Detroit Vs Japan
#111
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Detroit Vs Japan
Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
> But since labor costs are still so low in many countries, it's no wonder
> why businesses (and not just American businesses) are shifting production
> to those countries.
And you view this as a good thing? It started with union jobs in the 70's
and early 80's. Those union guys just made too much money. Then, the
non-union jobs started going overseas in the 1980's. In the 1990's the
floodgates were opened up to moving the manufacturing jobs into Mexico
(remember that big sucking sound Ross Pero referred to?). Then, in the
2000's, the white collar computer jobs moved to India, and the flood of
Mexicans came in to replace construction workers in this country. I got
news for you: Your job is next. Be afraid...be very afraid... What's scary
is that the Republicans and talk radio are trying to convince us this is a
good thing. Even scarier is that some people believe it! Don't get me
wrong, I'm very much conservative. However, this is something that I cannot
agree with.
> As far as the Japanese building a better car, I think among major auto
> manufacturers the quality gap is so small now that it's a crap shoot in
> trying to determine who builds a "better" car.
This is very true today. You almost have to take it on a model by model
basis.
> In the 70's and 80's, it
> was easier to measure since compared to Japanese imports, American cars of
> that time were overpriced, gas-guzzling, often-repaired, poorly-built
> piles of crap.
Yeah, American cars weren't as good in the 70's as they were in the 60's or
today. However, Toyotas and Hondas weren't especially good either. I still
see 1970s era American cars running around. I don't mean collector cars,
either. I mean daily drivers. I couldn't tell you the last time I saw a
1978 Honda or Toyota of any model. Don't you think that if they were built
so well that there would still be some running around on the roads
somewhere? I think a lot of it was hype. Some of it was true, but a lot of
it was hype...
> But the industry adjusted and stepped up their game to
> match the Japanese. Nowadays, the quality gap is more public perception
> than a quantified, measurable phenomenon.
True.
> And on that note, it's interesting to see that many parts on my Ford
> products and TJ are assembled in Mexico...my next-door neighbor, a German
> with a Mexican wife, works for an international OEM auto supplier, with
> plants in Mexico, France, Germany, UK, and USA (he currently works as
> production manager at the US plant here in Michigan). When the TJ when it
> was introduced, his company made the anti-sway bar assemblies at their
> Mexico plant, which is where he was stationed at the time. The company
> supplies parts (mainly insulation and acoustic panels) for every major
> carmarker in the world.
This is why it's less important to worry about whether the vehicle is GM,
Ford, or Chrysler(ahem...DaimlerChrysler) and consider whether it was US
built at all. I'm more of a Big 3 fan than anything, but if they want to
build everything in Mexico, then give me a Toyota made in nearby
Georgetown, KY...
--
Registered Linux user #378193
> But since labor costs are still so low in many countries, it's no wonder
> why businesses (and not just American businesses) are shifting production
> to those countries.
And you view this as a good thing? It started with union jobs in the 70's
and early 80's. Those union guys just made too much money. Then, the
non-union jobs started going overseas in the 1980's. In the 1990's the
floodgates were opened up to moving the manufacturing jobs into Mexico
(remember that big sucking sound Ross Pero referred to?). Then, in the
2000's, the white collar computer jobs moved to India, and the flood of
Mexicans came in to replace construction workers in this country. I got
news for you: Your job is next. Be afraid...be very afraid... What's scary
is that the Republicans and talk radio are trying to convince us this is a
good thing. Even scarier is that some people believe it! Don't get me
wrong, I'm very much conservative. However, this is something that I cannot
agree with.
> As far as the Japanese building a better car, I think among major auto
> manufacturers the quality gap is so small now that it's a crap shoot in
> trying to determine who builds a "better" car.
This is very true today. You almost have to take it on a model by model
basis.
> In the 70's and 80's, it
> was easier to measure since compared to Japanese imports, American cars of
> that time were overpriced, gas-guzzling, often-repaired, poorly-built
> piles of crap.
Yeah, American cars weren't as good in the 70's as they were in the 60's or
today. However, Toyotas and Hondas weren't especially good either. I still
see 1970s era American cars running around. I don't mean collector cars,
either. I mean daily drivers. I couldn't tell you the last time I saw a
1978 Honda or Toyota of any model. Don't you think that if they were built
so well that there would still be some running around on the roads
somewhere? I think a lot of it was hype. Some of it was true, but a lot of
it was hype...
> But the industry adjusted and stepped up their game to
> match the Japanese. Nowadays, the quality gap is more public perception
> than a quantified, measurable phenomenon.
True.
> And on that note, it's interesting to see that many parts on my Ford
> products and TJ are assembled in Mexico...my next-door neighbor, a German
> with a Mexican wife, works for an international OEM auto supplier, with
> plants in Mexico, France, Germany, UK, and USA (he currently works as
> production manager at the US plant here in Michigan). When the TJ when it
> was introduced, his company made the anti-sway bar assemblies at their
> Mexico plant, which is where he was stationed at the time. The company
> supplies parts (mainly insulation and acoustic panels) for every major
> carmarker in the world.
This is why it's less important to worry about whether the vehicle is GM,
Ford, or Chrysler(ahem...DaimlerChrysler) and consider whether it was US
built at all. I'm more of a Big 3 fan than anything, but if they want to
build everything in Mexico, then give me a Toyota made in nearby
Georgetown, KY...
--
Registered Linux user #378193
#112
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Detroit Vs Japan
Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
> But since labor costs are still so low in many countries, it's no wonder
> why businesses (and not just American businesses) are shifting production
> to those countries.
And you view this as a good thing? It started with union jobs in the 70's
and early 80's. Those union guys just made too much money. Then, the
non-union jobs started going overseas in the 1980's. In the 1990's the
floodgates were opened up to moving the manufacturing jobs into Mexico
(remember that big sucking sound Ross Pero referred to?). Then, in the
2000's, the white collar computer jobs moved to India, and the flood of
Mexicans came in to replace construction workers in this country. I got
news for you: Your job is next. Be afraid...be very afraid... What's scary
is that the Republicans and talk radio are trying to convince us this is a
good thing. Even scarier is that some people believe it! Don't get me
wrong, I'm very much conservative. However, this is something that I cannot
agree with.
> As far as the Japanese building a better car, I think among major auto
> manufacturers the quality gap is so small now that it's a crap shoot in
> trying to determine who builds a "better" car.
This is very true today. You almost have to take it on a model by model
basis.
> In the 70's and 80's, it
> was easier to measure since compared to Japanese imports, American cars of
> that time were overpriced, gas-guzzling, often-repaired, poorly-built
> piles of crap.
Yeah, American cars weren't as good in the 70's as they were in the 60's or
today. However, Toyotas and Hondas weren't especially good either. I still
see 1970s era American cars running around. I don't mean collector cars,
either. I mean daily drivers. I couldn't tell you the last time I saw a
1978 Honda or Toyota of any model. Don't you think that if they were built
so well that there would still be some running around on the roads
somewhere? I think a lot of it was hype. Some of it was true, but a lot of
it was hype...
> But the industry adjusted and stepped up their game to
> match the Japanese. Nowadays, the quality gap is more public perception
> than a quantified, measurable phenomenon.
True.
> And on that note, it's interesting to see that many parts on my Ford
> products and TJ are assembled in Mexico...my next-door neighbor, a German
> with a Mexican wife, works for an international OEM auto supplier, with
> plants in Mexico, France, Germany, UK, and USA (he currently works as
> production manager at the US plant here in Michigan). When the TJ when it
> was introduced, his company made the anti-sway bar assemblies at their
> Mexico plant, which is where he was stationed at the time. The company
> supplies parts (mainly insulation and acoustic panels) for every major
> carmarker in the world.
This is why it's less important to worry about whether the vehicle is GM,
Ford, or Chrysler(ahem...DaimlerChrysler) and consider whether it was US
built at all. I'm more of a Big 3 fan than anything, but if they want to
build everything in Mexico, then give me a Toyota made in nearby
Georgetown, KY...
--
Registered Linux user #378193
> But since labor costs are still so low in many countries, it's no wonder
> why businesses (and not just American businesses) are shifting production
> to those countries.
And you view this as a good thing? It started with union jobs in the 70's
and early 80's. Those union guys just made too much money. Then, the
non-union jobs started going overseas in the 1980's. In the 1990's the
floodgates were opened up to moving the manufacturing jobs into Mexico
(remember that big sucking sound Ross Pero referred to?). Then, in the
2000's, the white collar computer jobs moved to India, and the flood of
Mexicans came in to replace construction workers in this country. I got
news for you: Your job is next. Be afraid...be very afraid... What's scary
is that the Republicans and talk radio are trying to convince us this is a
good thing. Even scarier is that some people believe it! Don't get me
wrong, I'm very much conservative. However, this is something that I cannot
agree with.
> As far as the Japanese building a better car, I think among major auto
> manufacturers the quality gap is so small now that it's a crap shoot in
> trying to determine who builds a "better" car.
This is very true today. You almost have to take it on a model by model
basis.
> In the 70's and 80's, it
> was easier to measure since compared to Japanese imports, American cars of
> that time were overpriced, gas-guzzling, often-repaired, poorly-built
> piles of crap.
Yeah, American cars weren't as good in the 70's as they were in the 60's or
today. However, Toyotas and Hondas weren't especially good either. I still
see 1970s era American cars running around. I don't mean collector cars,
either. I mean daily drivers. I couldn't tell you the last time I saw a
1978 Honda or Toyota of any model. Don't you think that if they were built
so well that there would still be some running around on the roads
somewhere? I think a lot of it was hype. Some of it was true, but a lot of
it was hype...
> But the industry adjusted and stepped up their game to
> match the Japanese. Nowadays, the quality gap is more public perception
> than a quantified, measurable phenomenon.
True.
> And on that note, it's interesting to see that many parts on my Ford
> products and TJ are assembled in Mexico...my next-door neighbor, a German
> with a Mexican wife, works for an international OEM auto supplier, with
> plants in Mexico, France, Germany, UK, and USA (he currently works as
> production manager at the US plant here in Michigan). When the TJ when it
> was introduced, his company made the anti-sway bar assemblies at their
> Mexico plant, which is where he was stationed at the time. The company
> supplies parts (mainly insulation and acoustic panels) for every major
> carmarker in the world.
This is why it's less important to worry about whether the vehicle is GM,
Ford, or Chrysler(ahem...DaimlerChrysler) and consider whether it was US
built at all. I'm more of a Big 3 fan than anything, but if they want to
build everything in Mexico, then give me a Toyota made in nearby
Georgetown, KY...
--
Registered Linux user #378193
#113
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Detroit Vs Japan
Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
> But since labor costs are still so low in many countries, it's no wonder
> why businesses (and not just American businesses) are shifting production
> to those countries.
And you view this as a good thing? It started with union jobs in the 70's
and early 80's. Those union guys just made too much money. Then, the
non-union jobs started going overseas in the 1980's. In the 1990's the
floodgates were opened up to moving the manufacturing jobs into Mexico
(remember that big sucking sound Ross Pero referred to?). Then, in the
2000's, the white collar computer jobs moved to India, and the flood of
Mexicans came in to replace construction workers in this country. I got
news for you: Your job is next. Be afraid...be very afraid... What's scary
is that the Republicans and talk radio are trying to convince us this is a
good thing. Even scarier is that some people believe it! Don't get me
wrong, I'm very much conservative. However, this is something that I cannot
agree with.
> As far as the Japanese building a better car, I think among major auto
> manufacturers the quality gap is so small now that it's a crap shoot in
> trying to determine who builds a "better" car.
This is very true today. You almost have to take it on a model by model
basis.
> In the 70's and 80's, it
> was easier to measure since compared to Japanese imports, American cars of
> that time were overpriced, gas-guzzling, often-repaired, poorly-built
> piles of crap.
Yeah, American cars weren't as good in the 70's as they were in the 60's or
today. However, Toyotas and Hondas weren't especially good either. I still
see 1970s era American cars running around. I don't mean collector cars,
either. I mean daily drivers. I couldn't tell you the last time I saw a
1978 Honda or Toyota of any model. Don't you think that if they were built
so well that there would still be some running around on the roads
somewhere? I think a lot of it was hype. Some of it was true, but a lot of
it was hype...
> But the industry adjusted and stepped up their game to
> match the Japanese. Nowadays, the quality gap is more public perception
> than a quantified, measurable phenomenon.
True.
> And on that note, it's interesting to see that many parts on my Ford
> products and TJ are assembled in Mexico...my next-door neighbor, a German
> with a Mexican wife, works for an international OEM auto supplier, with
> plants in Mexico, France, Germany, UK, and USA (he currently works as
> production manager at the US plant here in Michigan). When the TJ when it
> was introduced, his company made the anti-sway bar assemblies at their
> Mexico plant, which is where he was stationed at the time. The company
> supplies parts (mainly insulation and acoustic panels) for every major
> carmarker in the world.
This is why it's less important to worry about whether the vehicle is GM,
Ford, or Chrysler(ahem...DaimlerChrysler) and consider whether it was US
built at all. I'm more of a Big 3 fan than anything, but if they want to
build everything in Mexico, then give me a Toyota made in nearby
Georgetown, KY...
--
Registered Linux user #378193
> But since labor costs are still so low in many countries, it's no wonder
> why businesses (and not just American businesses) are shifting production
> to those countries.
And you view this as a good thing? It started with union jobs in the 70's
and early 80's. Those union guys just made too much money. Then, the
non-union jobs started going overseas in the 1980's. In the 1990's the
floodgates were opened up to moving the manufacturing jobs into Mexico
(remember that big sucking sound Ross Pero referred to?). Then, in the
2000's, the white collar computer jobs moved to India, and the flood of
Mexicans came in to replace construction workers in this country. I got
news for you: Your job is next. Be afraid...be very afraid... What's scary
is that the Republicans and talk radio are trying to convince us this is a
good thing. Even scarier is that some people believe it! Don't get me
wrong, I'm very much conservative. However, this is something that I cannot
agree with.
> As far as the Japanese building a better car, I think among major auto
> manufacturers the quality gap is so small now that it's a crap shoot in
> trying to determine who builds a "better" car.
This is very true today. You almost have to take it on a model by model
basis.
> In the 70's and 80's, it
> was easier to measure since compared to Japanese imports, American cars of
> that time were overpriced, gas-guzzling, often-repaired, poorly-built
> piles of crap.
Yeah, American cars weren't as good in the 70's as they were in the 60's or
today. However, Toyotas and Hondas weren't especially good either. I still
see 1970s era American cars running around. I don't mean collector cars,
either. I mean daily drivers. I couldn't tell you the last time I saw a
1978 Honda or Toyota of any model. Don't you think that if they were built
so well that there would still be some running around on the roads
somewhere? I think a lot of it was hype. Some of it was true, but a lot of
it was hype...
> But the industry adjusted and stepped up their game to
> match the Japanese. Nowadays, the quality gap is more public perception
> than a quantified, measurable phenomenon.
True.
> And on that note, it's interesting to see that many parts on my Ford
> products and TJ are assembled in Mexico...my next-door neighbor, a German
> with a Mexican wife, works for an international OEM auto supplier, with
> plants in Mexico, France, Germany, UK, and USA (he currently works as
> production manager at the US plant here in Michigan). When the TJ when it
> was introduced, his company made the anti-sway bar assemblies at their
> Mexico plant, which is where he was stationed at the time. The company
> supplies parts (mainly insulation and acoustic panels) for every major
> carmarker in the world.
This is why it's less important to worry about whether the vehicle is GM,
Ford, or Chrysler(ahem...DaimlerChrysler) and consider whether it was US
built at all. I'm more of a Big 3 fan than anything, but if they want to
build everything in Mexico, then give me a Toyota made in nearby
Georgetown, KY...
--
Registered Linux user #378193
#114
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Detroit Vs Japan
"Ruel Smith" <NoWay@NoWhere.com> wrote in message
news:85676$42950ae9$4275e534$18629@FUSE.NET...
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>
>> But since labor costs are still so low in many countries, it's no wonder
>> why businesses (and not just American businesses) are shifting production
>> to those countries.
>
> And you view this as a good thing?
No, but it is happening, and eventually there will be a paradigm shift in
education in the US to adjust to it. In the late 19th century, while the US
was shifting from a agricultural society to an industrial society, farming
become more automated and many farmhands with a sixth-grade education found
themselves out of work. The early 20th centrury saw a national priority to
increase education for the labor force to make them more employable, hence
high school attendance was made universal. Now we are on the cusp of another
educational prioriy...a high school education won't be enough to compete
globally, and two years minimum of post high school study will be
necessarily universal in the next twenty years or so.
Then, in the
> 2000's, the white collar computer jobs moved to India, and the flood of
> Mexicans came in to replace construction workers in this country. I got
> news for you: Your job is next.
I'm self-employed, but that makes little difference to a lot of
self-employed people, depending on what they do...
Be afraid...be very afraid... What's scary
> is that the Republicans and talk radio are trying to convince us this is a
> good thing. Even scarier is that some people believe it! Don't get me
> wrong, I'm very much conservative. However, this is something that I
> cannot
> agree with.
Big business loves this trend. Like all socioecononomic shifts, there will
be some that will be left behind. You want to stay employed...the emphasis
will be to stay employable.
>
> Yeah, American cars weren't as good in the 70's as they were in the 60's
> or
> today. However, Toyotas and Hondas weren't especially good either. I still
> see 1970s era American cars running around. I don't mean collector cars,
> either. I mean daily drivers. I couldn't tell you the last time I saw a
> 1978 Honda or Toyota of any model. Don't you think that if they were built
> so well that there would still be some running around on the roads
> somewhere? I think a lot of it was hype. Some of it was true, but a lot of
> it was hype...
I see your point...I think a lot of it was in the gas crunch of the 70's
people wanted smaller, fuel efficient cars, and the domestics really didn't
have much to offer, while almost every Japanese car was small and fuel
efficient, quality notwithstanding. That really opened the floodgates and
the quality improvement perception came later as they built up market share
and the domestics' quality stagnated through the early 80's.
#115
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Detroit Vs Japan
"Ruel Smith" <NoWay@NoWhere.com> wrote in message
news:85676$42950ae9$4275e534$18629@FUSE.NET...
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>
>> But since labor costs are still so low in many countries, it's no wonder
>> why businesses (and not just American businesses) are shifting production
>> to those countries.
>
> And you view this as a good thing?
No, but it is happening, and eventually there will be a paradigm shift in
education in the US to adjust to it. In the late 19th century, while the US
was shifting from a agricultural society to an industrial society, farming
become more automated and many farmhands with a sixth-grade education found
themselves out of work. The early 20th centrury saw a national priority to
increase education for the labor force to make them more employable, hence
high school attendance was made universal. Now we are on the cusp of another
educational prioriy...a high school education won't be enough to compete
globally, and two years minimum of post high school study will be
necessarily universal in the next twenty years or so.
Then, in the
> 2000's, the white collar computer jobs moved to India, and the flood of
> Mexicans came in to replace construction workers in this country. I got
> news for you: Your job is next.
I'm self-employed, but that makes little difference to a lot of
self-employed people, depending on what they do...
Be afraid...be very afraid... What's scary
> is that the Republicans and talk radio are trying to convince us this is a
> good thing. Even scarier is that some people believe it! Don't get me
> wrong, I'm very much conservative. However, this is something that I
> cannot
> agree with.
Big business loves this trend. Like all socioecononomic shifts, there will
be some that will be left behind. You want to stay employed...the emphasis
will be to stay employable.
>
> Yeah, American cars weren't as good in the 70's as they were in the 60's
> or
> today. However, Toyotas and Hondas weren't especially good either. I still
> see 1970s era American cars running around. I don't mean collector cars,
> either. I mean daily drivers. I couldn't tell you the last time I saw a
> 1978 Honda or Toyota of any model. Don't you think that if they were built
> so well that there would still be some running around on the roads
> somewhere? I think a lot of it was hype. Some of it was true, but a lot of
> it was hype...
I see your point...I think a lot of it was in the gas crunch of the 70's
people wanted smaller, fuel efficient cars, and the domestics really didn't
have much to offer, while almost every Japanese car was small and fuel
efficient, quality notwithstanding. That really opened the floodgates and
the quality improvement perception came later as they built up market share
and the domestics' quality stagnated through the early 80's.
#116
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Detroit Vs Japan
"Ruel Smith" <NoWay@NoWhere.com> wrote in message
news:85676$42950ae9$4275e534$18629@FUSE.NET...
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>
>> But since labor costs are still so low in many countries, it's no wonder
>> why businesses (and not just American businesses) are shifting production
>> to those countries.
>
> And you view this as a good thing?
No, but it is happening, and eventually there will be a paradigm shift in
education in the US to adjust to it. In the late 19th century, while the US
was shifting from a agricultural society to an industrial society, farming
become more automated and many farmhands with a sixth-grade education found
themselves out of work. The early 20th centrury saw a national priority to
increase education for the labor force to make them more employable, hence
high school attendance was made universal. Now we are on the cusp of another
educational prioriy...a high school education won't be enough to compete
globally, and two years minimum of post high school study will be
necessarily universal in the next twenty years or so.
Then, in the
> 2000's, the white collar computer jobs moved to India, and the flood of
> Mexicans came in to replace construction workers in this country. I got
> news for you: Your job is next.
I'm self-employed, but that makes little difference to a lot of
self-employed people, depending on what they do...
Be afraid...be very afraid... What's scary
> is that the Republicans and talk radio are trying to convince us this is a
> good thing. Even scarier is that some people believe it! Don't get me
> wrong, I'm very much conservative. However, this is something that I
> cannot
> agree with.
Big business loves this trend. Like all socioecononomic shifts, there will
be some that will be left behind. You want to stay employed...the emphasis
will be to stay employable.
>
> Yeah, American cars weren't as good in the 70's as they were in the 60's
> or
> today. However, Toyotas and Hondas weren't especially good either. I still
> see 1970s era American cars running around. I don't mean collector cars,
> either. I mean daily drivers. I couldn't tell you the last time I saw a
> 1978 Honda or Toyota of any model. Don't you think that if they were built
> so well that there would still be some running around on the roads
> somewhere? I think a lot of it was hype. Some of it was true, but a lot of
> it was hype...
I see your point...I think a lot of it was in the gas crunch of the 70's
people wanted smaller, fuel efficient cars, and the domestics really didn't
have much to offer, while almost every Japanese car was small and fuel
efficient, quality notwithstanding. That really opened the floodgates and
the quality improvement perception came later as they built up market share
and the domestics' quality stagnated through the early 80's.
#117
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Detroit Vs Japan
"Ruel Smith" <NoWay@NoWhere.com> wrote in message
news:85676$42950ae9$4275e534$18629@FUSE.NET...
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>
>> But since labor costs are still so low in many countries, it's no wonder
>> why businesses (and not just American businesses) are shifting production
>> to those countries.
>
> And you view this as a good thing?
No, but it is happening, and eventually there will be a paradigm shift in
education in the US to adjust to it. In the late 19th century, while the US
was shifting from a agricultural society to an industrial society, farming
become more automated and many farmhands with a sixth-grade education found
themselves out of work. The early 20th centrury saw a national priority to
increase education for the labor force to make them more employable, hence
high school attendance was made universal. Now we are on the cusp of another
educational prioriy...a high school education won't be enough to compete
globally, and two years minimum of post high school study will be
necessarily universal in the next twenty years or so.
Then, in the
> 2000's, the white collar computer jobs moved to India, and the flood of
> Mexicans came in to replace construction workers in this country. I got
> news for you: Your job is next.
I'm self-employed, but that makes little difference to a lot of
self-employed people, depending on what they do...
Be afraid...be very afraid... What's scary
> is that the Republicans and talk radio are trying to convince us this is a
> good thing. Even scarier is that some people believe it! Don't get me
> wrong, I'm very much conservative. However, this is something that I
> cannot
> agree with.
Big business loves this trend. Like all socioecononomic shifts, there will
be some that will be left behind. You want to stay employed...the emphasis
will be to stay employable.
>
> Yeah, American cars weren't as good in the 70's as they were in the 60's
> or
> today. However, Toyotas and Hondas weren't especially good either. I still
> see 1970s era American cars running around. I don't mean collector cars,
> either. I mean daily drivers. I couldn't tell you the last time I saw a
> 1978 Honda or Toyota of any model. Don't you think that if they were built
> so well that there would still be some running around on the roads
> somewhere? I think a lot of it was hype. Some of it was true, but a lot of
> it was hype...
I see your point...I think a lot of it was in the gas crunch of the 70's
people wanted smaller, fuel efficient cars, and the domestics really didn't
have much to offer, while almost every Japanese car was small and fuel
efficient, quality notwithstanding. That really opened the floodgates and
the quality improvement perception came later as they built up market share
and the domestics' quality stagnated through the early 80's.
#118
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Detroit Vs Japan
Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>>> But since labor costs are still so low in many countries, it's no wonder
>>> why businesses (and not just American businesses) are shifting
>>> production to those countries.
>>
>> And you view this as a good thing?
>
> No, but it is happening, and eventually there will be a paradigm shift in
> education in the US to adjust to it. In the late 19th century, while the
> US was shifting from a agricultural society to an industrial society,
> farming become more automated and many farmhands with a sixth-grade
> education found themselves out of work. The early 20th centrury saw a
> national priority to increase education for the labor force to make them
> more employable, hence high school attendance was made universal. Now we
> are on the cusp of another educational prioriy...a high school education
> won't be enough to compete globally, and two years minimum of post high
> school study will be necessarily universal in the next twenty years or so.
Education has nothing to do with it. Here's the problem: For the US to
compete globally, we need tangible goods to sell. Education does nothing to
give us those tangible goods to sell to the world. Someone has to actually
produce them. In the late 1980's, Pres. Bush declared that he wanted to
push the transition of the US to a service oriented society, which is the
last stage defined by Karl Marx in the evolution of a society's economy.
This has been the fundemental shift that has been happening since the early
1980's, where we've gradually gone to making more and more goods outside
the US. There has been a push to become more of a global marketplace and a
global economy. The problem with this is that you have to have something to
sell to the world. At first, you'd think that we'd sell our services of our
expertise. Well, the shift of computer related jobs to India has shown that
that type of work can be exported a lot easier than moving an entire
production plant. Now, once that knowledge has been gained by foreign
countries, what else do we have to sell to the world? If we've become a
society that is too expensive to employ, we then don't have any hard goods
to sell. We then face economic collapse. When it becomes too easy to
replace you with someone on another continent for a lot less, then we're
doomed.
The US is something like 1/3 the entire world consumer market, and roughly
the size of the entire european continent combined. However, if we keep
trying to cut costs by eliminating jobs by sending them outside our
borders, or replacing them with foreign immigrants who pay no taxes, and
the government subsidizing such action, we'll find ourselves in desperate
times. For too long, white collar and self-employed people have looked the
other way because it didn't affect them. Well, it's beginning to. Again,
they can ship white collar jobs outside the US far cheaper than they can
move a plant. If the current trend continues, you'll find company
accounting records kept in India, etc..
Self-employed people need to be worried too. As more and more production of
goods is outside the US, larger, more global companies are arising,
stamping out the mom-and-pops and small businesses out of the market
altogether. Witness Walmart. 80% of their goods are produced in foreign
countries, typically in sweat shops. That enables them to sell cheaper, and
runs smaller chains out. This is a disease that we all are catching because
we like to pay less. Again, this country is becoming more out for
themselves to a degree unprecedented. Everyone feels like they deserve
$100,000+ a year, but the next guy gets paid too much for what he does.
We're driving down our collective standard of living, as a result. This way
of thinking is a sinking ship...
> Big business loves this trend. Like all socioecononomic shifts, there will
> be some that will be left behind. You want to stay employed...the emphasis
> will be to stay employable.
Yeah, and like lemmings, we're following this trend...
And when all the tangible goods are made outside the US, accounting,
computer related positions, and just about all white collar work is
exported to India and management only needs a computer readout of the
reports? What then? Is it even possible to stay employable? Doing what?
When enough people can't find work, or cannot earn a decent enough living,
then the market for goods collapses, sending the economy down the toilet
with it to doomsday.
For this country to survive, we need people earning good livings. I don't
just mean a few with college educations, I mean the vast majority of
everyday people. Then, they pay lots of taxes, the government has money to
do its job, and the consumer market flourishes and fuels a booming economy.
Instead, we're trying to rid this country of good paying jobs by exporting
them somewhere else. I heard a local talk radio host claim that we export
low paying jobs and gain high paying jobs in the process. However, I don't
see those jobs lost by GM, Ford, and DC worker to Mexico as being low pay.
I'm telling you...this trend is dangerous for the economy in the long run.
It's good for corporate America, but bad for you and I.
> I see your point...I think a lot of it was in the gas crunch of the 70's
> people wanted smaller, fuel efficient cars, and the domestics really
> didn't have much to offer, while almost every Japanese car was small and
> fuel efficient, quality notwithstanding. That really opened the floodgates
> and the quality improvement perception came later as they built up market
> share and the domestics' quality stagnated through the early 80's.
Yes, it's like Ferrari, BMW, Porsche, Mercedes, etc... Look back into 1970's
at their products. They're far inferior in most ways to American
counterparts of the period. Ferrari's were beautiful cars with kit car
build quality. Mechanically they were unreliable. They weren't all that
impressive performance-wise either. Sure, the snobby will call their
performance "balanced", but a common Chevelle SS would outgun most Ferraris
in an acceleration contest. The one on Magnum PI had a 0-60 time of
something like 9 seconds! The original VW GTi was capable of that. Even the
Corvette during those poor performance years could go faster. Porsche never
even made a fast car until the 1978 911 Turbo was released, and its
performance would have been laughed at between 1967 to 1971. Have you even
seen a 70's era Bimmer or Benz? Most were nothing to look at... There was
nothing special about Mercedes vehicles back then, but somehow in the
1980's we began a love affair with them and that funded them to improve
their product to be where they are now. Same goes for Honda, Toyota, and
Datsun (Nissan). Our need for fuel efficiency provided them with the much
needed funds, combined with their ambitition, led to the admittedly good
products they have now. But back then, there was nothing special about
them. I remember reading an article about a Toyota 2000GT, where they were
so unreliable that the engine needed rebuilt every 60K or something like
that. They got the reliability later, after we funded it.
--
Registered Linux user #378193
>>> But since labor costs are still so low in many countries, it's no wonder
>>> why businesses (and not just American businesses) are shifting
>>> production to those countries.
>>
>> And you view this as a good thing?
>
> No, but it is happening, and eventually there will be a paradigm shift in
> education in the US to adjust to it. In the late 19th century, while the
> US was shifting from a agricultural society to an industrial society,
> farming become more automated and many farmhands with a sixth-grade
> education found themselves out of work. The early 20th centrury saw a
> national priority to increase education for the labor force to make them
> more employable, hence high school attendance was made universal. Now we
> are on the cusp of another educational prioriy...a high school education
> won't be enough to compete globally, and two years minimum of post high
> school study will be necessarily universal in the next twenty years or so.
Education has nothing to do with it. Here's the problem: For the US to
compete globally, we need tangible goods to sell. Education does nothing to
give us those tangible goods to sell to the world. Someone has to actually
produce them. In the late 1980's, Pres. Bush declared that he wanted to
push the transition of the US to a service oriented society, which is the
last stage defined by Karl Marx in the evolution of a society's economy.
This has been the fundemental shift that has been happening since the early
1980's, where we've gradually gone to making more and more goods outside
the US. There has been a push to become more of a global marketplace and a
global economy. The problem with this is that you have to have something to
sell to the world. At first, you'd think that we'd sell our services of our
expertise. Well, the shift of computer related jobs to India has shown that
that type of work can be exported a lot easier than moving an entire
production plant. Now, once that knowledge has been gained by foreign
countries, what else do we have to sell to the world? If we've become a
society that is too expensive to employ, we then don't have any hard goods
to sell. We then face economic collapse. When it becomes too easy to
replace you with someone on another continent for a lot less, then we're
doomed.
The US is something like 1/3 the entire world consumer market, and roughly
the size of the entire european continent combined. However, if we keep
trying to cut costs by eliminating jobs by sending them outside our
borders, or replacing them with foreign immigrants who pay no taxes, and
the government subsidizing such action, we'll find ourselves in desperate
times. For too long, white collar and self-employed people have looked the
other way because it didn't affect them. Well, it's beginning to. Again,
they can ship white collar jobs outside the US far cheaper than they can
move a plant. If the current trend continues, you'll find company
accounting records kept in India, etc..
Self-employed people need to be worried too. As more and more production of
goods is outside the US, larger, more global companies are arising,
stamping out the mom-and-pops and small businesses out of the market
altogether. Witness Walmart. 80% of their goods are produced in foreign
countries, typically in sweat shops. That enables them to sell cheaper, and
runs smaller chains out. This is a disease that we all are catching because
we like to pay less. Again, this country is becoming more out for
themselves to a degree unprecedented. Everyone feels like they deserve
$100,000+ a year, but the next guy gets paid too much for what he does.
We're driving down our collective standard of living, as a result. This way
of thinking is a sinking ship...
> Big business loves this trend. Like all socioecononomic shifts, there will
> be some that will be left behind. You want to stay employed...the emphasis
> will be to stay employable.
Yeah, and like lemmings, we're following this trend...
And when all the tangible goods are made outside the US, accounting,
computer related positions, and just about all white collar work is
exported to India and management only needs a computer readout of the
reports? What then? Is it even possible to stay employable? Doing what?
When enough people can't find work, or cannot earn a decent enough living,
then the market for goods collapses, sending the economy down the toilet
with it to doomsday.
For this country to survive, we need people earning good livings. I don't
just mean a few with college educations, I mean the vast majority of
everyday people. Then, they pay lots of taxes, the government has money to
do its job, and the consumer market flourishes and fuels a booming economy.
Instead, we're trying to rid this country of good paying jobs by exporting
them somewhere else. I heard a local talk radio host claim that we export
low paying jobs and gain high paying jobs in the process. However, I don't
see those jobs lost by GM, Ford, and DC worker to Mexico as being low pay.
I'm telling you...this trend is dangerous for the economy in the long run.
It's good for corporate America, but bad for you and I.
> I see your point...I think a lot of it was in the gas crunch of the 70's
> people wanted smaller, fuel efficient cars, and the domestics really
> didn't have much to offer, while almost every Japanese car was small and
> fuel efficient, quality notwithstanding. That really opened the floodgates
> and the quality improvement perception came later as they built up market
> share and the domestics' quality stagnated through the early 80's.
Yes, it's like Ferrari, BMW, Porsche, Mercedes, etc... Look back into 1970's
at their products. They're far inferior in most ways to American
counterparts of the period. Ferrari's were beautiful cars with kit car
build quality. Mechanically they were unreliable. They weren't all that
impressive performance-wise either. Sure, the snobby will call their
performance "balanced", but a common Chevelle SS would outgun most Ferraris
in an acceleration contest. The one on Magnum PI had a 0-60 time of
something like 9 seconds! The original VW GTi was capable of that. Even the
Corvette during those poor performance years could go faster. Porsche never
even made a fast car until the 1978 911 Turbo was released, and its
performance would have been laughed at between 1967 to 1971. Have you even
seen a 70's era Bimmer or Benz? Most were nothing to look at... There was
nothing special about Mercedes vehicles back then, but somehow in the
1980's we began a love affair with them and that funded them to improve
their product to be where they are now. Same goes for Honda, Toyota, and
Datsun (Nissan). Our need for fuel efficiency provided them with the much
needed funds, combined with their ambitition, led to the admittedly good
products they have now. But back then, there was nothing special about
them. I remember reading an article about a Toyota 2000GT, where they were
so unreliable that the engine needed rebuilt every 60K or something like
that. They got the reliability later, after we funded it.
--
Registered Linux user #378193
#119
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Detroit Vs Japan
Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>>> But since labor costs are still so low in many countries, it's no wonder
>>> why businesses (and not just American businesses) are shifting
>>> production to those countries.
>>
>> And you view this as a good thing?
>
> No, but it is happening, and eventually there will be a paradigm shift in
> education in the US to adjust to it. In the late 19th century, while the
> US was shifting from a agricultural society to an industrial society,
> farming become more automated and many farmhands with a sixth-grade
> education found themselves out of work. The early 20th centrury saw a
> national priority to increase education for the labor force to make them
> more employable, hence high school attendance was made universal. Now we
> are on the cusp of another educational prioriy...a high school education
> won't be enough to compete globally, and two years minimum of post high
> school study will be necessarily universal in the next twenty years or so.
Education has nothing to do with it. Here's the problem: For the US to
compete globally, we need tangible goods to sell. Education does nothing to
give us those tangible goods to sell to the world. Someone has to actually
produce them. In the late 1980's, Pres. Bush declared that he wanted to
push the transition of the US to a service oriented society, which is the
last stage defined by Karl Marx in the evolution of a society's economy.
This has been the fundemental shift that has been happening since the early
1980's, where we've gradually gone to making more and more goods outside
the US. There has been a push to become more of a global marketplace and a
global economy. The problem with this is that you have to have something to
sell to the world. At first, you'd think that we'd sell our services of our
expertise. Well, the shift of computer related jobs to India has shown that
that type of work can be exported a lot easier than moving an entire
production plant. Now, once that knowledge has been gained by foreign
countries, what else do we have to sell to the world? If we've become a
society that is too expensive to employ, we then don't have any hard goods
to sell. We then face economic collapse. When it becomes too easy to
replace you with someone on another continent for a lot less, then we're
doomed.
The US is something like 1/3 the entire world consumer market, and roughly
the size of the entire european continent combined. However, if we keep
trying to cut costs by eliminating jobs by sending them outside our
borders, or replacing them with foreign immigrants who pay no taxes, and
the government subsidizing such action, we'll find ourselves in desperate
times. For too long, white collar and self-employed people have looked the
other way because it didn't affect them. Well, it's beginning to. Again,
they can ship white collar jobs outside the US far cheaper than they can
move a plant. If the current trend continues, you'll find company
accounting records kept in India, etc..
Self-employed people need to be worried too. As more and more production of
goods is outside the US, larger, more global companies are arising,
stamping out the mom-and-pops and small businesses out of the market
altogether. Witness Walmart. 80% of their goods are produced in foreign
countries, typically in sweat shops. That enables them to sell cheaper, and
runs smaller chains out. This is a disease that we all are catching because
we like to pay less. Again, this country is becoming more out for
themselves to a degree unprecedented. Everyone feels like they deserve
$100,000+ a year, but the next guy gets paid too much for what he does.
We're driving down our collective standard of living, as a result. This way
of thinking is a sinking ship...
> Big business loves this trend. Like all socioecononomic shifts, there will
> be some that will be left behind. You want to stay employed...the emphasis
> will be to stay employable.
Yeah, and like lemmings, we're following this trend...
And when all the tangible goods are made outside the US, accounting,
computer related positions, and just about all white collar work is
exported to India and management only needs a computer readout of the
reports? What then? Is it even possible to stay employable? Doing what?
When enough people can't find work, or cannot earn a decent enough living,
then the market for goods collapses, sending the economy down the toilet
with it to doomsday.
For this country to survive, we need people earning good livings. I don't
just mean a few with college educations, I mean the vast majority of
everyday people. Then, they pay lots of taxes, the government has money to
do its job, and the consumer market flourishes and fuels a booming economy.
Instead, we're trying to rid this country of good paying jobs by exporting
them somewhere else. I heard a local talk radio host claim that we export
low paying jobs and gain high paying jobs in the process. However, I don't
see those jobs lost by GM, Ford, and DC worker to Mexico as being low pay.
I'm telling you...this trend is dangerous for the economy in the long run.
It's good for corporate America, but bad for you and I.
> I see your point...I think a lot of it was in the gas crunch of the 70's
> people wanted smaller, fuel efficient cars, and the domestics really
> didn't have much to offer, while almost every Japanese car was small and
> fuel efficient, quality notwithstanding. That really opened the floodgates
> and the quality improvement perception came later as they built up market
> share and the domestics' quality stagnated through the early 80's.
Yes, it's like Ferrari, BMW, Porsche, Mercedes, etc... Look back into 1970's
at their products. They're far inferior in most ways to American
counterparts of the period. Ferrari's were beautiful cars with kit car
build quality. Mechanically they were unreliable. They weren't all that
impressive performance-wise either. Sure, the snobby will call their
performance "balanced", but a common Chevelle SS would outgun most Ferraris
in an acceleration contest. The one on Magnum PI had a 0-60 time of
something like 9 seconds! The original VW GTi was capable of that. Even the
Corvette during those poor performance years could go faster. Porsche never
even made a fast car until the 1978 911 Turbo was released, and its
performance would have been laughed at between 1967 to 1971. Have you even
seen a 70's era Bimmer or Benz? Most were nothing to look at... There was
nothing special about Mercedes vehicles back then, but somehow in the
1980's we began a love affair with them and that funded them to improve
their product to be where they are now. Same goes for Honda, Toyota, and
Datsun (Nissan). Our need for fuel efficiency provided them with the much
needed funds, combined with their ambitition, led to the admittedly good
products they have now. But back then, there was nothing special about
them. I remember reading an article about a Toyota 2000GT, where they were
so unreliable that the engine needed rebuilt every 60K or something like
that. They got the reliability later, after we funded it.
--
Registered Linux user #378193
>>> But since labor costs are still so low in many countries, it's no wonder
>>> why businesses (and not just American businesses) are shifting
>>> production to those countries.
>>
>> And you view this as a good thing?
>
> No, but it is happening, and eventually there will be a paradigm shift in
> education in the US to adjust to it. In the late 19th century, while the
> US was shifting from a agricultural society to an industrial society,
> farming become more automated and many farmhands with a sixth-grade
> education found themselves out of work. The early 20th centrury saw a
> national priority to increase education for the labor force to make them
> more employable, hence high school attendance was made universal. Now we
> are on the cusp of another educational prioriy...a high school education
> won't be enough to compete globally, and two years minimum of post high
> school study will be necessarily universal in the next twenty years or so.
Education has nothing to do with it. Here's the problem: For the US to
compete globally, we need tangible goods to sell. Education does nothing to
give us those tangible goods to sell to the world. Someone has to actually
produce them. In the late 1980's, Pres. Bush declared that he wanted to
push the transition of the US to a service oriented society, which is the
last stage defined by Karl Marx in the evolution of a society's economy.
This has been the fundemental shift that has been happening since the early
1980's, where we've gradually gone to making more and more goods outside
the US. There has been a push to become more of a global marketplace and a
global economy. The problem with this is that you have to have something to
sell to the world. At first, you'd think that we'd sell our services of our
expertise. Well, the shift of computer related jobs to India has shown that
that type of work can be exported a lot easier than moving an entire
production plant. Now, once that knowledge has been gained by foreign
countries, what else do we have to sell to the world? If we've become a
society that is too expensive to employ, we then don't have any hard goods
to sell. We then face economic collapse. When it becomes too easy to
replace you with someone on another continent for a lot less, then we're
doomed.
The US is something like 1/3 the entire world consumer market, and roughly
the size of the entire european continent combined. However, if we keep
trying to cut costs by eliminating jobs by sending them outside our
borders, or replacing them with foreign immigrants who pay no taxes, and
the government subsidizing such action, we'll find ourselves in desperate
times. For too long, white collar and self-employed people have looked the
other way because it didn't affect them. Well, it's beginning to. Again,
they can ship white collar jobs outside the US far cheaper than they can
move a plant. If the current trend continues, you'll find company
accounting records kept in India, etc..
Self-employed people need to be worried too. As more and more production of
goods is outside the US, larger, more global companies are arising,
stamping out the mom-and-pops and small businesses out of the market
altogether. Witness Walmart. 80% of their goods are produced in foreign
countries, typically in sweat shops. That enables them to sell cheaper, and
runs smaller chains out. This is a disease that we all are catching because
we like to pay less. Again, this country is becoming more out for
themselves to a degree unprecedented. Everyone feels like they deserve
$100,000+ a year, but the next guy gets paid too much for what he does.
We're driving down our collective standard of living, as a result. This way
of thinking is a sinking ship...
> Big business loves this trend. Like all socioecononomic shifts, there will
> be some that will be left behind. You want to stay employed...the emphasis
> will be to stay employable.
Yeah, and like lemmings, we're following this trend...
And when all the tangible goods are made outside the US, accounting,
computer related positions, and just about all white collar work is
exported to India and management only needs a computer readout of the
reports? What then? Is it even possible to stay employable? Doing what?
When enough people can't find work, or cannot earn a decent enough living,
then the market for goods collapses, sending the economy down the toilet
with it to doomsday.
For this country to survive, we need people earning good livings. I don't
just mean a few with college educations, I mean the vast majority of
everyday people. Then, they pay lots of taxes, the government has money to
do its job, and the consumer market flourishes and fuels a booming economy.
Instead, we're trying to rid this country of good paying jobs by exporting
them somewhere else. I heard a local talk radio host claim that we export
low paying jobs and gain high paying jobs in the process. However, I don't
see those jobs lost by GM, Ford, and DC worker to Mexico as being low pay.
I'm telling you...this trend is dangerous for the economy in the long run.
It's good for corporate America, but bad for you and I.
> I see your point...I think a lot of it was in the gas crunch of the 70's
> people wanted smaller, fuel efficient cars, and the domestics really
> didn't have much to offer, while almost every Japanese car was small and
> fuel efficient, quality notwithstanding. That really opened the floodgates
> and the quality improvement perception came later as they built up market
> share and the domestics' quality stagnated through the early 80's.
Yes, it's like Ferrari, BMW, Porsche, Mercedes, etc... Look back into 1970's
at their products. They're far inferior in most ways to American
counterparts of the period. Ferrari's were beautiful cars with kit car
build quality. Mechanically they were unreliable. They weren't all that
impressive performance-wise either. Sure, the snobby will call their
performance "balanced", but a common Chevelle SS would outgun most Ferraris
in an acceleration contest. The one on Magnum PI had a 0-60 time of
something like 9 seconds! The original VW GTi was capable of that. Even the
Corvette during those poor performance years could go faster. Porsche never
even made a fast car until the 1978 911 Turbo was released, and its
performance would have been laughed at between 1967 to 1971. Have you even
seen a 70's era Bimmer or Benz? Most were nothing to look at... There was
nothing special about Mercedes vehicles back then, but somehow in the
1980's we began a love affair with them and that funded them to improve
their product to be where they are now. Same goes for Honda, Toyota, and
Datsun (Nissan). Our need for fuel efficiency provided them with the much
needed funds, combined with their ambitition, led to the admittedly good
products they have now. But back then, there was nothing special about
them. I remember reading an article about a Toyota 2000GT, where they were
so unreliable that the engine needed rebuilt every 60K or something like
that. They got the reliability later, after we funded it.
--
Registered Linux user #378193
#120
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Detroit Vs Japan
Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>>> But since labor costs are still so low in many countries, it's no wonder
>>> why businesses (and not just American businesses) are shifting
>>> production to those countries.
>>
>> And you view this as a good thing?
>
> No, but it is happening, and eventually there will be a paradigm shift in
> education in the US to adjust to it. In the late 19th century, while the
> US was shifting from a agricultural society to an industrial society,
> farming become more automated and many farmhands with a sixth-grade
> education found themselves out of work. The early 20th centrury saw a
> national priority to increase education for the labor force to make them
> more employable, hence high school attendance was made universal. Now we
> are on the cusp of another educational prioriy...a high school education
> won't be enough to compete globally, and two years minimum of post high
> school study will be necessarily universal in the next twenty years or so.
Education has nothing to do with it. Here's the problem: For the US to
compete globally, we need tangible goods to sell. Education does nothing to
give us those tangible goods to sell to the world. Someone has to actually
produce them. In the late 1980's, Pres. Bush declared that he wanted to
push the transition of the US to a service oriented society, which is the
last stage defined by Karl Marx in the evolution of a society's economy.
This has been the fundemental shift that has been happening since the early
1980's, where we've gradually gone to making more and more goods outside
the US. There has been a push to become more of a global marketplace and a
global economy. The problem with this is that you have to have something to
sell to the world. At first, you'd think that we'd sell our services of our
expertise. Well, the shift of computer related jobs to India has shown that
that type of work can be exported a lot easier than moving an entire
production plant. Now, once that knowledge has been gained by foreign
countries, what else do we have to sell to the world? If we've become a
society that is too expensive to employ, we then don't have any hard goods
to sell. We then face economic collapse. When it becomes too easy to
replace you with someone on another continent for a lot less, then we're
doomed.
The US is something like 1/3 the entire world consumer market, and roughly
the size of the entire european continent combined. However, if we keep
trying to cut costs by eliminating jobs by sending them outside our
borders, or replacing them with foreign immigrants who pay no taxes, and
the government subsidizing such action, we'll find ourselves in desperate
times. For too long, white collar and self-employed people have looked the
other way because it didn't affect them. Well, it's beginning to. Again,
they can ship white collar jobs outside the US far cheaper than they can
move a plant. If the current trend continues, you'll find company
accounting records kept in India, etc..
Self-employed people need to be worried too. As more and more production of
goods is outside the US, larger, more global companies are arising,
stamping out the mom-and-pops and small businesses out of the market
altogether. Witness Walmart. 80% of their goods are produced in foreign
countries, typically in sweat shops. That enables them to sell cheaper, and
runs smaller chains out. This is a disease that we all are catching because
we like to pay less. Again, this country is becoming more out for
themselves to a degree unprecedented. Everyone feels like they deserve
$100,000+ a year, but the next guy gets paid too much for what he does.
We're driving down our collective standard of living, as a result. This way
of thinking is a sinking ship...
> Big business loves this trend. Like all socioecononomic shifts, there will
> be some that will be left behind. You want to stay employed...the emphasis
> will be to stay employable.
Yeah, and like lemmings, we're following this trend...
And when all the tangible goods are made outside the US, accounting,
computer related positions, and just about all white collar work is
exported to India and management only needs a computer readout of the
reports? What then? Is it even possible to stay employable? Doing what?
When enough people can't find work, or cannot earn a decent enough living,
then the market for goods collapses, sending the economy down the toilet
with it to doomsday.
For this country to survive, we need people earning good livings. I don't
just mean a few with college educations, I mean the vast majority of
everyday people. Then, they pay lots of taxes, the government has money to
do its job, and the consumer market flourishes and fuels a booming economy.
Instead, we're trying to rid this country of good paying jobs by exporting
them somewhere else. I heard a local talk radio host claim that we export
low paying jobs and gain high paying jobs in the process. However, I don't
see those jobs lost by GM, Ford, and DC worker to Mexico as being low pay.
I'm telling you...this trend is dangerous for the economy in the long run.
It's good for corporate America, but bad for you and I.
> I see your point...I think a lot of it was in the gas crunch of the 70's
> people wanted smaller, fuel efficient cars, and the domestics really
> didn't have much to offer, while almost every Japanese car was small and
> fuel efficient, quality notwithstanding. That really opened the floodgates
> and the quality improvement perception came later as they built up market
> share and the domestics' quality stagnated through the early 80's.
Yes, it's like Ferrari, BMW, Porsche, Mercedes, etc... Look back into 1970's
at their products. They're far inferior in most ways to American
counterparts of the period. Ferrari's were beautiful cars with kit car
build quality. Mechanically they were unreliable. They weren't all that
impressive performance-wise either. Sure, the snobby will call their
performance "balanced", but a common Chevelle SS would outgun most Ferraris
in an acceleration contest. The one on Magnum PI had a 0-60 time of
something like 9 seconds! The original VW GTi was capable of that. Even the
Corvette during those poor performance years could go faster. Porsche never
even made a fast car until the 1978 911 Turbo was released, and its
performance would have been laughed at between 1967 to 1971. Have you even
seen a 70's era Bimmer or Benz? Most were nothing to look at... There was
nothing special about Mercedes vehicles back then, but somehow in the
1980's we began a love affair with them and that funded them to improve
their product to be where they are now. Same goes for Honda, Toyota, and
Datsun (Nissan). Our need for fuel efficiency provided them with the much
needed funds, combined with their ambitition, led to the admittedly good
products they have now. But back then, there was nothing special about
them. I remember reading an article about a Toyota 2000GT, where they were
so unreliable that the engine needed rebuilt every 60K or something like
that. They got the reliability later, after we funded it.
--
Registered Linux user #378193
>>> But since labor costs are still so low in many countries, it's no wonder
>>> why businesses (and not just American businesses) are shifting
>>> production to those countries.
>>
>> And you view this as a good thing?
>
> No, but it is happening, and eventually there will be a paradigm shift in
> education in the US to adjust to it. In the late 19th century, while the
> US was shifting from a agricultural society to an industrial society,
> farming become more automated and many farmhands with a sixth-grade
> education found themselves out of work. The early 20th centrury saw a
> national priority to increase education for the labor force to make them
> more employable, hence high school attendance was made universal. Now we
> are on the cusp of another educational prioriy...a high school education
> won't be enough to compete globally, and two years minimum of post high
> school study will be necessarily universal in the next twenty years or so.
Education has nothing to do with it. Here's the problem: For the US to
compete globally, we need tangible goods to sell. Education does nothing to
give us those tangible goods to sell to the world. Someone has to actually
produce them. In the late 1980's, Pres. Bush declared that he wanted to
push the transition of the US to a service oriented society, which is the
last stage defined by Karl Marx in the evolution of a society's economy.
This has been the fundemental shift that has been happening since the early
1980's, where we've gradually gone to making more and more goods outside
the US. There has been a push to become more of a global marketplace and a
global economy. The problem with this is that you have to have something to
sell to the world. At first, you'd think that we'd sell our services of our
expertise. Well, the shift of computer related jobs to India has shown that
that type of work can be exported a lot easier than moving an entire
production plant. Now, once that knowledge has been gained by foreign
countries, what else do we have to sell to the world? If we've become a
society that is too expensive to employ, we then don't have any hard goods
to sell. We then face economic collapse. When it becomes too easy to
replace you with someone on another continent for a lot less, then we're
doomed.
The US is something like 1/3 the entire world consumer market, and roughly
the size of the entire european continent combined. However, if we keep
trying to cut costs by eliminating jobs by sending them outside our
borders, or replacing them with foreign immigrants who pay no taxes, and
the government subsidizing such action, we'll find ourselves in desperate
times. For too long, white collar and self-employed people have looked the
other way because it didn't affect them. Well, it's beginning to. Again,
they can ship white collar jobs outside the US far cheaper than they can
move a plant. If the current trend continues, you'll find company
accounting records kept in India, etc..
Self-employed people need to be worried too. As more and more production of
goods is outside the US, larger, more global companies are arising,
stamping out the mom-and-pops and small businesses out of the market
altogether. Witness Walmart. 80% of their goods are produced in foreign
countries, typically in sweat shops. That enables them to sell cheaper, and
runs smaller chains out. This is a disease that we all are catching because
we like to pay less. Again, this country is becoming more out for
themselves to a degree unprecedented. Everyone feels like they deserve
$100,000+ a year, but the next guy gets paid too much for what he does.
We're driving down our collective standard of living, as a result. This way
of thinking is a sinking ship...
> Big business loves this trend. Like all socioecononomic shifts, there will
> be some that will be left behind. You want to stay employed...the emphasis
> will be to stay employable.
Yeah, and like lemmings, we're following this trend...
And when all the tangible goods are made outside the US, accounting,
computer related positions, and just about all white collar work is
exported to India and management only needs a computer readout of the
reports? What then? Is it even possible to stay employable? Doing what?
When enough people can't find work, or cannot earn a decent enough living,
then the market for goods collapses, sending the economy down the toilet
with it to doomsday.
For this country to survive, we need people earning good livings. I don't
just mean a few with college educations, I mean the vast majority of
everyday people. Then, they pay lots of taxes, the government has money to
do its job, and the consumer market flourishes and fuels a booming economy.
Instead, we're trying to rid this country of good paying jobs by exporting
them somewhere else. I heard a local talk radio host claim that we export
low paying jobs and gain high paying jobs in the process. However, I don't
see those jobs lost by GM, Ford, and DC worker to Mexico as being low pay.
I'm telling you...this trend is dangerous for the economy in the long run.
It's good for corporate America, but bad for you and I.
> I see your point...I think a lot of it was in the gas crunch of the 70's
> people wanted smaller, fuel efficient cars, and the domestics really
> didn't have much to offer, while almost every Japanese car was small and
> fuel efficient, quality notwithstanding. That really opened the floodgates
> and the quality improvement perception came later as they built up market
> share and the domestics' quality stagnated through the early 80's.
Yes, it's like Ferrari, BMW, Porsche, Mercedes, etc... Look back into 1970's
at their products. They're far inferior in most ways to American
counterparts of the period. Ferrari's were beautiful cars with kit car
build quality. Mechanically they were unreliable. They weren't all that
impressive performance-wise either. Sure, the snobby will call their
performance "balanced", but a common Chevelle SS would outgun most Ferraris
in an acceleration contest. The one on Magnum PI had a 0-60 time of
something like 9 seconds! The original VW GTi was capable of that. Even the
Corvette during those poor performance years could go faster. Porsche never
even made a fast car until the 1978 911 Turbo was released, and its
performance would have been laughed at between 1967 to 1971. Have you even
seen a 70's era Bimmer or Benz? Most were nothing to look at... There was
nothing special about Mercedes vehicles back then, but somehow in the
1980's we began a love affair with them and that funded them to improve
their product to be where they are now. Same goes for Honda, Toyota, and
Datsun (Nissan). Our need for fuel efficiency provided them with the much
needed funds, combined with their ambitition, led to the admittedly good
products they have now. But back then, there was nothing special about
them. I remember reading an article about a Toyota 2000GT, where they were
so unreliable that the engine needed rebuilt every 60K or something like
that. They got the reliability later, after we funded it.
--
Registered Linux user #378193