While we complain about Ford, Chevy, etc jobs going overseas I see foreign auto manufacturers (Porsche, Mercedes, Kia, Nissan, etc) building plants over here and hiring American workers. I wonder what the Net is (i.e, more lower wage workers, they offset the jobs leaving with comparable wages, etc.)?
I've often asked the flipside of this - If we're going to protect American jobs and not let American companies go overseas, there has to be a flip side to it as well does there not? Mercedes, Kia, Hyundai, WV, and Nissan are all ones that I think of off the top of my head that have invested heavily......in the south too. And that's not even talking about the parts manufacturers. And I know another one is what has to be in mind for the Megasite park in West TN.
Another point is, the stuff made in Mexico has a way higher failure rate, so bad that our purchasing dept has specifically asked not to buy those breakers again. We're buying breakers made in Germany.
Not to mention that the national brands didn’t give one shit out of building a quality car that wasn’t a muscle car either. The consumer is way better due to the competition. Same way with under 75HP tractors. You can’t beat the Japs on them. Yanmar and Kubota own it.
IMO, very little as it relates to major multinational corporations who manufacture shit. $6/hr vs $30/hr (per employee) is a big expense hurdle. Tariffs are not the answer, IMO. Revenue and Expense are the two levers. Grow revenue, reduce expenses. Where are the markets and revenue growth in the U.S. compared to say, China or India? You can possibly make things a little more favorable for onshore work, but you will never close the labor gap cost until the labor costs in emerging countries rise. We saw that happening in India and we just moved work to Vietnam Nam or Eastern bloc countries or China.
OK, so the whole plant didn't move to Mexico. Terrible that anyone lost their job though. I hate to ever see that.
Got to put some blame on the consumer, too. Most are buying on price, not the “made in ____” label. That’s the main reason all the American electronics companies got put out of business by their Japanese competitors.
This is a simple, hi level overview for a very complex topic. Over simplifies some items, but not too bad. I have no idea where they fall on the political spectrum. https://www.thebalance.com/how-outsourcing-jobs-affects-the-u-s-economy-3306279 I do tend to agree with their general opinion that ... "Education, rather than protectionism, is the best way to both take advantage of technology and create jobs for U.S. workers." The trouble I, personally, have is our President does not even understand half of the material on this topic and is unwilling to make any effort to learn. Multinational corporations are not patriotic entities. They are political only to the extent that it will improves their EPS. Employees are commodities/tools and are treated as an expense line on the ledger sheet. That is reality.
I'm pretty much 100% on board with that concept and have been for years. Yes, we need some manufacturing here for defense purposes, but we also should focus on more higher-skilled jobs, and not low-wage manufacturing.
We shouldn’t even be focusing on manufacturing for even defense purposes, unless the entire focus is on automation of that process. A true defense is boots, let machines make the bullets.
There will always be a market for some onshore manufacturing of various types. The problem is it will never be at the level that some politicians (including Trump) would like their constituents to believe. Automation will continue to be a factor in the loss of those jobs that can be automated. Automation will i creas as the global labor rate increases. I will say that in my last 5 years of employment, we began off shoring the more "skilled" jobs, i.e., application development, IT support services, supply chain/procurement, etc. (India, Eastern Europe, South America, China).
No, it isn’t. It may be comforting to believe that, but people hating Hillary was only a piece of it. A bigger piece than the Dems acknowledged, but not the whole pie, nonetheless. He lost as many votes from his own negatives, than he likely gained by the votes which were cast for him, but really, were just cast against her.
If you add in, “I am married to Bill Clinton” and “It’ll essentially be four more years of Obama” you have successfully summarized each plank in her platform. All four of’em.
Add in the people that didn’t show up because of her in her own party and you have the Trump presidency.
One can point at a million things when the margin was a few 10,000 votes in a handful of stated, in a nation of 300 million and 50 states.
