world. Toyota, for example, is based in Japan (even though its NA subsidiary actually sells the cars here), but, like Chevrolet, its profit is distributed to shareholders around the world and invested in new projects around the world. The authors of the study give a lazy man's points assignment of all-or-nothing depending on ONE factor (where the HQ is) while ignoring everything else.
But how could they do otherwise? They don't sit on the board of any of these companies, they don't know how profits are distributed among their shareholders, subsidiaries, and divisions, and they can't track how much money "stays here" vs how much money "doesn't".
That's why I think it's "bench racing" at best to try to decide which vehicle or which brand has a bigger impact than another one. I'm sure one does. But exactly which one is mostly conjecture. I'm happy enough to know that something's manufactured in the United States with Americans' labor and using a good number of American-made parts. Aside from that, I'm not privvy to any of the company financials or dealings, so I can't use any of that to form a educated opinion.
