Retirement Cars

[brewer12345]

I'm still confused. My uncle drives a Toyota truck that was built here. My neighbor drives a domestic that wasn't. Lord knows if either of us know where the subcomponents came from. Who's more patriotic? The Toyota buyer kept more jobs in the US by buying a foreign brand but the Ford buyer kept the net profits in the US.

We bought $200 worth of fabric today. We bought from a small business here in the US. The business bought the bolts from a designer in the US. The designer uses a manufacturer headquartered in Europe but the manufacturer's looms are in China. Since everyone in the chain can do business globally, am I doing good by keeping the high-value jobs in the US or am I doing bad by giving business to a European company with operations in China?

Depends: how many of these people had "Freedom Fries" with lunch?

 

[brewer12345]

From the responses to this post, I would venture to say that many of you have never worked in a competitive business environment and experienced market erosion due to customers "not worrying about where the products they buy come from" You probably never tried to sell your products into markets with 100% import duties, and then see products from those countries being dumped here in the US below your manufacturing cost. Maybe some of you more intellectually enlightened freelance economists out there can explain how ignoring our GDP and trade imbalances HELPS the bulk of the working class ( I belive they have now been classed as "lumpenproletariat" by the hyper-educated) here in the USA. Explain to me how outsourcing our skilled customer service jobs to India, high-tech aerospace production to China, and automotive manufacturing to Mexico helps the US workforce. I'm not buying it. We are facing an unprecedented affordability gap in housing (ie mortgage meltdown) and standards of living, in my mind due to a lot of former middle-income manufacturing jobs moving offshore or south of the border. What concerns me the most is that many members of the FIREd commmunity are probably retired on $ earned working for US companies who relied on US consumers for their livelihoods, and to fund the retirement programs that make it possible to spend all day posting on this board. But, hey I got mine, right?

I understand the need for education and better-trained workers, and support that notion whole-heartedly. But better-trained and fully employed go hand-in hand. USA Today had an interesting article today on real unemployment numbers, but no one bothered to quote that article; probably too busy gloating about the article two columns away on Ford making the Festiva in Mexico... wonder how many US workers were displaced by that decision? PS- stilll waiting to hear from the UAW contingent on that pesky legacy pension cost question....

Wow, I think you need a visit from the big, burly guy who wields the clue bat. A few whacks and things might finally start getting through to you.

Personally, I am tired of trying to teach a pig to sing, so I will leave you to await the arrival of the big guy.

 

[Abreutime]

From the responses to this post, I would venture to say that many of you have never worked in a competitive business environment and experienced market erosion due to customers "not worrying about where the products they buy come from"

Actually, I would venture to say that most people on this board "worked in a competitive business environment," and most didnt need to rely on consumers who were willing to overpay (ie. pay extra) based on the country the product was produced.

You probably never tried to sell your products into markets with 100% import duties, and then see products from those countries being dumped here in the US below your manufacturing cost.

I agree, that would certainly suck. I havent followed much of the latest trade developments and agreements, but there are antidumping laws where it is illegal to dump goods at below cost. When this happens, and you get a favorable judgment, years have usually passed. Enforcement is slow. However, there would be no need for antidumping laws if there was free trade. Companies would not see price differentials (beyond shipping costs) between foreign and domestic markets without distortionary tariffs, and thus "dumping" wouldn't be a problem. The problem is that industries protected by high tariffs would come under pressure from foreign producers.

Maybe some of you more intellectually enlightened freelance economists out there can explain how ignoring our GDP and trade imbalances HELPS the bulk of the working class ( I belive they have now been classed as "lumpenproletariat" by the hyper-educated) here in the USA. Explain to me how outsourcing our skilled customer service jobs to India, high-tech aerospace production to China, and automotive manufacturing to Mexico helps the US workforce. I'm not buying it. We are facing an unprecedented affordability gap in housing (ie mortgage meltdown) and standards of living, in my mind due to a lot of former middle-income manufacturing jobs moving offshore or south of the border. What concerns me the most is that many members of the FIREd commmunity are probably retired on $ earned working for US companies who relied on US consumers for their livelihoods, and to fund the retirement programs that make it possible to spend all day posting on this board. But, hey I got mine, right?

The middle class (and all classes for that matter) can buy cheaper goods. You can choose to pay extra for domestic brands in non-competitive american industries, but most people don't make that decision. I'm sure you also don't shop at Walmart for their aggressive pricing and negotiation with suppliers, but it's a similar issue. Most consumers pay for quality and price, and don't look at labels. Are you trying to tell people just getting by that they shouldn't compare prices?

Outsourcing doesn't help "the US workforce." It helps the US consumer market, which coincidently, is made of the same people. Of course, it's bad for you if your job (and its salary) is no longer competitive as markets are becoming increasingly global. But what's the solution? Emotional appeals to buy American? Forcibly prevent companies from expanding abroad? You think this will save jobs and improve the workforce? No, these are not "solutions" to an evolving reality. All you are doing is listing the ways in which the US economy is changing, but you fail to provide an alternative that does not make us worse off. People like buying cheap tshirts and affordable cars. People like not having to pay a large customer service fee when they need help with my computer crashing.

Why does it "concern you" that US companies may have (over)paid for the retirements of some people of this board? Good for them! On the one hand, these people probably do continue to support their old businesses out of loyalty. But I do not derive benefits from their decisions (I dont even know anyone on this board in real life). On the other hand, if even ex-GM workers dont buy GM vehicles, what does that say about the quality of the cars?

 

[ERD50]

You should let Honda know, they appear to be past the development stage and have started limited production. I guess their engineers aren't too sharp.

Don't blame the engineers. I'm certain that they are fully capable of calculating the losses in the energy chain of source to wheel with a fuel cell the car, and that they have done the math. And I'm certain those numbers show it to be a losing situation.

Just like ethanol. The technical people were aware that it took a lot of energy to produce it. Many estimates said it was more energy in than out, the most generous I've seen indicate 15% more out than in. IOW, if we could flip a magic switch, and every vehicle ran on 100% ethanol tomorrow, and every station had only 100% ethanol at the pumps.... we would STILL be using at least 85% of the petroleum that we used (for transportation) yesterday. But of course, we can't swtich to 100% ethaonal for many reasons (one being that we'd need to cut down an awful lot of rainforest to grow that much feedstock).

But, ethanol got 'sold' despite that. Politicians saw votes, lobbyists saw opportunities for their industries, farmers liked it, an unaware public liked the sound of 'energy independence', and 'grow your fuel'. It is only recently that the real ills of bio-fuels are coming into the public eye, but technical people have known this for many years. Hydrogen fuel cells are in the same boat, only worse.

Don't buy the 'green' line again w/o the facts. Fool me once.....

samclem's link is good, so I'll post it again:

The New Atlantis » The Hydrogen Hoax

-ERD50

 

[Westernskies]

Wow, I think you need a visit from the big, burly guy who wields the clue bat. A few whacks and things might finally start getting through to you.

Personally, I am tired of trying to teach a pig to sing, so I will leave you to await the arrival of the big guy.

Ah, the ramblings of the hyper-educated... too bad you missed the semester when they taught cause and effect.

Don't need any singing lessons from you my friend. Your version of the National Anthem would be way off-key, anyway.