Yet neither is quite as American as my Geo Prizm/Toyota Corolla, or my Toyota Camry or Toyota Sienna, all manufactured in the USA.
Moral claims about American content/R&D vs. Non
- Thread starter mareakin
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: PT1
Yeah...domestic content...think about this:
GM Employment 1979 618,000
GM Employment 2009 88,000
So the US government is spending $50billion to save 88,000 jobs?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is only $568,000 per job. Of course, you have to add the jobs saved at parts suppliers, so its actually somewhat less than that. Still, a pretty fair piece of change.
Yeah...domestic content...think about this:
GM Employment 1979 618,000
GM Employment 2009 88,000
So the US government is spending $50billion to save 88,000 jobs?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is only $568,000 per job. Of course, you have to add the jobs saved at parts suppliers, so its actually somewhat less than that. Still, a pretty fair piece of change.
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: 1999nick
To me, the Impala, manufactured in Canada, is just as much of an import as a Ford Fusion made in Mexico.
Exactly- NEITHER one is an import at all.
It depends on how you choose to define import. I define import as coming into this country from another country. A Chevy Aveo from Korea I define as an import. A Ford Fusion from Mexico is an import. A Chevy Impala from Canada is an import. If I were shopping Chevies, I would choose the Malibu made in the USA, not the Impala made in Canada.
Originally Posted By: 1999nick
To me, the Impala, manufactured in Canada, is just as much of an import as a Ford Fusion made in Mexico.
Exactly- NEITHER one is an import at all.
It depends on how you choose to define import. I define import as coming into this country from another country. A Chevy Aveo from Korea I define as an import. A Ford Fusion from Mexico is an import. A Chevy Impala from Canada is an import. If I were shopping Chevies, I would choose the Malibu made in the USA, not the Impala made in Canada.
I have no problem with Canadian made vehicles. If you go up to Canada, the road is littered with GM/Ford/Chrysler vehicles. They buy them, it's only fair to manufactuer some there.
The large majority of the big 3 (especially GM and Chrysler) are built in the US. Every GM/Chrysler car I have ever owned has been built in the US. From recent memory = IL, OH, DE, KS, NJ
The large majority of the big 3 (especially GM and Chrysler) are built in the US. Every GM/Chrysler car I have ever owned has been built in the US. From recent memory = IL, OH, DE, KS, NJ
XS650,that is you and not me you slandering me!Pull that picture NOW!
cousin does bring up a good point in regards to Canada. Obviously, it shouldn't be considered a domestic (not yet anyway, getting ahead again), but they do seem to have one of the more level playing fields in comparison to the US. That is a valid point & well taken.
Originally Posted By: wafrederick1
XS650,that is you and not me you slandering me!Pull that picture NOW!
ya or else his dad will get the Ford truck he cant sell, drive there and tell you to stop it.
XS650,that is you and not me you slandering me!Pull that picture NOW!
ya or else his dad will get the Ford truck he cant sell, drive there and tell you to stop it.
Originally Posted By: bdcardinal
Originally Posted By: wafrederick1
XS650,that is you and not me you slandering me!Pull that picture NOW!
ya or else his dad will get the Ford truck he cant sell, drive there and tell you to stop it.
Can't we all get along?
Originally Posted By: wafrederick1
XS650,that is you and not me you slandering me!Pull that picture NOW!
ya or else his dad will get the Ford truck he cant sell, drive there and tell you to stop it.
Can't we all get along?
Originally Posted By: PT1
+1 This is true...
No it isn't.
Level Fields institute has all of the domestic content averages for the major auto manufacturers posted.
Ford and GM average 70-80% domestic content
Honda about 50% domestic content
Toyota about 40%
Hyundai is down around 15-20%
There can be little doubt as to which companies contribute more to the U.S. Economy.
That doesn't even factor in the US R&D expenditures and white collar employment, both of which are MUCH higher for the Domestic companies.
+1 This is true...
No it isn't.
Level Fields institute has all of the domestic content averages for the major auto manufacturers posted.
Ford and GM average 70-80% domestic content
Honda about 50% domestic content
Toyota about 40%
Hyundai is down around 15-20%
There can be little doubt as to which companies contribute more to the U.S. Economy.
That doesn't even factor in the US R&D expenditures and white collar employment, both of which are MUCH higher for the Domestic companies.
Let me know how GM is "contributing" to the U.S. Economy is working out...
I've been kind of hanging back from getting into this thread, but given that it's just been announced that GM is selling Hummer to the Chinese, I have to jump in now.
My Dad was a USWA member, worked in the mill for over 38 years. He drilled the "buy American" mantra into my head, and I've done that when it comes to my vehicles, although we had a good laugh about my American Dakota really being a German car since Daimler owned Chrysler at the time.
I like the HHR, but it's not built "here" so that was off of my list of cars to buy. I considered the Equinox, but the made-in-China engine kind of sours the deal. Same with the Fusion, and other vehicles not built in the US. But if GM winds up selling parts off to China, or winds up building cars I like offshore, they'll be getting my GM card back in little pieces and, reluctantly, I'll have to look at Honda (with its plants in Ohio and Indiana), Toyota (Indiana, Kentucky, Texas), Nissan (Tennessee) or Mitsubishi (Illinois).
I don't want to do this, but I may be forced to do so.
OK, I'm done.
My Dad was a USWA member, worked in the mill for over 38 years. He drilled the "buy American" mantra into my head, and I've done that when it comes to my vehicles, although we had a good laugh about my American Dakota really being a German car since Daimler owned Chrysler at the time.
I like the HHR, but it's not built "here" so that was off of my list of cars to buy. I considered the Equinox, but the made-in-China engine kind of sours the deal. Same with the Fusion, and other vehicles not built in the US. But if GM winds up selling parts off to China, or winds up building cars I like offshore, they'll be getting my GM card back in little pieces and, reluctantly, I'll have to look at Honda (with its plants in Ohio and Indiana), Toyota (Indiana, Kentucky, Texas), Nissan (Tennessee) or Mitsubishi (Illinois).
I don't want to do this, but I may be forced to do so.
OK, I'm done.
Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
Let me know how GM is "contributing" to the U.S. Economy is working out...
Exactly!
Let me know how GM is "contributing" to the U.S. Economy is working out...
Exactly!
Originally Posted By: opus1
But if GM winds up selling parts off to China, or winds up building cars I like offshore, they'll be getting my GM card back in little pieces and, reluctantly, I'll have to look at Honda (with its plants in Ohio and Indiana), Toyota (Indiana, Kentucky, Texas), Nissan (Tennessee) or Mitsubishi (Illinois).
Just out of curiosity, why would you not consider domestics that *are* made in the US if you'd consider "imports" that are made here? Is it that you don't like the direction they're going (i.e. moving assembly to other countries vs moving assembly to the US), or that you don't like the specific domestic models made here, or something else?
I'm not taking sides in this debate but it seems strange to consider cars made by some companies that assemble both in and out of the US but not others.
But if GM winds up selling parts off to China, or winds up building cars I like offshore, they'll be getting my GM card back in little pieces and, reluctantly, I'll have to look at Honda (with its plants in Ohio and Indiana), Toyota (Indiana, Kentucky, Texas), Nissan (Tennessee) or Mitsubishi (Illinois).
Just out of curiosity, why would you not consider domestics that *are* made in the US if you'd consider "imports" that are made here? Is it that you don't like the direction they're going (i.e. moving assembly to other countries vs moving assembly to the US), or that you don't like the specific domestic models made here, or something else?
I'm not taking sides in this debate but it seems strange to consider cars made by some companies that assemble both in and out of the US but not others.
I want to jump in here, because there's just too much mindlessly wrong thinking being expressed here. I want to start with the claim that free trade is bad for America -- or bad for any country, for that matter. If the standard of living is not improving as rapidly as we'd like, there are some very good explanations for that -- starting with a very rapid growth in the size of government at all levels -- but trade has been a net plus.
Cheap imports are not a bad thing, they are good, they allow us to consume more even if real wages do not rise. Fifty years ago, a black and white TV set cost about 3 or 4 months' wages, now a large LCD digital TV costs about 1 or 2 weeks' wages. Fifty years ago a new economy car cost about one year's salary, now it's about half that.
The things that take a bigger share of our incomes are the things produced here in the US, such as health care. Why is that? For one thing, the government got massively involved in the health care business as part of the Great Society legislation of the 1960s. Until then, health care was a matter between the individual, his doctor, his local hospital, and his insurance company if he had insurance. A woman could go to a hospital, give birth to a child, rest up for three days, and pay $200-300 on the way out. Now an insurance company is billed for $5000-10000 for a one or two days' stay.
Why are jobs disappearing in the US? Start by asking, what motivates a company to build a factory in the US? Profits. If it can't make a profit, it won't build a factory and it won't hire more workers. In some states it's still reasonably easy to build a factory, because the state and local governments do not put up onerous barriers. But in too many places it can take many years to obtain all the necessary permits; high corporate and individual tax rates can discourage investment and encourage talented workers or entrepreneurs to go elsewhere. And government may make it harder to operate profitably, by blocking access to raw materials or the building of efficient power plants.
Finally, to address the original question, about the moral issues regarding whether to buy home-grown or imported goods: whether any of you like it or not, you compete with every other human being on this planet. What you earn and what you pay are determined by global market forces. There have been countries which tried to be self-sufficient, to shut themselves off from the rest of the world. Their citizens have suffered as a result. We know what protectionism is, but in the extreme case it's called autarchy, a general prohibition on international trade. It didn't work for North Korea, Burma, communist Albania, Peronist Argentina... It hasn't worked anywhere in the last 1000 years and it's not likely to work in the US.
Cheap imports are not a bad thing, they are good, they allow us to consume more even if real wages do not rise. Fifty years ago, a black and white TV set cost about 3 or 4 months' wages, now a large LCD digital TV costs about 1 or 2 weeks' wages. Fifty years ago a new economy car cost about one year's salary, now it's about half that.
The things that take a bigger share of our incomes are the things produced here in the US, such as health care. Why is that? For one thing, the government got massively involved in the health care business as part of the Great Society legislation of the 1960s. Until then, health care was a matter between the individual, his doctor, his local hospital, and his insurance company if he had insurance. A woman could go to a hospital, give birth to a child, rest up for three days, and pay $200-300 on the way out. Now an insurance company is billed for $5000-10000 for a one or two days' stay.
Why are jobs disappearing in the US? Start by asking, what motivates a company to build a factory in the US? Profits. If it can't make a profit, it won't build a factory and it won't hire more workers. In some states it's still reasonably easy to build a factory, because the state and local governments do not put up onerous barriers. But in too many places it can take many years to obtain all the necessary permits; high corporate and individual tax rates can discourage investment and encourage talented workers or entrepreneurs to go elsewhere. And government may make it harder to operate profitably, by blocking access to raw materials or the building of efficient power plants.
Finally, to address the original question, about the moral issues regarding whether to buy home-grown or imported goods: whether any of you like it or not, you compete with every other human being on this planet. What you earn and what you pay are determined by global market forces. There have been countries which tried to be self-sufficient, to shut themselves off from the rest of the world. Their citizens have suffered as a result. We know what protectionism is, but in the extreme case it's called autarchy, a general prohibition on international trade. It didn't work for North Korea, Burma, communist Albania, Peronist Argentina... It hasn't worked anywhere in the last 1000 years and it's not likely to work in the US.
Originally Posted By: rationull
Originally Posted By: opus1
But if GM winds up selling parts off to China, or winds up building cars I like offshore, they'll be getting my GM card back in little pieces and, reluctantly, I'll have to look at Honda (with its plants in Ohio and Indiana), Toyota (Indiana, Kentucky, Texas), Nissan (Tennessee) or Mitsubishi (Illinois).
Just out of curiosity, why would you not consider domestics that *are* made in the US if you'd consider "imports" that are made here? Is it that you don't like the direction they're going (i.e. moving assembly to other countries vs moving assembly to the US), or that you don't like the specific domestic models made here, or something else?
I'm not taking sides in this debate but it seems strange to consider cars made by some companies that assemble both in and out of the US but not others.
Fair question.
I'm not a big Ford fan; the Ranger was inherited, otherwise I wouldn't have a Ford in the fleet. Not saying that can't change, and I guess I shouldn't have given the impression that they're off my list.
I just have a sinking feeling that the ultimate plan to save GM will be to offshore all assembly, and that's a deal-breaker for me.
Originally Posted By: opus1
But if GM winds up selling parts off to China, or winds up building cars I like offshore, they'll be getting my GM card back in little pieces and, reluctantly, I'll have to look at Honda (with its plants in Ohio and Indiana), Toyota (Indiana, Kentucky, Texas), Nissan (Tennessee) or Mitsubishi (Illinois).
Just out of curiosity, why would you not consider domestics that *are* made in the US if you'd consider "imports" that are made here? Is it that you don't like the direction they're going (i.e. moving assembly to other countries vs moving assembly to the US), or that you don't like the specific domestic models made here, or something else?
I'm not taking sides in this debate but it seems strange to consider cars made by some companies that assemble both in and out of the US but not others.
Fair question.
I'm not a big Ford fan; the Ranger was inherited, otherwise I wouldn't have a Ford in the fleet. Not saying that can't change, and I guess I shouldn't have given the impression that they're off my list.
I just have a sinking feeling that the ultimate plan to save GM will be to offshore all assembly, and that's a deal-breaker for me.
Originally Posted By: opus1
Fair question.
I'm not a big Ford fan; the Ranger was inherited, otherwise I wouldn't have a Ford in the fleet. Not saying that can't change, and I guess I shouldn't have given the impression that they're off my list.
I just have a sinking feeling that the ultimate plan to save GM will be to offshore all assembly, and that's a deal-breaker for me.
Ah, I see, makes sense. I'm with you on that -- I think it's going to be, um, we'll say "distasteful" to a lot of people if too much production goes out of the country after all the "Buy American" hubbub. It's too bad. I almost wish I was in the market for a car so I could help out one of the Big 3 (for me it's most likely be Ford).
Fair question.
I'm not a big Ford fan; the Ranger was inherited, otherwise I wouldn't have a Ford in the fleet. Not saying that can't change, and I guess I shouldn't have given the impression that they're off my list.
I just have a sinking feeling that the ultimate plan to save GM will be to offshore all assembly, and that's a deal-breaker for me.
Ah, I see, makes sense. I'm with you on that -- I think it's going to be, um, we'll say "distasteful" to a lot of people if too much production goes out of the country after all the "Buy American" hubbub. It's too bad. I almost wish I was in the market for a car so I could help out one of the Big 3 (for me it's most likely be Ford).
The worse way to keep $$ in the USA is to guilt, pressure, or use nationalism or patriotism to get people to buy USA made products. Doing it this way only confirms that the USA makes sub-par stuff.
A far better way to keep the $$ in the USA is to put the pressure on US companies to make the best products.
If the USA made the best, all us Americans would mostly buy American.
The problem is not consumers. The problem is American manufacturers.
A far better way to keep the $$ in the USA is to put the pressure on US companies to make the best products.
If the USA made the best, all us Americans would mostly buy American.
The problem is not consumers. The problem is American manufacturers.
Originally Posted By: Tornado Red
I want to jump in here, because there's just too much mindlessly wrong thinking being expressed here. I want to start with the claim that free trade is bad for America -- or bad for any country, for that matter. If the standard of living is not improving as rapidly as we'd like, there are some very good explanations for that -- starting with a very rapid growth in the size of government at all levels -- but trade has been a net plus.
Cheap imports are not a bad thing, they are good, they allow us to consume more even if real wages do not rise. Fifty years ago, a black and white TV set cost about 3 or 4 months' wages, now a large LCD digital TV costs about 1 or 2 weeks' wages. Fifty years ago a new economy car cost about one year's salary, now it's about half that.
The things that take a bigger share of our incomes are the things produced here in the US, such as health care. Why is that? For one thing, the government got massively involved in the health care business as part of the Great Society legislation of the 1960s. Until then, health care was a matter between the individual, his doctor, his local hospital, and his insurance company if he had insurance. A woman could go to a hospital, give birth to a child, rest up for three days, and pay $200-300 on the way out. Now an insurance company is billed for $5000-10000 for a one or two days' stay.
Why are jobs disappearing in the US? Start by asking, what motivates a company to build a factory in the US? Profits. If it can't make a profit, it won't build a factory and it won't hire more workers. In some states it's still reasonably easy to build a factory, because the state and local governments do not put up onerous barriers. But in too many places it can take many years to obtain all the necessary permits; high corporate and individual tax rates can discourage investment and encourage talented workers or entrepreneurs to go elsewhere. And government may make it harder to operate profitably, by blocking access to raw materials or the building of efficient power plants.
Finally, to address the original question, about the moral issues regarding whether to buy home-grown or imported goods: whether any of you like it or not, you compete with every other human being on this planet. What you earn and what you pay are determined by global market forces. There have been countries which tried to be self-sufficient, to shut themselves off from the rest of the world. Their citizens have suffered as a result. We know what protectionism is, but in the extreme case it's called autarchy, a general prohibition on international trade. It didn't work for North Korea, Burma, communist Albania, Peronist Argentina... It hasn't worked anywhere in the last 1000 years and it's not likely to work in the US.
The MASSIVE flaw in your thinking is this: When American Jobs go way, American buying power goes away. When American buying power goes away, American standard of living plummets down the abyss. THIS IS HAPPENING NOW....HELLO!?!
Don't be a republican/limbaugh parrot!
In other words, moving jobs off shore is bad for our economy.
I want to jump in here, because there's just too much mindlessly wrong thinking being expressed here. I want to start with the claim that free trade is bad for America -- or bad for any country, for that matter. If the standard of living is not improving as rapidly as we'd like, there are some very good explanations for that -- starting with a very rapid growth in the size of government at all levels -- but trade has been a net plus.
Cheap imports are not a bad thing, they are good, they allow us to consume more even if real wages do not rise. Fifty years ago, a black and white TV set cost about 3 or 4 months' wages, now a large LCD digital TV costs about 1 or 2 weeks' wages. Fifty years ago a new economy car cost about one year's salary, now it's about half that.
The things that take a bigger share of our incomes are the things produced here in the US, such as health care. Why is that? For one thing, the government got massively involved in the health care business as part of the Great Society legislation of the 1960s. Until then, health care was a matter between the individual, his doctor, his local hospital, and his insurance company if he had insurance. A woman could go to a hospital, give birth to a child, rest up for three days, and pay $200-300 on the way out. Now an insurance company is billed for $5000-10000 for a one or two days' stay.
Why are jobs disappearing in the US? Start by asking, what motivates a company to build a factory in the US? Profits. If it can't make a profit, it won't build a factory and it won't hire more workers. In some states it's still reasonably easy to build a factory, because the state and local governments do not put up onerous barriers. But in too many places it can take many years to obtain all the necessary permits; high corporate and individual tax rates can discourage investment and encourage talented workers or entrepreneurs to go elsewhere. And government may make it harder to operate profitably, by blocking access to raw materials or the building of efficient power plants.
Finally, to address the original question, about the moral issues regarding whether to buy home-grown or imported goods: whether any of you like it or not, you compete with every other human being on this planet. What you earn and what you pay are determined by global market forces. There have been countries which tried to be self-sufficient, to shut themselves off from the rest of the world. Their citizens have suffered as a result. We know what protectionism is, but in the extreme case it's called autarchy, a general prohibition on international trade. It didn't work for North Korea, Burma, communist Albania, Peronist Argentina... It hasn't worked anywhere in the last 1000 years and it's not likely to work in the US.
The MASSIVE flaw in your thinking is this: When American Jobs go way, American buying power goes away. When American buying power goes away, American standard of living plummets down the abyss. THIS IS HAPPENING NOW....HELLO!?!
Don't be a republican/limbaugh parrot!
In other words, moving jobs off shore is bad for our economy.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: lovcom
The worse way to keep $$ in the USA is to guilt, pressure, or use nationalism or patriotism to get people to buy USA made products. Doing it this way only confirms that the USA makes sub-par stuff.
A far better way to keep the $$ in the USA is to put the pressure on US companies to make the best products.
If the USA made the best, all us Americans would mostly buy American.
The problem is not consumers. The problem is American manufacturers.
I see more people shopping based on price not quality which is what I assume you mean by "made the best". If not, please clarify.
The worse way to keep $$ in the USA is to guilt, pressure, or use nationalism or patriotism to get people to buy USA made products. Doing it this way only confirms that the USA makes sub-par stuff.
A far better way to keep the $$ in the USA is to put the pressure on US companies to make the best products.
If the USA made the best, all us Americans would mostly buy American.
The problem is not consumers. The problem is American manufacturers.
I see more people shopping based on price not quality which is what I assume you mean by "made the best". If not, please clarify.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
