|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,842
Legend
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,842 |
Quote:
mac, serious questions here, and I really hope you'll answer.
1. How do companies balance the need to compete globally, as an essential part of their own ability to survive, with the need for the US to have jobs?
..........
2. How do US companies compete in China, or Europe, or other parts of the world if they were to rely 100% on factories located in the US, paying wages that are the standard in the US, while competing in these foreign markets that do not?
............
3. How do US companies compete in such a case when they have to factor in shipping a completed product to its final market?
.........
4. Since the US market is not smaller than the China market, and srowing smaller everyday when compared to the worldwide market, how does a company justify having factories in the US when their largest markets may be, say, China and India? (just as an example)
.............
5. How do we balance jobs vs. technology when comparing net costs in competing in a global market?
.......
6. I remember back in the 80s when GM was using far more manual labor as compared to today. Today they use far more automation. It lowers payroll wages and taxes, lowers potential accident costs,and improves quality. How should companies walk this balance beam?
...................
7. Right now we seem to have a political will to financially punish companies who "move" US jobs overseas. (even though, in some cases, it would be a choice between moving those jobs and saving some, or keeping them all here until the company folds) How many jobs are "moved", and how many are simply responding to 2 different markets, closing some factories that cannot produce as needed for a far away end user market, and opening up a new factory that can?
.............
8 & 9. If a company cannot compete with having all of its factories in the US, does it make sense to try and force the company to keep all of their factories here and risk them going out of business, or trying to work with the to keep some of them here, while accepting that some jobs have to follow the end market? How do we balance this equation?
...............
10. Manufacturing will always move in the direction of most demand. The US market is not the market of most demand. We have tons of "stuff". We buy a lot of stuff, but no longer more than anyone else in the world.
The US sold about 10 million new vehicles in 2009.
China sold about 13 million new vehicles in 2009.
Europe sold about 13 million new vehicles in 2009.
Mexico buys more than a million cars per year. Brazil? More than 3 million cars per year.
Other manufactured goods probably follow the same trend(s).
How does a US manufacturer compete, and stay in business, if they cannot compete in these other markets?
...................
11. IMHO, it's a difficult question, and one that cannot be answered by simply saying "we shouldn't let anyone move US jobs to ......" How would you handle these challenges?
YT...above are the questions you asked me...
Keeping in mind that the #1 issue of the American people being JOBs in the USA...
1. How do companies balance the need to compete globally, as an essential part of their own ability to survive, with the need for the US to have jobs?
ANSWER... if the tax code is being used to subsidize businesses and corporations to help them to "compete globally", that part of the tax code must be examined more closely, keeping in mind that creating jobs in the USA is the goal.
This is not going to be easy nor quick and this might be why it's taking Obama so long to address the issue...but each case must be examined to see that US taxpayer dollars are not being misused by corporations via the tax code.
..........................
2. How do US companies compete in China, or Europe, or other parts of the world if they were to rely 100% on factories located in the US, paying wages that are the standard in the US, while competing in these foreign markets that do not?
ANSWER...I don't know that anyone is saying all factories must be located in the USA. Look at Ford..they seem to have a successful model and they have a mixed/worldwide workforce and have had for years. But again, the answer in question #1 applies. If the US taxpayer is being hosed by companies misusing the tax code, it must be studied.
....................
3. How do US companies compete in such a case when they have to factor in shipping a completed product to its final market?
ANSWER...the subject of the question appears to "shipping expense". Here in the USA, the shipping expenses are passed on to the consumer. If you are suggesting that the US taxpayer is paying shipping expenses of corporations and businesses that ship products overseas, again the answer in #1 applies.
...........
4. Since the US market is not smaller than the China market, and srowing smaller everyday when compared to the worldwide market, how does a company justify having factories in the US when their largest markets may be, say, China and India? (just as an example)
YT...this question is very oddly worded, kind of like someone copied and pasted it. You did not write this question, did you?...I'm asking.
...............................
I think I will stop here as my 4 yr old granddaughter wants me to look at the Aurora picture she is coloring...I do have my priorities
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,126
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,126 |
Holy cow, mac answered some questions. I better put on a helmet in case the sky starts to fall. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,510
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,510 |
Quote:
1. How do companies balance the need to compete globally, as an essential part of their own ability to survive, with the need for the US to have jobs?
ANSWER... if the tax code is being used to subsidize businesses and corporations to help them to "compete globally", that part of the tax code must be examined more closely, keeping in mind that creating jobs in the USA is the goal.
OK, but the priority of business is to stay in business and make money in the process. How do we balance these 2 (sometimes diametrically opposed) priorities so that businesses can compete globally, (and in countries where cheaper labor may be the norm) yet still maintain a jobs base in the US? How do you balance the percentage of US jobs in a US company when they might employ more people in a different part of the world because of logistical concerns? What kind of incentives/penalties would you suggest to create an environment where businesses can afford to compete and expand in theUS rather than expanding overseas to take advantage of cheaper labor, being closer to their consiumer market, etc?
Quote:
2. How do US companies compete in China, or Europe, or other parts of the world if they were to rely 100% on factories located in the US, paying wages that are the standard in the US, while competing in these foreign markets that do not?
ANSWER...I don't know that anyone is saying all factories must be located in the USA. Look at Ford..they seem to have a successful model and they have a mixed/worldwide workforce and have had for years. But again, the answer in question #1 applies. If the US taxpayer is being hosed by companies misusing the tax code, it must be studied.
....................
Fair enough. However, you have said that the tax code is faulty and much be changed. In what ways do you want to see it changed? What effect do you feel the changes you favor would have on businesses/jobs, and why?
You mentioned Ford. Foerd has 64 factories in foreign countries and 24 in the US. (If I counted right, and not counting 2 US plants listed as slated to close this year) What changes do you make to the tax code that penalize those companies who might be doing things the wrong way while not penalizing a company that you feel does things the right way?
What if a company sells off a part of its holdings (like Delphi years ago by GM) that lowers its US jobs total, and its percentage of overall jobs in the US compared to jobs in foreign countries?
GM, by the way, has 41 US factories and 44 foreign factories. (With 6 US locations listed as slated to close this year)
Quote:
3. How do US companies compete in such a case when they have to factor in shipping a completed product to its final market?
ANSWER...the subject of the question appears to "shipping expense". Here in the USA, the shipping expenses are passed on to the consumer. If you are suggesting that the US taxpayer is paying shipping expenses of corporations and businesses that ship products overseas, again the answer in #1 applies.
I'm not talking about a US company selling goods to US consumers in this case. What I meant was, If a US company sells finished goods to consumers in Asia, or South America, or Europe, then how do these companies balance in the cost of shipping finished goods to these markets as opposed to building them in a factory close to the foreign consumer market? If it is a competitive disadvantage to ship finished products from a US factory rather than building products in foreign factories, then what effect would a tax code change that penalizes a company for manufacturing products in a foreign country have on the overall health of the copany, and thus on other US jobs with this company?
Also, what if a company decides repurpose factories. In other words, say they shut doen a factory making "A", and move that production overseas because of logistical/end market concerns. They then close Factory "A", and study what to do with that factory. In their study, they decide that factory "A" is too expensive to retool/refit ....so they decide to move jobs from factory "A" to a different facility, while increasing production at that facility. What tax penalties do you impose in this instance? What if the company closes 2 factories, one in the US and one in a foreign country? What do you do if the closures cost 50 US jobs and only 40 foreign jobs?
Politicians make a lot of speeches, with a lot of sound bytes, that play well to a specific audience .... but may not be the best policy, or might even be catastrophic if implemented.
Quote:
4. Since the US market is now smaller than the China market, and with the US market growing smaller everyday when compared to the worldwide market, how does a company justify having factories in the US when their largest markets may be, say, China and India? (just as an example)
YT...this question is very oddly worded, kind of like someone copied and pasted it. You did not write this question, did you?...I'm asking.
I corrected my typos in the quote above. Pain medication may have gotten the better of me by the end of my initial post. Hopefully it makes better sense to you now.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 895
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 895 |
Quote:
I'm not talking about a US company selling goods to US consumers in this case. What I meant was, If a US company sells finished goods to consumers in Asia, or South America, or Europe, then how do these companies balance in the cost of shipping finished goods to these markets as opposed to building them in a factory close to the foreign consumer market?
I do not know about all markets, however in Asia the quality of goods is lower than we find in the US so I would bet it would be more cost effective to fabricate low quality products overseas. For example a piece of luggage made and sold in the US would be higher quality, and price point, than something sold locally in many areas of Asia. We would not be competing at that point, as I would assume nobody would pay more money for a superior good on a regular basis. So the quality would match the market needs, which in many cases is lower than what is produced and sold in the US.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 13,592
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 13,592 |
Take off the helmet and read his post again. He didn't answer any of the questions (but he did leave out the Huffington Post article, so you gotta give him some credit).
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
-PrplPplEater
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Republicans Thwart Bill With
Unemployment Aid, "AGAIN" - contd.
|
|
