BYD may come to the US via Mexico

[Number_35]

No there’s not.

There’s a huge population of undereducated, under-skilled people, reliant on the government and/or drugs, that should be working. The HF torque wrench undercut those folks, and therefore is every bit as treacherous as a $B fab.

Of all places, the failure of SF should be a clear indicator to the effect of these folks.

Realizing that around half the population is below average, and still should have something to do and have opportunity. Not every schmuck in nowhere, USA can have a LAM research stock option rags to riches story.

As much as some folks would like this, im not really for your CA comrades compelling you by force any more than they have, to give up your situation for the other guy. But in return if I can buy US made stuff and create opportunities for the next guy, I will. And you should too. Not just sweep it under the rug to save a buck. That WMT/HF culture is what undercut many of these folks decades ago.

For quite a few years now I've argued with people regarding off-shoring manufacturing.

The free-trade advocates say that moving manufacturing to the most-efficient (i.e. cheapest) production areas (typically China) results in the greatest efficiency and therefore the greatest net good.

My counter-argument is that that argument falls apart when it's your job that gets offshored. Now the product you helped manufacture is cheaper, but you can't afford it anyway because you're out of work.

If not your job, it could be your spouse's, your children's, your friend's, or your neighbour's job. Regardless, someone will lose a job, and you, if working, will get to pay the social costs of their unemployment. All of a sudden, that cheap product at Walmart doesn't look like such a bargain.

Some years ago, a high-profile American politician said (I paraphrase) "Our people in California design the I-phones, and then the phones are manufactured in China, and thus each part of the global village does what it does best, leading to the greatest overall prosperity".

So how many designers does Apple employ in California vs. manufacturing personnel in China? I bet it's NOT a 1:1 ratio. 1:10? 1:100? Worse?

And what would this politician have said if her job were to "outsourced" to China? It's easy to farm out the jobs of the "deplorables", harder when your own job disappears.

Besides that, the promised cheaper prices often don't happen - it's simply more profit for the company.

And regarding those who say "Those jobs are gone. They're not coming back. It's all done by robots anyway!", I reply "If it's all done by robots, why is it cheaper to manufacture in China?"

I'd better quit ranting, but do feel strongly that the 1st World needs to bring back its manufacturing.

 

[Rmay635703]

That is a socialist viewpoint. Tax payers already pay for K-12 for any kid legal and otherwise and still many cannot pass a 6th grade exam on any subject and graduate anyway, now we should pay for college?
You want to go to collage you pay for it then get a job and pay the bill. The state and taxpayers are not a replacement for responsible parents.

Or do what Germany does, its merit based unless you have tons of money.

Germany does not babysit the mentally disabled in schools, that alone pays for the trade schools and college they give away because a large number of kids effectively don’t get much of any schooling from the state. (They use flowery language but in effect lots of things could cut your education short in Germany)

in our country we would view what they do as very harsh but pretty much you have to be competent enough to continue your education there and you get pigeonholed based on your 6/7/8th grade aptitude’s into a this or that option as you go along.

We had a German foreign exchange student at our church, she was able to finagle herself into our tech for welding (which actually is considered a very good program worldwide apparently) as her “college/trade” background she was persuing was actually one of the options the state would fund given her school performance/aptitudes.

There are women welders in the US but Germany is fairly good at judging what you could be good at along with societal needs and heavily nudges you in that direction. (Aka more women welders per capita there)
If you want the proverbial psych/liberal arts degree in Germany unless you have clear ability your on your own to pay for everything.

California oddly enough had a teacher shortage long long ago and made college virtually free if you agreed to be trained as an elementary school teacher, Reagan got rid of that program but… said program would help solve our teacher shortage, just add a give us 10+ years in elementary and it’s free and I bet we could chip away at some current issues.

Germanys pig and a poke method helps grease the wheels to ensure you get the degrees in your society that you need.
Not perfect, sort of unfair and leaves lots of folks behind but what system isn’t doing that to some degree ?

For quite a few years now I've argued with people regarding off-shoring manufacturing.

The free-trade advocates say that moving manufacturing to the most-efficient (i.e. cheapest) production areas (typically China) results in the greatest efficiency and therefore the greatest net good.

My counter-argument is that that argument falls apart when it's your job that gets offshored. Now the product you helped manufacture is cheaper, but you can't afford it anyway because you're out of work.

Besides that, the promised cheaper prices often don't happen - it's simply more profit for the company.

And regarding those who say "Those jobs are gone. They're not coming back. It's all done by robots anyway!", I reply "If it's all done by robots, why is it cheaper to manufacture in China?"

I'd better quit ranting, but do feel strongly that the 1st World needs to bring back its manufacturing.

The reality is that many things have gotten offshored because of a couple percentage points.

The company might save 5% but then food stamps and welfare spending skyrockets, pay me now or pay me later, off shoring usually doesn’t come up net positive if it includes the failure in the commons along with subsided shipping in the costs.

The easiest way to stop off shoring is to quit subsidizing freight, via loophole China gets billions of dollars of free shipping in certain circumstances due to a broken reciprocity agreement.

Doing so would be extremely painful but business supposedly optimizes cost, if they had to actually pay for their bad decisions in shipping a lot of what we see would end.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

For quite a few years now I've argued with people regarding off-shoring manufacturing.

The free-trade advocates say that moving manufacturing to the most-efficient (i.e. cheapest) production areas (typically China) results in the greatest efficiency and therefore the greatest net good.

My counter-argument is that that argument falls apart when it's your job that gets offshored. Now the product you helped manufacture is cheaper, but you can't afford it anyway because you're out of work.

If not your job, it could be your spouse's, your children's, your friend's, or your neighbour's job. Regardless, someone will lose a job, and you, if working, will get to pay the social costs of their unemployment. All of a sudden, that cheap product at Walmart doesn't look like such a bargain.

Some years ago, a high-profile American politician said (I paraphrase) "Our people in California design the I-phones, and then the phones are manufactured in China, and thus each part of the global village does what it does best, leading to the greatest overall prosperity".

So how many designers does Apple employ in California vs. manufacturing personnel in China? I bet it's NOT a 1:1 ratio. 1:10? 1:100? Worse?

And what would this politician have said if her job were to "outsourced" to China? It's easy to farm out the jobs of the "deplorables", harder when your own job disappears.

Besides that, the promised cheaper prices often don't happen - it's simply more profit for the company.

And regarding those who say "Those jobs are gone. They're not coming back. It's all done by robots anyway!", I reply "If it's all done by robots, why is it cheaper to manufacture in China?"

I'd better quit ranting, but do feel strongly that the 1st World needs to bring back its manufacturing.

Should corn be planted and harvested by hand?

 

[JeffKeryk]

For quite a few years now I've argued with people regarding off-shoring manufacturing.

The free-trade advocates say that moving manufacturing to the most-efficient (i.e. cheapest) production areas (typically China) results in the greatest efficiency and therefore the greatest net good.

My counter-argument is that that argument falls apart when it's your job that gets offshored. Now the product you helped manufacture is cheaper, but you can't afford it anyway because you're out of work.

If not your job, it could be your spouse's, your children's, your friend's, or your neighbour's job. Regardless, someone will lose a job, and you, if working, will get to pay the social costs of their unemployment. All of a sudden, that cheap product at Walmart doesn't look like such a bargain.

Some years ago, a high-profile American politician said (I paraphrase) "Our people in California design the I-phones, and then the phones are manufactured in China, and thus each part of the global village does what it does best, leading to the greatest overall prosperity".

So how many designers does Apple employ in California vs. manufacturing personnel in China? I bet it's NOT a 1:1 ratio. 1:10? 1:100? Worse?

And what would this politician have said if her job were to "outsourced" to China? It's easy to farm out the jobs of the "deplorables", harder when your own job disappears.

Besides that, the promised cheaper prices often don't happen - it's simply more profit for the company.

And regarding those who say "Those jobs are gone. They're not coming back. It's all done by robots anyway!", I reply "If it's all done by robots, why is it cheaper to manufacture in China?"

I'd better quit ranting, but do feel strongly that the 1st World needs to bring back its manufacturing.

The CEO that put outsourcing into action at scale was GE's Jack Welch. Then MBA schools taught outsourcing manufacturing to China, then India and beyond. All in the name of profits.
I see your point and it is an important one. But in practice, making products here just for the sake of jobs is a failing strategy. Let low margin products go, but replace them with better products (and jobs). This is only done through education.

And remember Capitalism has raised more people out of poverty than any other economic system.

 

[proveitwithdata]

You can't find any of these cars. None of the stripped ones exist or are made. If they are, the dealer puts a market adjustment. The cheapest versa you will find here is around MSRP of $21K. Its been discussed here many times.

The Cheapest Trax is about $25K. And so on.

I wonder whether these exist in relative quantities. I see the most of the mfg inventory lists as available, but the dealership inventory are another story

 

[Number_35]

Should corn be planted and harvested by hand?

There's a balance, and I certainly see your point. As others have said, if the playing field were level, domestic manufacturing would have a better chance.

There was a story back in the day of a western visitor in Mao's postwar China, being shown a hydroelectric dam construction site.

He noticed a long line of men with wheelbarrows, and asked, "Couldn't you build this much faster with heavy machinery - excavators, bulldozers, dump trucks, and so on?"

The guide said, "Yes, but although the work would go faster, most of these men would be put out of work".

The visitor replied, "Then why not give them each a teaspoon, and hire many more?"

 

[Rmay635703]

The CEO that put outsourcing into action at scale was GE's Jack Welch. Then MBA schools taught outsourcing manufacturing to China, then India and beyond. All in the name of profits.
I see your point and it is an important one. But in practice, making products here just for the sake of jobs is a failing strategy. Let low margin products go, but replace them with better products (and jobs). This is only done through education.

And remember Capitalism has raised more people out of poverty than any other economic system.

Nice thought but in reality we replaced “low value jobs” with service jobs like fast food and caretaker jobs.

Thats not a sustainable strategy and the reality is better products and jobs have limited demand and also get outsourced putting us back to square 1.

 

[JeffKeryk]

There's a balance, and I certainly see your point. As others have said, if the playing field were level, domestic manufacturing would have a better chance.

There was a story back in the day of a western visitor in Mao's postwar China, being shown a hydroelectric dam construction site.

He noticed a long line of men with wheelbarrows, and asked, "Couldn't you build this much faster with heavy machinery - excavators, bulldozers, dump trucks, and so on?"

The guide said, "Yes, but although the work would go faster, most of these men would be put out of work".

The visitor replied, "Then why not give them each a teaspoon, and hire many more?"

There is no such thing as a level playing field. There is no such thing as fair, especially in business. Business is ruthless.

I really like your teaspoon analogy. Hiring just for the sake of hiring is a trait of Socialism. And is a race to the bottom...

 

[SC Maintenance]

I wonder whether these exist in relative quantities. I see the most of the mfg inventory lists as available, but the dealership inventory are another story

I never heard back on my request. Not phone call or email.

I might try the local dealer - see if I can order one. I am not interested in buying one, just interested to see if you actually can.

 

[JeffKeryk]

Nice thought but in reality we replaced “low value jobs” with service jobs like fast food.

Thats not a sustainable strategy and the reality is better products and jobs have limited demand and also get outsourced putting us back to square 1.

Disagree. You are arguing against progress and Capitalism.

 

[Rmay635703]

Disagree. You are arguing against progress and Capitalism.

The overwhelming expansion of Fast food and service jobs are against progress and capitalism ?

Most ip generated in the US is immediately stolen and outsourced, is this sustainable?

 

[SC Maintenance]

Disagree. You are arguing against progress and Capitalism.

Globalism is not capitalism either. In capitalism companies compete on a level playing field, and as you mentioned the government sets the rules. Except if I manufacture something in USA I pay payroll taxes and environmental taxes and provide health insurance if I am over a certain size and follow all kinds of other employment rules. If I make the same product in China I avoid all those things but still get to import them to USA. There may be some duties on some goods, but most are low or non existent. So its an unfair competition.

Opening US markets to the world was a bribe against communism after WW2. Luring China specifically away from the USSR with promises of access to US consumer markets was about National Security. The US Navy maintained freedom of the seas even though of all modern nations we have the smallest percentage of GDP associated with trade, and even at that half our trade is with Canada and Mexico anyway. Look it up.

Additional benefit is after the inflation of the 70's cheap goods from off-shore helped tame inflation. 70's inflation was driven by wage inflation.

Problem was that the cold war was won in 1992 - but we didn't stop footing the bill for the rest of the world, and still do.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

There's a balance, and I certainly see your point. As others have said, if the playing field were level, domestic manufacturing would have a better chance.

There was a story back in the day of a western visitor in Mao's postwar China, being shown a hydroelectric dam construction site.

He noticed a long line of men with wheelbarrows, and asked, "Couldn't you build this much faster with heavy machinery - excavators, bulldozers, dump trucks, and so on?"

The guide said, "Yes, but although the work would go faster, most of these men would be put out of work".

The visitor replied, "Then why not give them each a teaspoon, and hire many more?"

Remember whenever another market is subsidized they alone bare the cost of the subsidy. They bare the actual cost and they also lose their competitiveness. There's obviously short term pain whenever a sector experiences an evolution in efficiency but much of it depends on the scale of the subsidy which were previously present and then removed. If someone is overpaid for the skillet required to perform the task at hand they're in for a world of hurt whenever that job evolves out unless they can transfer those skills to a new job.

 

[JeffKeryk]

Globalism is not capitalism either. In capitalism companies compete on a level playing field, and as you mentioned the government sets the rules. Except if I manufacture something in USA I pay payroll taxes and environmental taxes and provide health insurance if I am over a certain size and follow all kinds of other employment rules. If I make the same product in China I avoid all those things but still get to import them to USA. There may be some duties on some goods, but most are low or non existent. So its an unfair competition.

Opening US markets to the world was a bribe against communism after WW2. Luring China specifically away from the USSR with promises of access to US consumer markets was about National Security. The US Navy maintained freedom of the seas even though of all modern nations we have the smallest percentage of GDP associated with trade, and even at that half our trade is with Canada and Mexico anyway. Look it up.

Additional benefit is after the inflation of the 70's cheap goods from off-shore helped tame inflation. 70's inflation was driven by wage inflation.

Problem was that the cold war was won in 1992 - but we didn't stop footing the bill for the rest of the world, and still do.

Mostly agree with one huge exception: there is no level playing field, more so when the stakes are high risk high reward.
Capitalism is about winners and losers. Everything changes.

 

[4WD]

Capitalism is about winners and losers.

And who picks them …

 

[demarpaint]

Mostly agree with one huge exception: there is no level playing field, more so when the stakes are high risk high reward.
Capitalism is about winners and losers. Everything changes.

I agree, for the most part, especially with "everything changes." A winner today can easily become a loser, or even gone, business history teaches us that, especially in the automobile industry. There are companies that were giants, leaders in their industry and are now gone, or having their lunch eaten by their competition. Today I look no further than INTC and AMD, I'll never count anyone out. Forget about NVDA.

 

[Torrid]

And who picks them …

If someone is picking them it's no longer capitalism. Let that sink in for a second. Full out capitalism has been dead for many years.

 

[buster]

IMO the public’s understanding of Socialism, Capitalism and mixed Socialism and Capitalism is abysmal and confused. Socialism is used where Capitalism won’t do, can’t do, is too expensive or is unreliable. Mixed Socialism + Capitalism combine a mix of the two usually in an industry to take best advantage of each. Badly needed competition has been destroyed in the USA, according to many economists, from trashing the antitrust law, IMO. Corporate governance is inherently autocratic, especially absent labor and public representation on boards of directors. So I don't care much about "isms" anymore. The labels are misconstrued and used as weapons. I'd rather focus on what works and what doesn't. The size of government should be a side thought.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

If someone is picking them it's no longer capitalism. Let that sink in for a second. Full out capitalism has been dead for many years.

Dead for "forever".

 

[SC Maintenance]

Mostly agree with one huge exception: there is no level playing field, more so when the stakes are high risk high reward.
Capitalism is about winners and losers. Everything changes.

The textbook definition is that there is a level playing field - everyone is subject to the same set of laws, and same set of guidelines, same tax code, and has the right to pursue success just like everyone else.

If they don't - then its not capitalism. Its maybe crony capitalism - which is what we have.