U.S. Govt. "creating" jobs - in Mexico: How will the Obama Admin report the jobs growth in Mexico by the only American carmaker that refused any bailout money? And how do they report...

dennisimoto Loc: Washington State (West)

How will the Obama Admin report the jobs growth in Mexico by the only American carmaker that refused any bailout money? And how do they report thousands of jobs being "in-sourced" using foreigners to replace Americans and the Americans train their replacements? It's a Mad, mad, mad, mad world out there folks.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/ford-picks-mexico-over-windsor-for-engine-plant-union-says-1.2811843

iFrank Loc: San Antonio

A Mexican national / Texan said that Mexico has Obamacare. Now I know why the coverage and deductible are so expensive. Socialists buying v**es.

jelun

dennisimoto wrote:

How will the Obama Admin report the jobs growth in Mexico by the only American carmaker that refused any bailout money? And how do they report thousands of jobs being "in-sourced" using foreigners to replace Americans and the Americans train their replacements? It's a Mad, mad, mad, mad world out there folks.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/ford-picks-mexico-over-windsor-for-engine-plant-union-says-1.2811843

That "insourcing" you refer to has been going on for decades.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-1B_visa

It is employers who abuse it. Part of participation requires companies to certify that they will pay the same rate.
The free market doesn't seem to require honesty, though.
And FORD? Ford has been manufacturing in Mexico for almost a century.
I would think that those of you who object to people coming north would celebrate that there are more decent jobs in Mexico.

Kevyn

dennisimoto wrote:

How will the Obama Admin report the jobs growth in Mexico by the only American carmaker that refused any bailout money? And how do they report thousands of jobs being "in-sourced" using foreigners to replace Americans and the Americans train their replacements? It's a Mad, mad, mad, mad world out there folks.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/ford-picks-mexico-over-windsor-for-engine-plant-union-says-1.2811843

This is not the government moving jobs to Mexico, it is Ford Motor Company. We need to demand stiff import Tarifs on anything imported from operations of this nature. By the way this was not a choice between Mexico and the US it is an American company choosing to base a plant in one of two forigen countries when they should be building it here, they choose Mexico over Canada because of lax labor and environmental standards in Mexico and the fact that they couldn't extort corporate wellfare payments from the Canadians. This is a prime example of why we need more regulation of multinational corporations, and harsh duty and tarif charges to discourage corporate defections.

Trooper745 Loc: Carolina

Kevyn wrote:

This is not the government moving jobs to Mexico, ... (show quote)

Can you, in your infinite l*****t wisdom, tell us exactly, or even approximately, how much, in US dollars or in percentage of total unit cost, you believe the additional tariff would be, per car, to effectively force Ford Motor Company to bring its Mexican factories back to the US?

Would it be $10, $100, $1,000, $3,000 .... or in percentage of unit price, 0.01%, 0.1%, 1%, 10%, .... or more? Just give me your estimate.

dennisimoto Loc: Washington State (West)

Kevyn wrote:

This is not the government moving jobs to Mexico, ... (show quote)

Virtually every politician will tell you that they deplore the loss of American jobs. And, during their campaigns, they will also tell you that they are going to "bring those jobs back." The H1-B Visa holders who are educated Indians, Taiwanese, Koreans, Japanese, etc. willing to come to America to take American jobs out of the hands of Americans who are currently employed in them is a cute trick too when thou consider that the Americans are having to train the foreign replacements who will then be doing their jobs at lower wages.

These "corporate defections," as you call them, are just "business." When America figures out how to compete in the world market, jobs will come into being in the U.S. again. Until then company CEO's are beholden to the stockholder and wh**ever it takes to make the product more inexpensively while not having to lower the selling price looks good to them.

What are Barry or Hillary's strategy for that?

jelun

dennisimoto wrote:

Virtually every politician will tell you that they... (show quote)

I wonder if the folks who maintain the robots in the Brazilian plant are having this same discussion.

Kevyn

Trooper745 wrote:

Can you, in your infinite l*****t wisdom, tell us exactly, or even approximately, how much, in US dollars or in percentage of total unit cost, you believe the additional tariff would be, per car, to effectively force Ford Motor Company to bring its Mexican factories back to the US?

Would it be $10, $100, $1,000, $3,000 .... or in percentage of unit price, 0.01%, 0.1%, 1%, 10%, .... or more? Just give me your estimate.

The cost of labor per unit to build an automobile is about 10% let's for arguments sake say the labor cost savings of moving a plant to Mexico is half that ammount, it would ammount to 1500 bucks on a $30,000 car. A comparable tarif on that car would discourage the outsourcing of the jobs and the revenu could be used to pay down the debt improve our infrastructure or reduce income tax. I and every other patriotic American would gladly pay an extra 5% to buy quality American made products, keeping our neighbors in work and the tax base of our communities intact. In many instances we can't because those industries have been decimated domestically. American workers shouldn't be forced to compete with the third world.

Trooper745 Loc: Carolina

Kevyn wrote:

The cost of labor per unit to build an automobile ... (show quote)

So, I assume that you would feel that a 5% tariff on all vehicles made or assembled, and vehicle parts made or assembled, and then brought into the USA, would be fair. What happens when all of these countries retaliate by placing a 5% tariff on US products entering their country?

jelun

Trooper745 wrote:

So, I assume that you would feel that a 5% tariff on all vehicles made or assembled, and vehicle parts made or assembled, and then brought into the USA, would be fair. What happens when all of these countries retaliate by placing a 5% tariff on US products entering their country?

So you want to feed more money to the gov't?
Why would you do that?
Wasn't the point to build in incentives for the company hiring Americans?

Trooper745 Loc: Carolina

jelun wrote:

So you want to feed more money to the gov't?
Why would you do that?
Wasn't the point to build in incentives for the company hiring Americans?

Where did I ever say, or indicate, that I want to, ... "feed more money to the gov't?"

jelun

Trooper745 wrote:

Where did I ever say, or indicate, that I want to, ... "feed more money to the gov't?"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tariff

Trooper745 Loc: Carolina

jelun wrote:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tariff

You need to work on your reading comprehension. I never said I like, or approve of, tariffs. The USA is going to have to find an effective way to compete on the world market, ... without tariffs.

Automobiles are produced by dozens of countries. If American made autos, made at union mandated wages, have to compete with them, the US auto industry will sell very few units outside of this country. If other countries match a 5% US tariff, by putting the same on US products, the overseas market for US autos will be near zero.

The US auto market alone isn't large enough to support the multi brands of the big three, and the US will end up with only one, or possibly two, much down-sized auto makers.

jelun

Trooper745 wrote:

You need to work on your reading comprehension. I... (show quote)

You need to work on your comprehension of the facts of real life.
You responded to Kevyn's post in which he talked about a 5% price increase to cover a living American wage.
That response mentioned a tariff which was not what Kevyn referenced.
So I spoke up and asked about a desire on your part to fill gov't coffers since that is where tariffs end up.
You didn't understand that so I provided the definition of tariff.
I never said that you wanted to give the gov't money, I expressed surprise that you would want to.
Get it?

Trooper745 Loc: Carolina

jelun wrote:

You need to work on your comprehension of the fact... (show quote)

No! If you go back to Kevin's first post, you will see that HE advocated a TARIFF on autos made outside the USA.

I never advocated a tariff, as tariffs are just another tax. More taxes grow bigger governments. Bigger governments destroy freedoms. I like freedom.