foreign employer... employing americans in america! i know this debate is raging on in other threads, but as you point out 1 in 9 americans depends on the auto industry. not GM, ford and chrysler, but the auto industry. i don't think nissan deserves this break at all. there's no point having rules if they don't apply evenly to everyone. however, i don't think it's healthy to just brush off the influence import plants in america have. where will the 1000 people from the nissan plant that closes go work? is GM hiring? i agree with your criticism... but not with your argument!Originally posted by vanshmack@Apr 21 2004, 07:21 PM
A couple thousand jobs lost to a foreign employer is nothing compared to what will happen in this country if the Feds continue to give imports ANOTHER advantage. Lost market share translates into lost jobs, and 1 in 9 people in this country has work that has SOMETHING to do with the auto industry.
foreign employer... employing americans in america! i know this debate is raging on in other threads, but as you point out 1 in 9 americans depends on the auto industry. not GM, ford and chrysler, but the auto industry. i don't think nissan deserves this break at all. there's no point having rules if they don't apply evenly to everyone. however, i don't think it's healthy to just brush off the influence import plants in america have. where will the 1000 people from the nissan plant that closes go work? is GM hiring? i agree with your criticism... but not with your argument! [/b][/quote]Originally posted by paul8488+Apr 21 2004, 02:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (paul8488 @ Apr 21 2004, 02:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-vanshmack@Apr 21 2004, 07:21 PM
A couple thousand jobs lost to a foreign employer is nothing compared to what will happen in this country if the Feds continue to give imports ANOTHER advantage. Lost market share translates into lost jobs, and 1 in 9 people in this country has work that has SOMETHING to do with the auto industry.
If they are going to be treated / considered on equal ground with domestic companies, they need to move their headquarters and half of their engineering to the US (set up a division like GM's Opel or Holden) - at least Honda pulls in 90% of its profit from the US market alone - then takes a huge chunk of that cash home. As I've pointed out in other posts, I've reaped the rewards of sitting in on extravagant dinner entertainment in Tokyo paid in part by American car sales profits. It's probably what soured me to at least a couple of Japanese makers.Originally posted by Hudson@Apr 22 2004, 09:06 AM
Honda, Toyota, and Nissan ARE employing that many people.
Uhh, so what you're saying is, the import brands directly and indirectly employ as many Americans as the the domestics? Let's see, based on your figures, the imports build roughly 1.2 million vehicles here. No small number, certainly, but a fraction of what the Big Three build in this country. Basically, your argument is without merit.Originally posted by Hudson@Apr 22 2004, 09:06 AM
Honda, Toyota, and Nissan ARE employing that many people. Add to it the multiplier effect that each assembly plant job has dozens of supplier jobs tied to it. Toyota and Nissan (and now Honda) have created an automotive corridor in the Southeast that employs tens-of-thousands. Toyota makes over 400k vehicles a year in Kentucky. Nissan makes 500k vehicles a year in Tennesse an another 150k in Mississippi. Honda makes 150k in Alabama. All of these vehicles have some 70% or more North American content...parts supplied by companies based in the US or Canada.
If Nissan doesn't get this exemption, they will place their next plant somewhere else (probably Japan) or supply more parts from countries outside of North America. Either way, its a LONG TERM loss of jobs. Once you invest in production, it takes a number of years to pay off that investment which means years go by before you can put those jobs somewhere else.
It makes perfect sense to grant this to Nissan. GM sent jobs to China to supply engines to the Equinox....were you guys complaining then? How about the Australian-sourced 3.6L V6? Or the V6 in the Saturn L-Series from England? Or the Korean-sourced Chevrolet Aveo (replacing the North American-built Metro)? All Nissan vehicles built in North America have North American-sourced engines...meaning Americans build the engines from mostly American-sourced parts (more American jobs). How many Americans build the 3.4L V6 for the Equinox?
So, because an American corporation makes a profit, that automatically is good for the economy in general? In other words, if tomorrow US company X closed all US plants and engineering studios in the US, then shipped the jobs overseas, because they are a company based in the US I should buy a company X product, and that will help the American economy? That is the part of your argument I can't seem to follow.GM builds engines in China because Shanghai GM has the capacity to do so, and they're are selling a TON of vehicles to the Chinese market. Australian-sourced parts are nothing new to GM, as they've been doing ot for years. Either way, the profits come back here.
Your example is in the extreme, and of course it would be a problem for the US economy if the scenario you describe occured. But that is not the scenario here. GM builds a huge percentage of their home market stuff in North America, so there's little chance of GM sending all their res-dev-manufacturing to India and Mexico. All I'm saying is, what is good for US industry is good for the economy.Originally posted by cyboexpo2002@Apr 22 2004, 02:28 PM
So, because an American corporation makes a profit, that automatically is good for the economy in general? In other words, if tomorrow US company X closed all US plants and engineering studios in the US, then shipped the jobs overseas, because they are a company based in the US I should buy a company X product, and that will help the American economy? That is the part of your argument I can't seem to follow.GM builds engines in China because Shanghai GM has the capacity to do so, and they're are selling a TON of vehicles to the Chinese market. Australian-sourced parts are nothing new to GM, as they've been doing ot for years. Either way, the profits come back here.
The rest of what you say I do agree with.
If they are going to be treated / considered on equal ground with domestic companies, they need to move their headquarters and half of their engineering to the US (set up a division like GM's Opel or Holden) - at least Honda pulls in 90% of its profit from the US market alone - then takes a huge chunk of that cash home.... [/b][/quote]Originally posted by Ming+Apr 22 2004, 09:20 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ming @ Apr 22 2004, 09:20 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Hudson@Apr 22 2004, 09:06 AM
Honda, Toyota, and Nissan ARE employing that many people.
Uhh.....I'm NOT saying that they employ the same number of people. The "new Domestics" produce a sizable number of vehicles in North America, but GM still produces about 31% of North America's vehicle output. Through early April, GM produced 31% of all North American-built vehicles...while the "transplants" (not including Mercedes-Benz, considered part of DaimlerChrysler...which, for this argument, I'm listing as a "domestic") built just over 29% of all vehicles. That's more than Ford...but a sizable margin. Honda alone made 7.5% of all vehicles. Combine Toyota, Nissan, and Honda...and now you have the third largest manufacturer of vehicles in North America...a group who will shortly pass Ford and become number 2.Originally posted by vanshmack@Apr 22 2004, 01:53 PM
Uhh, so what you're saying is, the import brands directly and indirectly employ as many Americans as the the domestics? Let's see, based on your figures, the imports build roughly 1.2 million vehicles here. No small number, certainly, but a fraction of what the Big Three build in this country. Basically, your argument is without merit.
Secondly, you're trying to compare GM sourcing vehicles and engines from it's global divisions to Nissan receiving favoritism from our government. You're not making any sense here.
- GM does not receive emissions and fuel economy exemptions, tax breaks, etc. from the Japanese. True, GM does not build cars in Japan, mainly because of the the protectionist trade policied embraced by the Japanese government. They don't want us selling cars there, nor do they want us building cars there.
- GM sources engines and vehicles from their overseas divisions that are quite simply not available here. GM builds engines in China because Shanghai GM has the capacity to do so, and they're are selling a TON of vehicles to the Chinese market. Australian-sourced parts are nothing new to GM, as they've been doing ot for years. Either way, the profits come back here. I can tell you that GM has not gone to the governments of these two nations and said, "We need an exemption for XXXX, give it to us or we're going to build YYYY somewhere else!" This is what Nissan did, and it's flat out wrong. Let them go!
While we're at it, what about the dumping the Japanese makers have been doing for the past 20 years? Believe me, this would stop if there was an import tariff slapped on every vehicle sold by a Japanese manufacturer in the US. I'm all for protectionist measures if they are being used to combat unfaor protectionist policy.