Display:
This theory of Japanese auto protectionism seems pretty weak to me. For one thing, they drive on the wrong side of the road and Detroit doesn't design their cars to have steering on either side. So that keeps out the vast majority of cars.

For another thing, what about the many markets where the Japanese compete and Detroit doesn't? Like Africa, for instance? Or Southeast Asia?

I think that the biggest problem GM and Ford have is centered on their products, not their wage costs or manufacturing efficiency or brand management or executive compensation. They simply don't make the kinds of cars that people want to buy. You can't buy a car made in Detroit that competes with the Honda Fit or Toyota Yaris. Period. At any cost.

by asdf on Thu Dec 4th, 2008 at 07:42:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Having owned both during the last 40 years, I will not argue the quality issue.  However, I have a low mileage 96 Explorer that I bought from my in-laws in Jan, 06 for $6K that has performed fine.  It will tow 5000 lbs. and has 4WD.  I thought it would be handy for in the Ozarks and was right.  It only gets 17mpg, but I knew that going in.  It has about 90K miles on it and I haven't seen any significant quality problems.  My sense it that the quality gap has significantly closed in the last several years.

Should there be money to be made, I think Detroit would have solved the right hand drive issue.  Ford certainly knows how to make right hand drive vehicles.  This is certainly not the first time I have heard the protected domestic market argument and I have yet to see it convincingly refuted.  I doubt that it can be.  Nor is this the first time I have heard the strong dollar argument.

My suspicion is that these policies strongly favor large US retailers and those in the financial dis-services industry who have bought up, closed down and laid off workers of US manufacturers so they could ship the production to China and other low labor cost destinations and then clean up and sell the property formerly owned by said hapless manufacturing companies.

I believe that this is a suicidal, unsustainable race to the bottom that now has succeeded in hollowing out the US economy for the benefit of retail, transport and finance and has helped create a massive national accounts problem that had to blow up, which it is now doing.  

The other significant contributor to this problem has been our oil companies and the associated national accounts problems deriving from importing so much oil, especially at $40 to $140/bl.  This has allowed those companies with domestic production to sell at great profit oil that costs them $2.00/bl. to $20/bl. to produce.

So due to the highly unequal distribution of wealth in this country and the consequent highly unequal distribution of economic and political power the whole country has been systematically looted and run into the ground in the interest of a few small vested interests.  The rest of us are left with the carcass of an economy.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu Dec 4th, 2008 at 09:20:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
BTY, American made vehicles were the vehicle of choice for Arabs in Saudi Arabia when I was there.  They were especially fond of large SUVs.  It was a high profit market.  Mercedes also did very well.  Detroit has never done well in low cost vehicles, in part because they have high legacy costs in the form of a long tail of retired workers owed pensions and medical care.  Japanese operated US manufacturing plants as yet have no retirees.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu Dec 4th, 2008 at 09:32:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
My understanding is that the labor cost in a car is only about 10% of the total. It's a capital intensive business, and Japan has pretty high labor costs just as does the U.S.

And you're right that Ford in Europe knows how to make LHD cars--in order to sell them in Britain. But how many Detroit-made cars find their way to Europe?

by asdf on Thu Dec 4th, 2008 at 09:47:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I suspect that the question of legacy costs depends to a large extent on the degree to which the state underwrites the costs of retirement and medical benefits.  If your competitors have only to pay labor costs for those currently working and you have to pay for everyone who ever retired and is still living, you will be at a significant disadvantage.  Same for medical care of retirees.  If your labor costs are 18% and your competition's are 10%, you are still at a disadvantage.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu Dec 4th, 2008 at 10:03:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But only if you create more than your share of retirees and medical cases... Universal health care might be cheaper for them overall, because universal health care is much more efficient than having an insurance industry middleman to take a largish cut. But the money comes from somewhere - and I hardly think European or Japanese companies, automobile industry or otherwise, share a smaller fraction of their earnings with society than American ones.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Dec 5th, 2008 at 10:11:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
FWIW, CorpWatch posted a disturbing TQM article this Sept on Toyota's model. It skirts suppliers' industry and markets -- outsourced. And certainly challenges conventional reverence for Japanese efficiency in US/EU management literature.

Despite this commitment, Toyota's foreign workers in Japan are second-class citizens. On arrival the guest workers' passports are confiscated.  During the first year as "trainees," they are not covered by Japan's labor or minimum wage laws. They work alongside Japanese workers, putting in the same long hours, but often earning less than half the minimum wage - as little as $2.76 an hour, or $479 a month. As guest workers, they are required to remain with the same employer - no matter how bad the working conditions - and to live in the company housing assigned to them - even though some are charged twice what their Japanese colleagues pay for comparable accommodations. Any worker who tries to change jobs, or who complains about conditions may be forcibly deported. By the time food, housing, and taxes are deducted, some guest workers end up earning less than $600 for an entire year, according to several advocacy organizations and unions that work with subcontract plant temp and guest workers. ...

In the U.S., Toyota has set up non-union plants in the South - far from the unionized auto industry stronghold of the Midwest. Blunting support for unionization is Toyota's practice of paying wages nearly on par with the U.S. auto companies (around $25 an hour in comparison with G.M.'s $26 to $28) - although with much lower benefits.

Meanwhile the Big Three's falling sales and market share have forced the American companies to adopt, and their workers to accept, two-tier wage and temporary worker schemes eerily similar to those used for years by Toyota - just to compete. And the race to the bottom seems to be just warming up. In September 2008, an internal Toyota memo leaked from its Georgetown, Kentucky plant, laid out management's plans to cut $300 million in labor costs in its U.S. operations.

In April 2008, the Wall Street Journal reported that Toyota plans to end its practice of pegging its hourly wages to UAW rates, and will now pay new hires only 50 percent above the local prevailing wage. In Kentucky, this would mean a savings of about 12 percent, or $3.00 per worker hour - which, of course, will put even more of a squeeze on the Big Three U.S. auto companies and their unionized workforce.

Primary strategy. The 2007 GM-UAW contract was the first "bailout" scheme, to capitalize GM's bond rating and pensions in exchange for slashing wages. At the time Gettlefinger said, union members had made enough sacrifices to allow GM to be competitive with non-union automakers. But he's hinted recently bosses aren't averse to breaking the line in order to support the automakers' pitch to Congress for $34B.

The complete Toyota report is at NICNet.org

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Fri Dec 5th, 2008 at 01:15:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
but but isn't that exactly the issue with greencards in the US. Contractors are brought in from abroad, but on a scheme where the company can claim they cannot employ Americans. The workers don't get a green card, but are instead are only allowed leave to remain courtesy of good relations with their employer. any problems, any grumbling, they're deported.

keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Fri Dec 5th, 2008 at 06:55:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A lot probably depends on what kind of visa they're here on.  I think the situation you're thinking of is sort of a horror story about H-1B visas that you hear about Indians and Chinese in places like Silicon Valley.

Doesn't generally happen that way, in my experience.

Example: A friend of mine is married to a Frenchman[1] who came over on (I'm pretty sure) an H-1B, and who was in the process of getting a green card when they started dating.  The process is expensive and a pain in the ass, but it's a pretty boring and formal process.  I don't think his employer cared much either way.

[1] (See, Jerome, we love the French, even in the South.  And he's not even one of those fake Canadian ones.)

Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin

by Drew J Jones (myfriends@thisispancakes.com) on Fri Dec 5th, 2008 at 08:42:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
but but isn't that exactly the issue with greencards in the US.

Why, yes, Helen :) picking scabs is an age-old American pasttime. When when labor organizes and agitates and  wage demands squeeze margins, corporates shanghai recruit the world's poor and yearning to be free. By the boat-load.

Oh. That scrubbed Detroit News article, "$10M cost of do-over is obstacle; powerbrokers in Mich. to press solution with national party"? I saved bits I thought interesting back when... March 2008.

The governor, in an interview with The Detroit News, referred to the contest as a "firehouse primary" -- more expansive than a party caucus but not a full-blown affair like a traditional, state-financed primary. People would have to declare themselves Democrats in order to participate, and the contest would be run by the Democratic Party, not the state.
    [...]
In another development, a new Michigan team was set up Thursday to talk with the Democratic National Committee about a resolution. The members are: U.S. Sen. Carl Levin, U.S. Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, Democratic National Committeewoman Debbie Dingell and UAW President Ron Gettelfinger. All are neutral in the presidential race.
    [...]
The national party needs to ante up or help raise money to pay for it, she said. State taxpayers already shelled out $12 million for the Jan. 15 primary, and Granholm said she won't ask for public funding for a make-up contest. Hillary Clinton won the January primary, but she was the only major candidate [sic] on the ballot. The others, including Barack Obama, had their names removed.
    [...]
Granholm and state Democratic Party Chairman Mark Brewer said the national party has been pushing for party caucuses. Brewer estimated the cost of running a firehouse primary at $10 million, to cover the mechanics, staff and publicity.

There's always more to the story ...

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Fri Dec 5th, 2008 at 09:18:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
asdf:
For one thing, they drive on the wrong side of the road and Detroit doesn't design their cars to have steering on either side. So that keeps out the vast majority of cars.

That's actually trivial. In a lot of plants around the world, LH and RH drive cars come off the same line.

The problem isn't simply not having small-car designs either: they do - in Europe (the Ford Fiesta is simply the first one that comes to mind).

The US carmakers chose to neglect the economy segment - and now they're paying for it.

The fact is that what we're experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. -Paul Krugman

by dvx (dvx.clt ät gmail dotcom) on Fri Dec 5th, 2008 at 03:11:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You are absolutely correct, Ford & GM on a global level know how to build cars that can be assembled for RHD or LHD markets. But the question is about the Detroit segments of Ford & GM. How many Detroit designed cars with wrong-side steering are driving around in Britain or Australia or Japan?
by asdf on Fri Dec 5th, 2008 at 10:59:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
At a minimum Ford makes right hand drive cars for the AU and NZ markets.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Fri Dec 5th, 2008 at 03:45:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
in Japan and South Korea, and does matter. US companies do compete in Europe and are reasonably successful at it, against both Europeans and Japanese.

The problem is that the US market focused, thanks to insanely low gas prices (due to lack of taxation) on bigger and bigger cars, and Detroit did respond to what the market wanted - and fed that demand too, because they had an advantage in the light-truck sub sector.

Demand has shifted brutally because the impact of gas prices is much stronger in the US than elsewhere, and the Big 3 are weaker in the smaller segments - they simply haven't marketed their products as "no-nonsense" cars, and it takes more than a few years to change your product mix.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Dec 5th, 2008 at 03:57:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sorry, how is protectionism real in Japan with respect to cars?

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
by marco (cowannar at gmail punkt com) on Fri Dec 5th, 2008 at 06:32:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Are you claiming that Japanese crs are so superior that no Japanese person would consider buying a foreign car?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Dec 5th, 2008 at 02:45:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I have traveled to South Korea several times in the early 90s: the streets were full of Hyundai, Daewoo, Kia and SSongyang cars & trucks. A few token Mercedes and also a few American vehicles (US troops).

Not a single Japanese car: zero, none. Probably the only country in the world (with North Korea?). It was really striking.

Europeans think a hundred miles is a long way. Americans think a hundred years is a long time.

by Bernard on Fri Dec 5th, 2008 at 03:17:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No.  I am asking:  What quotas, tariffs, regulations, or other kind of obstacle have been imposed by the Japanese government with the primary intent of keeping foreign automobiles out of the Japanese market.  Because that is the definition of protectionism as I understand it.  And so far I have not heard anyone providing any examples of this.

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
by marco (cowannar at gmail punkt com) on Fri Dec 5th, 2008 at 03:21:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
From the viewpoint of Detroit automakers, a barrier is that they drive on the left...
by asdf on Fri Dec 5th, 2008 at 07:48:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series