26th Nov 2010, 17:48
This same argument have been mentioned on this site forever. This has been countered with the fact that while buying a car that has a domestic name plate will help US workers, the EXACT same can easily be said for those who choose to buy a Toyota, Honda, Nissan, or even a BMW or Mercedes manufactured in the USA. Do these workers not count? If so, then please explain - and no, the argument that sending money to foreign CEOS so they can ride around in their yachts isn't a good point.
Look at it this way: NONE of the major jet plane manufactures use components exclusively from any one country. A good case in point are the jet engine makers for commercial jets. GE and Rolls Royce are the two largest manufactures of these engines. Boeing, Airbus, and others use both brands, and sometimes both brands interchangeably. Thus while there might be lots of Boeings out there, are they any less American if they have a Rolls Royce engine under the hood?
Likewise, the modern American and Japanese car is a cornucopia of domestic and foreign parts and components. They are designed and built in studios, engineering facilities and plants around the world. Buick just released the new Riviera. It's actually an Opel imported from Germany. It's actually a really nice car that handles great. But if you want to talk about cars benefiting American workers, how would a German made imported Buick be superior to an American made Camry? The argument falls completely flat because if the argument is that ALL domestic cars help the everyday US worker, then it doesn't work in this comparison... thus perhaps only SOME domestic cars truly benefit US workers? Almost every car today is comprised of global components.
At the end of the day - buy what you want. All car makers make cars that appeal to different people for different reasons. There are some cars that the 3 domestic automakers produce these days that are genuinely good cars. I would love to own a Chevy Cruze, a new Camaro, or a new Cadillac CTS. But on the other hand, I love the new Lexus lineup, the Toyota Tacoma, and the Honda Accord. It's my choice. Choice is good. It means you and I get to choose from the best of what any company has to offer, because they are competing against each other. If there were no competition, we would get shoddy products.
27th Nov 2010, 02:06
Your argument makes no sense.. I am Canadian, and I buy domestic cars made in Canada. I help my country.
Americans buying a car made in Canada helps the North American economy, which benefits the US. Canadians spend a lot of money in the US and vice versa.
Sending money to Germany, Korea and Japan helps no one!
You are saying I should buy an import to help your economy?
Even if Toyota, Honda, etc make a few cars in the US, most of the money still goes overseas.
27th Nov 2010, 12:23
"Do these workers not count? If so, then please explain"
Of course they count. They make up TEN PERCENT of U.S. auto workers. The other NINETY PERCENT are employed by the Big Three auto makers. Since 90% is far more than a mere 10%, buying a car made by a U.S. company helps NINE TIMES as many people.
27th Nov 2010, 13:30
Having too many choices and having over saturation with less jobs and a weak economy helps no one. Stretching out the market share and cheap labor elsewhere makes it worse. There are entirely too many new models out there in my opinion. I get tired of the endless global economy debate, even if it's here to stay. My family is spread out over several states, and not one is enthusiastic about how much better their standard of living is in their cities anymore. There used to be a handful of car dealerships in my town, and everyone was doing well. Now there's internet buying Vehix pulling cars out of state 200 miles away for immediate cheapest price. I use to order cars and wait many weeks and paid, and got more returned to my local economy. It's gotten pretty cut throat in my area.
28th Nov 2010, 10:52
Okay, this is yet another argument that needs to end on here. Virtually every manufacturer in the U.S. has now outsourced their products to be built elsewhere. People think the car manufacturers aren't following suit here, but they are continually finding new ways to build cars elsewhere. Ironically, ALL of the good domestic cars are built in foreign plants outside of the Corvette. ALL OF THEM. Soon there will be little or no manufacturing of autos in the U.S., since only the low end, low quality cars are actually built here anyway.
If our whole future is reliant on the big three providing jobs to our citizens, then we are all but done here. These companies have only proven to be incompetent failures, and nothing more. They continue to produce second rate vehicles, and have learned very little from the meltdown. GM's best offering is an overpriced hybrid like everyone else has had for years. Yeah, a $40K Prius will save them! And you want to continue to support this company? Good luck!!
29th Nov 2010, 07:11
"90% is far more than a mere 10%"
I like the way this commenter just dissects a another persons comments and ignores the most important aspect, the part that tells the real story. The part that he REFUSES to believe.
29th Nov 2010, 10:17
But again the question remains: Do those that work in 10 percent of the auto manufacturing workforce not count? Are they not working at a factory or some other facility earning a paycheck in US dollars and getting taxed as well? The point being is that they count every bit as much as those working at one of the domestic automakers.
The argument here isn't about quantities. If I buy a car and it happens to be a Toyota Camry made in Kentucky with parts made in the US by Denso USA, Delphi, and other US firms then in turn the money I have spent on that car is also going to those people who had a hand in its production: the line workers, the parts suppliers, and the dealers to name a few. The exact same would be true if I bought a Ford or GM product. What matters is that in both cases those who built my car or truck are Americans.
30th Nov 2010, 13:48
"Employing some Americans and taking the big profit overseas."
Yes... that is correct. But it is also correct that domestic automakers build, design and sell cars overseas and some of the money being made on those cars does in fact go back into the pockets of those living in those respective countries. Just as in how it is here in the US. The only exception is that overall corporate profits stay with company headquarters in whatever country it is based.
If the argument is that sending profits overseas is a "bad" thing, then that doesn't hold water, because if we lived in a closed-circuit economy and no foreign companies could profit from overseas sales, then our economy along with all the others around the globe would immediately fail and we would be in a global economic depression. Protectionism doesn't work, it was tried in the 30's, and that led to the depression of the 1930's.
26th Nov 2010, 14:30
Could you please quote the sources where you have heard this? I cannot seem to find one story that confirms your information.
In reality, they are still looking to foreign soil. Costs here in the U.S. do not warrant the opening of new factories here, especially in these fragile economic times when the domestic car companies are still recovering from the meltdown. But I guess it is a nice dream to believe in!