The “American Made Index” is a horrid indicator
That’s a matter of opinion…
You want to keep BLINDLY keep supporting companies that clearly moving more and more jobs overseas…GREAT…go ahead.
I’m NOT.
BTW…my security package says your link has a Virus…Hope that wasn’t intentional.
eraser; I am aware the the Crown Vic is no longer built. When it was built Ford in the US sourced enough foreign components to have it classified as an import, i.e. less than 50%. The volume was pitfully low, and the Canadian plant was the last one to built it and the Mercury Grand Marquis and Linciln Town Car before it closed this year.
The Atlanta plant was one of Ford’s best, but not nearly as efficient as Toyota and Honda Plants. Assembly manhours is the holy grail in car manufacturing. Jaguar in England had it down to 35 hours on their simpler models. Anything like 100 Hours is ancient history except for scustom built low volume cars.
However, I agree with other posters that the total local content of all the components is the most important yardstick. If manufacturer A can have that content at 95% but with low manhours, that makes it the best manufacturer, and it will have a future. The British car industry died because of poor products and very low manufacturing efficiency. But the workers had good wages and benefits!
MikeInNH -
The link passes scrutiny by Semantec with definitions updated today - not sure what security package you’re using
As for BLINDLY, I’m not BLINDLY supporting anybody. I’ve watched the employment levels of these companies for years. They have dropped, but by no more than can be easily explained by dramatic productivity improvements and overall sales.
The one being blind is the one praising Toyota when they aren’t improving their import / export balance at all, or praising Nissan’s productivity when it is worse than the average domestic brand… or blindly attacking domestic companies for setting up factories in China to (SHOCKER) make vehicles to sell in China.
Docnick -
Actually, the % domestic content for a vehicle to be classified as domestic is 75%, not 50% (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1890&page=72). Automakers frequently try to get under 75% to aid in the meeting of their CAFE requirements, as you have to meet CAFE on imported vehicles and domestic vehicles separately. If you can get them all labeled one way or another for CAFE purposes, it eases your ability to meet those standards. The other option is grossly inefficient - and Ford did it in the past - build the same vehicles in multiple places. Take the Focus - they used to build it in Michigan and Mexico to help balance out the CAFE averages. That’s horrid for your cost structure.
But back to the Crown Vic. It’s domestic content by year:
2011: 75%
2010: 90%
2009: 70%
2008: 90%
2007: 90%
(source: http://www.nhtsa.gov/Laws+&+Regulations/Part+583+American+Automobile+Labeling+Act+(AALA)+Reports)
As for the Atlanta plant - it was very good in terms of initial quality when it closed, but it was never one of Ford’s most efficient plants. It was actually very dated by modern standards. As you can see by looking at the harbor report (linked earlier), Ford is actually very close to Toyota/Honda/Nissan in terms of manhours. Chrysler has the MOST efficient plants overall.
As for domestic content, it is certainly important. The domestics still average significantly more domestic content than the imports, though the imports are just as high for those select models they do build in the US. But domestic content isn’t the only yardstick, either. It doesn’t measure white collar jobs in the least, and those are just as important… and those are where the import brands fall farthest short still…
The one being blind is the one praising Toyota when they aren’t improving their import / export balance at all, or praising Nissan’s productivity when it is worse than the average domestic brand… or blindly attacking domestic companies for setting up factories in China to (SHOCKER) make vehicles to sell in China.
After owning 2 Nissan’s and driving them to 300k + trouble free miles…I wouldn’t call the blindly supporting Nissan…After my GM pickup that was JUNK after 100k miles…and NOT supporting them…that’s not blind either.
I have no problem with GM making cars in China and selling them to China…never did I say otherwise. Please show me where I did…What I have a problem with is GM building cars in China and shipping them back to the US…If you don’t have a problem with that…Fine…
http://www.businessweek.com/autos/autobeat/archives/2009/05/gm_looks_to_chi.html
You keep arguing the same thing over and over again…give it a rest.
The various opinions aired here remind me much of the 9 blind men and the elephant. We live in an international business environment, and flexible companies with good products will survive and prosper.
Richard Nixon did not like those little imports and after imposing a tariff did not work and the unions kept clamoring for those cars to be built in the USA, the companies complied in spades. Except that almost none of the plants had unions. Rumor has it that Honda had two conditions for hiring plant workers; 1) That they had never worked in the US auto industry, and 2) That hey had never belonged to a union.
Honda tested potential employes for Attitude first and then trainability. They built their plants in rual areas and liked eager farm boys who were trainable in their system.
Other firms like Toyota, Nissan and Mazda took the same approach, with the result that Michigan lost many automotive jobs to the central and southern states. It’s the only state to lose population over the last census period.
In Canada the same thing happened; in the year that 4 US owned plants closed there, Toyota opened two new ones and Honda greatly increased their capacity as well.
A few years back we talked about the future of the car industry and I ventured that it would globilize, like the electronic and appliance industry.
When I first graduated, TVs, stereos, radios, calculators, and kitchen appliances were all made in the USA. In terms of earning to buy them, they were all expensive. Top end stuff came from Germany or Switzerland. Even cameras were US made; Argus (Ann Arbor, Mich), Bell & Howell, Kodak, Speed Graphic, and so on.
The industry gradually globalized and manufacturing went to those regions to best make it. I own a UNIX camera made by Panasonic in Japan. It has a licensed German lens. Cheaper units made by this company would be made in China, or other lower wage or lower skill country. Canon makes cameras in many different countries, keeping the top lines for Japan.
My Timex Ironman Triathlon watch is made in the Philippines. It’s really only assembled there from a mixture of US and other Asian parts.
No government can totally control where industry makes the products it sells. My position is that with globalization everyone wins overall. Smart governments heavily invest in research, education and training and try to get their industries to move up the technology ladder.
New Zealand nearly bankrupted itself in the 80s by trying to be selfsufficient in too many things (they even made test tubes there) , paying high wages and benefits and not insisting on any productivity improvements. In other words, a welfare state run amuck.
Twin Turbo…name me a country presently receiving non profit healthcare, govt. sponsored or not whose citizens are clamoring and demonstrating for our for profit system. Waiting…
"Early automobiles used alcohol for fuel. Prohibition put an end to that and gave the oil companies the market they needed to get rid of this hazardous waste. That did change its classification from hazardous waste to consumer product.
Although Ken Burns did not mention this in his PBS documentary, the Rockefeller’s gave $4 million to the cause. That practically funded the whole prohibition movement. But surely that donation was motivated by their philanthropy rather than profit."
Let’s not neglect the role of the Rothschilds and the Illuminati.
“dagosa December 12 Report
Twin Turbo…name me a country presently receiving non profit healthcare, govt. sponsored or not whose citizens are clamoring and demonstrating for our for profit system. Waiting…”
The King of Saudi Arabia comes to mind.
Mike I’m comparing a 401k to a retirement package that gives the employee 50-60% of their average pay FOR LIFE for example. Traditional retirement packages did not require ANY contribution from the employee. Tenure and pay determined the payout.
Ive managed to do quite well for myself by doing exactly what you say people can’t do on their own. All i did was sock some away each pay period and let compounding interest do the work. Its not rocket science but most people are too shortsighted to do it and hoping a company or the government will take care of them in the end.
Name me ONE U.S. government run public service that people believe is well run and using taxpayers money effectively.
The waste and corruption in the EXISTING sytems out weigh the actual costs for real services. Id rather see investors get the profits than system scammers and govt bloat wasting it away. They can’t even police what they run now, so let’s give them control of the whole pie?
MikeInNH-
I keep arguing the same thing over and over? YOU keep making false claims over and over, despite all the evidence. Your story that you just posted? Dated info that has been proven to be incorrect. GM WAS using that as a bargaining chip. In the time since then, they’ve actually CUT imports of components from China and IN-SOURCED work to the US.
Oh, and Mike -
How long a product lasts is a completely separate discussion from how “American-made” it is. And Nissan is lower in reliability than Ford, according to Consumer Reports, who you use constantly as “proof”.
YOU keep making false claims over and over, despite all the evidence. Your story that you just posted?
I’ve showed you EVIDENCE…then you keep changing YOUR rules what evidence is…
Give it a rest will you…you’re making a fool of yourself.
Ive managed to do quite well for myself by doing exactly what you say people can’t do on their own.
But there are MANY people in the lower income brackets who can’t.
Your story that you just posted? Dated info that has been proven to be incorrect. GM WAS using that as a bargaining chip. In the time since then, they’ve actually CUT imports of components from China and IN-SOURCED work to the US.
FOR NOW…And GM IS importing many parts from China…but I guess that doesn’t bother you either.
“Name me one govt. agency that…” Twin…what people believe due to the BS that enough of us throw around is not necessarily true. People are under the sad illusion that the Govt. should be run like a business and all we need is but to hire some successful CEO and all our problems are over. That is what happened with the previous adm. and the money’s that found their way oversees through govt. spending is IMO, largely responsible for today’s financial mess. That IS wasteful.
The govt. is a trust, not a profit making corporation and as such will be precieved as wasteful when handing out bail outs and providing welfare. This is especially true if welfare recipients don’t spend their money exactly on what the doner taxpayer has in mind.
The bottom line…GM received welfare because their existance is important not only for American jobs but for our national security…the same is true for insisting that car makers use American made parts. There is no profit in that; we have to deal with it. Even bridges to nowhere and some one else “waste and fraud” are valid ear marks that have cumulative economic positive effects in the eyes of the recipients.
The bottom line…GM received welfare as the viability of their exhistance is important not only for American jobs but for our national security…the same is true for insisting that car makers use American made parts
Exactly…to say buy the vehicle which created the MOST American jobs is just plain STUPID. It’s a market that’s changing constantly. GM is going to do what ever it can to stay profitable. If that means moving ALL jobs to China…they will…GUARANTEED. To blindly follow GM or Ford because they’re an “American” company is just being naive.
I believe in Toyota and Nissan for other reasons. Mainly because of the vehicles I bought…they’ve been far more reliable to the GM and Ford and Chryco’s I’ve owned and relatives owned in the past. The fact that they’ve actually CREATED jobs in the US over the past 20+ years is a plus while GM and Ford have moved jobs OUT of the US. I also believe that GM and Ford COULD keep more jobs here in the US and be profitable IF they changed their management structure. They insist on this bonus per quarter mentality (although that may be changing). GM for the longest time wasn’t a car company…but a finance company. The people at the top weren’t car people…but finance people. They looked at the bottom line ONLY. Cut costs no matter what. GM management has changed…but we’ll see if it actually works. If people keep BLINDLY keep following GM…then they won’t ever change. They get complacent and forget what they should be doing. Competition is good for everyone.
MikeInNH-
And I’ve shown that your “evidence” is complete nonsense when compared to hard facts. Cars.com’s list? Do you still not recognize the faults in a list that reranks vehicles arbitrarily based on sales numbers and ignores all white collar jobs?
The only one making a fool of yourself is you, claiming things that aren’t true (more domestic content for imports, shift of jobs offshore/onshore, more productive plants for imports, etc)
MikeInNH 9:20AM Report
The fact that they’ve actually CREATED jobs in the US over the past 20+ years is a plus while GM and Ford have moved jobs OUT of the US.
The fact is that they STILL employ a fraction of the number of Americans per car sold in the US as do GM and Ford, and that gap hasn’t changed in nearly 20 years.
GM and Ford do not make all the parts for their cars I think we can agree. Contracting for domesticity made parts is important, having cars assembled domestically is important. I would argue that a big reason for GM to get out from under the bailout restrictions by paying it back, is to continue with business as usual. After all, the US govt. has majority ownership of GM…gee, I wonder if hat has anything to do with building better cars and actually making a profit…for a change…Twin Turbo.