I personally feel that the foreign auto makers made the strongest case in that they appealed to both the domestic manufacturers and consumers. I would personally consider the points/arguments made by Ben to be the best of the debate. By simultaneously arguing points favorable to consumers and domestic producers alike, the foreign auto makers received the support of two of the largest blocs at the table, presenting a strong case to President Jackson which I believe enabled them to advance their agenda.
The foreign auto manufacturers managed to appeal to the domestic producers by stating the benefits of cheap overseas labor to make domestic auto makers more competitive in the market without domestic content laws. By outsourcing unskilled labor, domestic auto manufacturers could lower prices and remain affordable to Americans, while foreign auto makers would no longer have to absorb the massive costs from tariffs. This appeal of “competitive fairness” was a clever move by the foreign producers, who contended that this would be mutually beneficial by opening markets to American suppliers as well.
The foreign manufacturers also appealed to consumers by stating that the elimination of domestic import laws would make their cars more affordable to the American public. Out of the many interviews we conducted around the Smithsonian, it was apparent that a vast majority of Americans believe that foreign models have superior gas mileage and safety features. The elimination of domestic content laws will enable more Americans to purchase these foreign cars, which are considered superior goods to American models. The foreign auto manufacturers appealed to the consumer’s pocketbook extremely well, making their case very strong and ensuring that the consumers of the United States took their side.
The foreign auto makers, one of the groups with the least sway politically, presented arguments to gain the support of two of the largest groups. By focusing in on specific groups and on their particular interests, the foreign producers were able to advance their goals and present a strong case to President Jackson.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Consumers should do a wave for the foreign auto manufacturers.
I don't think you give consumers enough credit. Where I come from, outsourcing cheap unskilled labor is highly looked down upon. I know the owner of a huge insurance company in my area who outsourced work and laid off a large part of our community, and he has practically been shunned since that happened. People that weren't laid off ended up quitting just to make a point against outsourcing. You may say that this is just because I'm from Vermont, but if you go to any town in America that has suffered huge employment loss because a large employer sent jobs overseas, I think you will find that consumers are very bitter about purchasing goods produced with cheap labor. And even if you still think that consumers think solely out of their "pocketbook", it's our county's responsibility as a leader in the world to think morally (and this can be done with our own self-interest in mind). We all know that it is wrong to exploit third world country laborers, even if you argue we are doing them a favor by giving them work, you must know the extent of maltreatment that goes on overseas. It is unacceptable and ignorant of us not to recognize it. And sure it may be cheapest to exploit those workers right now, but what happens when our country doesn't have any more jobs to offer to our own fellow citizens?! That's why we should just manufacture here... both foreign and domestic automobiles.
Its shocking to see how much in common foreign and domestic auto manufacturers have. Repin' the foreigners was unique in that it presented a very distinct side of the argument than one that is more commonly expressed, especially in the U.S. But by lowering content regulations, both sides benefit from cheaper production costs and the expansion of their markets. This further proves the theory that the economic world is increasingly interdependent, not just at the state level but also at the corporate. Though there will always be a sense of competition, the removal of such shortsighted protectionist measures will facilitate a system of free and fair trade in which all will benefit.
Emily, business is business, and in most the world, we can't have sunshine and rainbows everyday. I'm from the Midwest, outsourcing has hit this region of America harder than any other, and I have seen its effect on people. The fact of the matter is, it is not the employers that are being unreasonable, it's the unions who wage economic warfare on these corporations. As I said in my video/presentation, the average assembly line job pays $20-$30 per hour. American Axle employees (part of the UAW) went on strike because job and wage cuts were necessary to stay competative. Those employees were getting paid $70 per hour.
Honestly Emily, what kind of fairness is it that a high school dropout can get paid handsomely to rachet in a screw and then enjoy a full pension and early retirement? I find that the mutual trust between corporations and unions has been abused, when everyone knows there are people to work for far less and do just as good a job overseas.
Your anti-globalization mindset I feel is a little behind the times. Yes, keeping manufacturing jobs in America would be nice, but it is simply not practical. I find it nauseating that a member of your community would be alienated because he wanted to build and expand his business, as this is and should be the aim of every business.
Call me unpatriotic, but I think it is not America's job to lead the world morally. If it is, we've been going a pretty poor job for quite a long time. I personally think that morals are determined by individual cultures and that forcing our morals on others is un-American.
Americans in manufacturing jobs might want to consider switching to the service sector, as those jobs will always stay in the communities they serve. I can't help but think that people need to overcome their isolationist ideals and realize minimizing costs while maintaining high quality is at the heart of consumer culture. If a worker overseas can do electrical work on a car as well as an American, why not outsource that job and cut cost? Protectionism sounds nice, but it is rather short-sighted and stagnates the economy. Globalization is the way of the world, and America must adjust to maintain its place in the world.
Post a Comment