Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They haven't moved jobs to the US, they are just employing people to serve the local market in the US. And those are people who would have been employed otherwise doing the same thing were those companies US owned. As you pointed out, Chrysler is now foreign owned. Were those cars previously made overseas and shipped here? No. Chrysler's ownership didn't move anyone anywhere. What you do have, now, is profits that previously would have been kept in the US now being exported out of the country.
It's the same reason Toyota produces cars in the US - it's more cost effective to serve the local market by producing them here. In the 1950s Toyota was a non-player and all of market share Toyota has in the US market today would have been going to one of the big three US based automakers.
The reason they are building more foreign cars here is because US automakers have lost market share. Foreign cars are built here because it is more cost effective. They aren't shipping Toyotas built in the US back to Japan. On top of that profits are now flowing out of the country instead of staying within.
Another net loss when compared to the 1950s.
Toyota exports USA-assembled vehicles in Canada, Australia, South America, Russia, Central America, New Zealand, and many other countries.
The other major "Japanese" vehicle manufacturer, Honda exports more US vehicles than imports into the USA.
"They haven't moved jobs to the US, they are just employing people to serve the local market in the US. And those are people who would have been employed otherwise doing the same thing were those companies US owned. "
Not really. Foreign companies sometimes have much more in capital then domestic. When the dollar increases or decreases this happens all the time. Those working at a US Toyota or Nissan plant might not otherwise have jobs because GM didn't focus on those areas for plants. Same with BMW in SC and Airbus in Alabama. Much of the south was neglected by the big three.
"The United States exported a record 1.8 million cars and light trucks last year, and shipments rose another 9 percent in the first 10 months of 2013, according to Commerce Department data. "
"Ford said this month it will sell Mustangs in 110 countries, the most in the car’s almost 50-year history. Foreign manufacturers such as BMW are also increasing exports from U.S. plants."
"Honda exported almost 95,000 cars from U.S. plants in the first 10 months of 2013, 23 percent more than in all of last year, said Ron Lietzke, a spokesman for the automaker’s North American manufacturing unit. Models developed for and built in the United States are exported because they are popular in other countries, he said."
Yes it can be argued that imports are more then exports there is no doubt of that. But there is growth in exports. Not every car can be sold or bought where you think they might. I've met people from Africa that had to go all the way to Abu Duabi to buy a car! I was in southern china and saw people from the middle east in the section known for its ports. They don't buy cars like westerners do for afew years. Try maybe a decade so they are willing to put more effort into getting what they want. there is also a lack of public transit in the developing world.
If they are just serving the local market, there wouldn't be more vehicles being exported than imported.
First, your article says they export more vehicles than they import... from Japan.
There are more vehicles exported than imported because they manufacture the majority of the vehicles on US or North American soil for sale in the local market.
That means they don't need to import them.
Case in point - in the link you provided - in 2013, Honda exported 108,000 vehicles out of the US. They imported 88,000 vehicles into the US from Japan.
If you ignore every other possible fuel source other than oil.
Nothing does what oil does. It is made into things. Think about it: even the alternative fuel sources and miracle cars and such (except maybe wood) are dependent on oil!
Tesla has an 89 thousand dollar car that goes 250 miles on a charge. They are working on a working class model that will sell in the mid thirties. I was just told yesterday that Mercedes is working on a hybrid that will get 80 MPG.
Some combination of combustibles and electricity is in our automotive future.
Neither would be affordable without government incentives.
It was pretty nice in the context of its day - a little over 1000 sf plus a detached garage with a nice work area.
Before I bought it last year, it was being used as a low end rental since 1984 after the original inhabitants died and their kids sold it.
There's no way this house would be attractive as a starter house today, and no builder would build a new one like it. Why? Because our living standards and expectations have increased.
The biggest problem is this is not your grandfather’s economy. I’ve made a killing in North Dakota. The key is to be mobile in a global economy and you can write your own ticket.
The days of hanging yourself to a 30-year note and setting down roots are over and they no longer make any financial sense. The idea of having children well that's one way ticket to poverty for most people.
Just wait till the Fed's kick the can game ends and cheap credit drys up. There's going to be a lot of people caught with skid marks in their underpants.
The days of hanging yourself to a 30-year note and setting down roots are over and they no longer make any financial sense. The idea of having children well that's one way ticket to poverty for most people.
Yeh.. I tend to agree albeit its pretty sad state to live in. For me, I wouldn't be happy with my life if I gave up on the idea of having a family.
So.. its all about setting expectations.
I won't retire rich but I will retire ok... I'm ok with that. Just keep doing reality checks on how I fund my lifestyle today and how it impacts my tomorrow.
The short answer is no, we won't see anything like the 1950s again. Truly unique economic situation:
-- Most of the other world industrial centers had been smashed by the war, and thus the US faced very little competition, combined with huge demands for both consumer goods and capital goods for rebuilding factories, etc.
-- Another large share of the world had chosen to cut themselves off from world trade entirely -- the communist bloc, which then included China as well as USSR/east europe.
-- Finally, the gap between the "West" and "developing nations" was it its largest ever, as much of Africa and Asia had been subject to decades of colonialism, where the European powers had done little for educating the locals or building infrastructure and industry, just shipped out cheap raw materials.
The US therefore had an incredible advantage globally in terms of our possessing capital equipment and undamaged infrastructure, as well as a skilled labor force and a big new R&D ecosystem spurred by government investment in WW2 and the emerging Cold War.
It was great, but America's dominance was artificial in many ways. The world today is in a much more 'normal' economic arrangement, and whether Congress has functioned well or poorly has very little impact on that -- it's the global forest that matters, not the trees of DC politics.
Expected narrative from a 'finance academic' (as opposed to the world I work in where performance is measured in real dollars and cents, instead of the 'finance academia' world that measures success with theories and industry associations).
Wage distribution and entry level wage access are both enormous factors that ARE NOT in factored into "GDP" (<- ffs, seriously? Call UC and get a refund. I went there too and can get you the number if you need it) but their profiles have changed radically over time.
What university do you think I teach at?
I measure personal financial success with accumulated wealth (net worth). I don't know where you got the idea that I don't.
If you don't think GDP is a good measure of well-being (it has its faults), please propose your own instead of insulting other posters.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
