Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views Inside Line Article Comments Article Comments Kiss the American Auto Industry Good-Bye (as We Know It)
420 messages, Last post on Oct 16, 2007 at 4:43 AM
You are in the Inside Line Article Comments Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
Article comments for Kiss the American Auto Industry Good-Bye (as We Know It) - Take a snapshot for posterity, because today's U.S. automotive landscape won't look like it does for much longer. (more)
|
Replying to: grbeck (Mar 08, 2007 11:25 am) Again, you're talking a drop in the bucket compared to the total number of Americans employed by Ford, GM, and Chrysler. I never said that every vehicle made by a transplant is automatically "American." My arguments - to counter Rocky's assertion that a Democratic Congress and President are more amenable to protectionist measures I'm leaving the political stuff alone, since it has nothing at all to do with the argument. And apparently after pondering the question, and coming to the conclusion that this is THE most important to thing to consider," when supporting a company with your dollars, you bought...a Nissan. Rats, you replied to my post before I edited it. I had to hurry and wrap it up, and misstated myself in the process. I changed it to read closer to my intent. That said, in February of '03 when I wanted a new sports sedan, there was literally bupkis available from GM, Ford, or Chrysler. The closest would have been a CTS, but it would have been a cool $10k above the $25k OTD I paid for the Maxima optioned similarly. I've posted this in other forums on Edmunds, but we do the domestic auto manufacturers or our families no favors by buying inferior product. At the end of the day, companies listen to sales figures and not articles on Edmunds, and the world spoke loud and clear with their wallets that the Japanese were making a superior product. So, the Americans rehabilitated their product for the most part, and now they get to battle against the Japanese who have hornswoggled their way into getting the public to believe they build "American" cars. My Nissan will be due for replacement in a couple years. If there are two equivalent sedans; say, the 2010 Maxima and 2010 G8, I will buy the G8 BECAUSE it is from General Motors. However, if the G8 turns out to be a turd with horrible reliability, I'm not giving them a pass just because my country relies on a healthy GM. I know it seems like a dichotomy, but it's not. I'm just glad to live in a country that doesn't rely on protectionist measures to make sure its citizens buy inferior product. Oops, did I mention something political? 
|
|
|
Replying to: perna (Mar 08, 2007 11:56 am) Not a drop in the bucket to those states, and certainly not to car buyers, who have benefited greatly from their presence. perna: I'm leaving the political stuff alone, since it has nothing at all to do with the argument. It has to do with the likelihood of this country adopting protectionist measures, which Rocky asserted would increase with a Democratic president and Congress. And that IS important to the overall discussion. perna: So, the Americans rehabilitated their product for the most part, and now they get to battle against the Japanese who have hornswoggled their way into getting the public to believe they build "American" cars. The American products are BETTER than they were, but not superior to the Japanese competitors, and in most cases, they are still inferior. The Americans have reduced the gap, but not completely closed it. And they aren't going to get satisfied customers out of their Hondas and Toyotas by saying, "We have improved!" And the Japanese aren't hornswoggling anybody. Buyers just don't care anymore where the vehicle is made. Buyers purchase Toyotas and Hondas because they have a track record of producing reliable, well-rounded and well-built vehicles. GM, Ford and Chrysler do not. perna: My Nissan will be due for replacement in a couple years. If there are two equivalent sedans; say, the 2010 Maxima and 2010 G8, I will buy the G8 BECAUSE it is from General Motors. However, if the G8 turns out to be a turd with horrible reliability, I'm not giving them a pass just because my country relies on a healthy GM. I know it seems like a dichotomy, but it's not. But the G8 will be built in Australia, so that isn't doing anything to help preserve jobs in America. The Zeta-based Chevrolet Impala will be built in North American (Canada, if I recall correctly).
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder how many domestic only diehards haggle their filling stations for their sources of petrol? Might as well boycott foriegn oil that isn't pumped out of US soil right? FYI, might not wanna get your gas at Citgo stations since they are owned by Venezuela. 
|
|
|
Replying to: anythngbutgm (Mar 08, 2007 12:28 pm) |
|
|
|
While it is commendable to be such an outstanding citizen, you do realize that you are a rare bird, don't you? OCD however, is quite common so I guess that can be your alibi. 
|
|
|
Replying to: grbeck (Mar 08, 2007 12:07 pm) I don't know why you obsess about final assembly - it's really pointless to continue to debate this until you discover that the parts sourcing is where the jobs are. However, I'll throw the bone out there that buying an Austrailian or Canadian-built car is different than buying a Mexican or Chinese-built car. The key is that Aussies and Canucks are fairly compensated for their work, and the others aren't. I include stricter safety regulations and benefits in with "compensation", BTW. Since you seem to believe that final assembly is the end-all be-all of automotive jobs, there you go. The irony with the union talk is that the Korean union is probably the most militant of all auto-producing countries. However, they still figure out how to build the cheapest cars... go figure!
|
|
|
Replying to: perna (Mar 08, 2007 1:33 pm) The G8 will be a rebadged Holden, which means the parts will be sourced from Australia, too. Holden is a self-contained subsidiary of GM, and has been so for decades. GM isn't going to ship many American-made parts to Australia to build the G8. So, if parts manufacturing is ultimately "where the jobs are," then for the G8, that is Australia. perna: However, I'll throw the bone out there that buying an Austrailian or Canadian-built car is different than buying a Mexican or Chinese-built car. No Chinese built cars are sold in the U.S. - although GM has sourced a Chinese-built engine for the Torrent/Equinox. The Chinese won't be ready for prime time in the U.S. for another 10 years, at the earliest. The Mexican-built cars are from Ford - Fusion, Milan and MKZ - and GM - big SUVs. perna: The key is that Aussies and Canucks are fairly compensated for their work, and the others aren't. I include stricter safety regulations and benefits in with "compensation", BTW. Since you seem to believe that final assembly is the end-all be-all of automotive jobs, there you go. Excluding the Chinese - who, as noted, aren't selling vehicles here and are thus not relevant to the discussion - the Mexicans, the Japanese and the Koreans are fairly compensated by the standards of their respective countries. Jobs in auto plants are particularly desirable in Mexico - less so in Japan or Korea, because their economies are more developed, and thus present more opportunities for workers. Japan's safety regulations and benefits structure are competitive with anything in the U.S. The big complaint that Big Three partisans and the UAW have about sales being taken away regards the Big Three of Japan - Honda, Toyota and Nissan. Upon closer examination of the facts, the objections to buying a car from them vanish. They are building here with increased local content, or the vehicles (or their parts) are built in a country that largely matches the U.S. in pay (actually higher than in the U.S., from what I've read), benefits, safety standards or environmental protection laws.
|
|
|
Replying to: lemko (Mar 08, 2007 1:11 pm) That said, I buy gas mostly on price within the major brands. The good news (well, if you are adamantly against Venezuela) is that all the local Citgo stations got sold several years back. The bad news is they are Gettys which are owned by Lukoil which is Russian. Since gasoline is really a global product and all of it that is refined is sold I don't sweat too much where this particular gallon came from. If I thought it made even a little difference I would. Where the heck is teh list of cars that the government has of what it considers American made cars. The key is 70% American content. The Honda Accord qualifies but I don not know how many other import names do. Oddly, they seem to make te Mexican Fords and Chryslers American.... While I would agree that a Democratic Congress and President would be more likely to do something on trade I do't think that more likely stretches to the point where I would think they would do anything. Heck, it ws Clinton who brought us NAFTA. Bush has expanded on it. I'm not holding my breath waiting for Washington to signal less free global trade.
|
|
|
Replying to: fezo (Mar 08, 2007 2:57 pm) History of the implementation The agreement was initially pursued by conservative governments in the United States and Canada supportive of free trade, led by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, U.S. President George H. W. Bush, and the Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari. The three-nation NAFTA was signed on 17 December 1992, pending its ratification by the legislatures of the three countries. There was considerable opposition in all three countries, but in the United States it was able to secure passage after Bill Clinton made its passage a major legislative initiative in 1993. During his presidential campaign he had promised to review the agreement, which he considered inadequate. Since the agreement had been signed by Bush under his fast-track prerogative, Clinton did not alter the original agreement, but complemented it with the aforementioned NAAEC and NAALC. After intense political debate and the negotiation of these side agreements, the U.S. House passed NAFTA by 234-200 (132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voting in favor)[2] and the U.S. Senate passed it by 61-38[3]. Finally, Clinton sanctioned the ratification on November 1993 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAFTA -This is the spin the right likes to put on NAFTA, as labeling it's failure as Clinton's NAFTA Bill. But the truth is it was H.W. Bush's bill Rocky |
|
|
Replying to: fezo (Mar 08, 2007 2:57 pm)
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Inside Line Article Comments Article Comments Kiss the American Auto Industry Good-Bye (as We Know It)
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
