GM packing its bags in Oshawa

[Centerpiece]

42 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Canadian workers can build any kinds of vehicles, high or low tech.  I think it's time for our parts producers to scale up to building autos.  Canada has world's third largest auto parts maker, Magna.  They have produced prototypes of SUV's.  Perhaps they can take over those facilities.  May have to leave our Unifor...

Would love to see something like that. The Mexicans did pretty good building beetles and "city" golfs and City Jettas - previous generation cars that served as entry level vehicles for VW. Wouldn't it be nice if we could build a previous generation Corolla - Canada's favourite car for a long time.......or something along those lines. Just Blue-skying......but you never know.

[Wilber]

17 minutes ago, Centerpiece said:

Would love to see something like that. The Mexicans did pretty good building beetles and "city" golfs and City Jettas - previous generation cars that served as entry level vehicles for VW. Wouldn't it be nice if we could build a previous generation Corolla - Canada's favourite car for a long time.......or something along those lines. Just Blue-skying......but you never know.

Except that is a VW plant. It currently builds the Tiguan, Jetta and some others. If it were to happen, export markets would be critical, the Canadian market just isn't big enough to support the cost of developing new models and an older model Corolla couldn't compete unless it was dirt cheap.

Edited November 28, 2018 by Wilber

[Zeitgeist]

52 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Magna has also closed down several plants in Canada...and opened/purchased new ones outside of Canada....consistent with the dwindling automotive sector over the past 20 years in Ontario.   The cost fundamentals are no longer favourable, even with a lower value CAD. 

It can't just be about production costs.  If that was the only factor that counts, there would be no Canadian, U.S., or European auto production.  The big misunderstanding here, and I do think Trump has some appreciation of this (even if his solutions are wrong), is that when a country's auto production and manufacturing levels fall well short of the purchase levels of autos and manufactured goods within the same country, eventually the market for autos and manufacturing goods is destroyed.  Decent paying middle class jobs disappear.  This is what we mean when we talk about protecting the middle class.  It's about protecting the standard of living of working people and our whole way of life.  That's nice that the CEO of GM thinks she can get away with cutting costs by killing 15,000 manufacturing jobs in Canada and the US.  She is also killing the market for cars in Canada and the US.  Canadians (and Americans for that matter) don't give a shit how much money GM shareholders can make exploiting cheap labour in low cost jurisdictions.  We care about good middle class jobs for families here.  Henry Ford understood that by paying workers on the Model T assembly line a decent wage of $5.00 a day, he was creating markets for Ford autos.  GM has had too much public investment to get away with turning around and biting the hand that feeds it.  International trade has helped poorer countries to build a middle class that is a market for autos, including eventually some of ours (we hope).  That doesn't give these major companies, which are integrated into our infrastructure and even our government, the right to walk away. 

The solution is to set up a closure regulation as follows.  Based on current baseline data of auto sales and amount of auto production by company in Canada (same would apply to the US), implement a regulation that any percentage drop in the auto company's level of auto production must be reflected by a proportionate drop in the percentage of autos that the company can sell into the country.  For example, if GM cuts Canadian auto production by ten percent and it sold 19,000 units in Canada last year, GM must be limited to selling ten percent fewer cars in Canada the following year.  That would mean that GM would be limited to selling 17,100 units in Canada going forward, unless GM auto production in Canada increased.  

Edited November 28, 2018 by Zeitgeist

[Wilber]

So how would that work with import manufacturers that don't build cars in Canada, would they be prohibited from selling them? If Canadian production drops because larger markets are elsewhere and you restrict imports, what then? Not enough vehicles to buy? The problem with policies like these is anyone can play those games. This is what Trump is finding out now with his tariffs.

[Zeitgeist]

20 minutes ago, Wilber said:

So how would that work with import manufacturers that don't build cars in Canada, would they be prohibited from selling them? If Canadian production drops because larger markets are elsewhere and you restrict imports, what then? Not enough vehicles to buy? The problem with policies like these is anyone can play those games. This is what Trump is finding out now with his tariffs.

No, the sales of imported vehicles within Canada could continue, but import levels would be capped at current sales volumes unless domestic production by the auto manufacturer increases.  All current levels of sales are grandfathered.  The cap kicks in going forward on all imports, unless of course the manufacturer begins manufacturing domestically, at which point sales volumes can increase in proportion to domestic production increases.  Existing domestic manufacturing facilities can increase production and sales to an unlimited extent unless a company imposes job cuts.  The cap kicks in when a company's overall employment within Canada is cut.  Sales volumes are then capped and only increased in proportion with increases in employment.  The cap on sales volumes can be moderately increased over time if efficiencies are introduced yet there is no overall increase in employment levels.  However, the cap disappears completely if employment levels are restored by a company to the employment level that existed prior to the job cuts.  

Edited November 28, 2018 by Zeitgeist

[Wilber]

9 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

No, the sales of imported vehicles within Canada could continue, but import levels would be capped at current sales volumes unless domestic production by the auto manufacturer increases.  

So you would require all manufacturers to build cars in Canada. Ain't going to happen. 

Edited November 28, 2018 by Wilber

[Wilber]

Canada's problem is building a domestic auto business without a large domestic market. The US has such a market, as does China, Japan and India. All the EU countries have the entire EU as a domestic market.

[Zeitgeist]

12 minutes ago, Wilber said:

So you would require all manufacturers to build cars in Canada. Ain't going to happen. 

No I would not.  Read my post.  Capped means that current sales volumes continue but can't be exceeded without an equal proportion of domestic employment.  I won't even call it production.  An alternative to adding employment in proportion to increased sales could be investing in the economy or infrastructure in some form.  It doesn't have to be a tariff.

Edited November 28, 2018 by Zeitgeist

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

  ....GM has had too much public investment to get away with turning around and biting the hand that feeds it.  International trade has helped poorer countries to build a middle class that is a market for autos, including eventually some of ours (we hope).  That doesn't give these major companies, which are integrated into our infrastructure and even our government, the right to walk away.

 

 

Yes they can and have done so....perfectly legal to "walk away" after any public investment requirements have been met.   Oshawa is hardly the first auto plant to close in Canada or the United States.   Ontarios publicly elected leadership has done more to harm auto production in that province than any decision by GM executives.  GM already went bankrupt before by being very slow to adapt to changing market conditions and union labour liabilities.

 

Quote

The solution is to set up a closure regulation as follows.  Based on current baseline data of auto sales and amount of auto production by company in Canada (same would apply to the US), implement a regulation that any percentage drop in the auto company's level of auto production must be reflected by a proportionate drop in the percentage of autos that the company can sell into the country.  For example, if GM cuts Canadian auto production by ten percent and it sold 19,000 units in Canada last year, GM must be limited to selling ten percent fewer cars in Canada the following year.  That would mean that GM would be limited to selling 17,100 units in Canada going forward, unless GM auto production in Canada increased.  

 

Bad idea that would only hasten the downward spiral.   Canada is far more dependent on exports to the U.S. market, especially for automotive.   Canada is not ready for the inevitable transitions that are going to happen (reflected in the past days in Canadian media), partially because it is dependent on the decisions of foreign auto makers.  Canada has no domestically owned car make.

 

 

 

[Machjo]

I don't understand the obsession some Canadians have with the idea that Canada must have its own this and its own that. Heck, even the US, with ten times Canada's population, has foreign businesses on its soil building things that no US business produces. So what? Let Canada produce what it does best and export it and let it import what others do best.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Machjo said:

I don't understand the obsession some Canadians have with the idea that Canada must have its own this and its own that. Heck, even the US, with ten times Canada's population, has foreign businesses on its soil building things that no US business produces. So what? Let Canada produce what it does best and export it and let it import what others do best.

 

Agreed...Economics 101.

Canada does quite well in the resources sector (energy, heavy rail, pipelines, mining, etc.)....buying foreign corps in these businesses.

 

[Zeitgeist]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

 

Yes they can and have done so....perfectly legal to "walk away" after any public investment requirements have been met.   Oshawa is hardly the first auto plant to close in Canada or the United States.   Ontarios publicly elected leadership has done more to harm auto production in that province than any decision by GM executives.  GM already went bankrupt before by being very slow to adapt to changing market conditions and union labour liabilities.

 

 

Bad idea that would only hasten the downward spiral.   Canada is far more dependent on exports to the U.S. market, especially for automotive.   Canada is not ready for the inevitable transitions that are going to happen (reflected in the past days in Canadian media), partially because it is dependent on the decisions of foreign auto makers.  Canada has no domestically owned car make.

 

 

 

Take another look at my posts B_C.  They're a playbook Trump should consider for the US and Trudeau should consider for Canada.  It doesn't add costs (e.g. tariffs) to existing imports, but it does cap them and link sales volumes to domestic employment/investment.  It also protects existing domestic auto jobs by linking them to sales.  If a bad product doesn't sell and leads to job cuts overall within the company, an equally proportionate reduction (cap) on sales won't add costs to the company, because the job cuts are happening for the right reason: poor sales.  However, if a company's sales increase within a country and employment is reduced by that company in the same country, it's only fair that employment be protected.  Something very close to this has to happen to protect auto production.  If we go strictly on production costs as the sole determination in Canada/US of whether or not a plant should exist here, the answer will always be no.  No tariff will be large enough to stave off the offshoring of production without killing the domestic economy.  We need sensible regulation, as always.  NAFTA had weaker regulations on imports.  Look where it got us.  Canada should still take this route if the US decides to give up on its auto industry. 

[Zeitgeist]

8 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Agreed...Economics 101.

Canada does quite well in the resources sector (energy, heavy rail, pipelines, mining, etc.)....buying foreign corps in these businesses.

 

Wow, people on here don't understand that domestic production has nothing to do with where a company's head offices are located.  Japanese auto companies could turn out to be much better employers of Americans that American headquartered auto companies.  It comes down to how they are managed and the products they put out.  Japanese and German companies have become big domestic auto producers.  Any company can be a domestic auto producer.  My big point here is that you have to at some point prevent companies with steady or rising sales of autos within a country from cutting employment within that country, period.  If you can't introduce legislation/regulation to make this happen, good luck employing people in the auto sector.

Edited November 28, 2018 by Zeitgeist

[Machjo]

7 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Agreed...Economics 101.

Canada does quite well in the resources sector (energy, heavy rail, pipelines, mining, etc.)....buying foreign corps in these businesses.

 

But North Korea is quite economically sovereign. Isn't that economic powerhouse an example to emulate? Meanwhile, Most businesses in Hong Kong and Singapore come from abroad. What thirdworld backwaters they are!

[bush_cheney2004]

17 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Take another look at my posts B_C.  They're a playbook Trump should consider for the US and Trudeau should consider for Canada.  It doesn't add costs (e.g. tariffs) to existing imports, but it does cap them and link sales volumes to domestic employment/investment.  It also protects existing domestic auto jobs by linking them to sales.  If a bad product doesn't sell and leads to job cuts overall within the company, an equally proportionate reduction (cap) on sales won't add costs to the company, because the job cuts are happening for the right reason: poor sales. 

 

Nope....bad idea and policy at several levels.   Domestic auto jobs can't be protected by such heavy handed government intervention and controls.   Auto production is not statically based just on sales volumes...there are other factors in play.   Canada has no inalienable right to car plants...but it does have the right to compete for them.   As of today, Canada is less competitive, a 20 year trend.

 

Quote

However, if a company's sales increase within a country and employment is reduced by that company in the same country, it's only fair that employment be protected.  Something very close to this has to happen to protect auto production.  If we go strictly on production costs as the sole determination in Canada/US of whether or not a plant should exist here, the answer will always be no.  No tariff will be large enough to stave off the offshoring of production without killing the domestic economy.  We need sensible regulation, as always.  NAFTA had weaker regulations on imports.  Look where it got us.  Canada should still take this route if the US decides to give up on its auto industry. 

 

Not true....the U.S. has non-union, "right to work" states with lower costs, and continue to attract foreign investment for the N.A. market.   The U.S. has also been a leader for hybrid and EV auto engineering and production....not Canada.

I agree that Canada should do whatever it needs/wants to do for automotive jobs, but other nations' corporations are under no obligation to "protect" Ontario.

 

Edited November 28, 2018 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

7 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Wow, people on here don't understand that domestic production has nothing to do with where a company's head offices are located.

 

So Canada wants domestic production largely financed by foreign auto makers and foreign export markets ?

How has that worked out over the past 20 years ?

[Centerpiece]

1 hour ago, Wilber said:

Except that is a VW plant. It currently builds the Tiguan, Jetta and some others. If it were to happen, export markets would be critical, the Canadian market just isn't big enough to support the cost of developing new models and an older model Corolla couldn't compete unless it was dirt cheap.

As I said - I was just blue-skying. We have Toyota plants here in Ontario - non union of course. If the USMCA would permit it, we could export to the US. Dirt cheap is what the City Golf and City Jettas were. Maybe an investment from Stronach. Just sayin.........wouldn't it be nice.

[bush_cheney2004]

Why are so many cryin' the blues now...this has been going on for a long time.   Think Mexico !

 

 

https://globalnews.ca/news/3211196/gm-jobs-are-just-the-tip-of-what-canada-has-lost-to-mexico/

[Zeitgeist]

30 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Nope....bad idea and policy at several levels.   Domestic auto jobs can't be protected by such heavy handed government intervention and controls.   Auto production is not statically based just on sales volumes...there are other factors in play.   Canada has no inalienable right to car plants...but it does have the right to compete for them.   As of today, Canada is less competitive, a 20 year trend.

 

 

Not true....the U.S. has non-union, "right to work" states with lower costs, and continue to attract foreign investment for the N.A. market.   The U.S. has also been a leader for hybrid and EV auto engineering and production....not Canada.

I agree that Canada should do whatever it needs/wants to do for automotive jobs, but other nations' corporations are under no obligation to "protect" Ontario.

 

Okay, I'll be checking out of this forum for a while because you're wrong on too many of these issues and I'm too busy with my other consulting work to subject myself to more silly trolling and ill-informed views.  Here are some facts that you can choose to ignore:

Right to work is a race to the bottom, period.  It's protecting jobs by lowering wages and benefits and weakening unions, period.  It's great for the shabbiest US states that had poor paying jobs to begin with.  If you want the US to have an economy more like Mexico's with a much smaller middle class, knock yourself out.  

We already have heavy handed government intervention in the auto sector, such as quotas and restrictions on imports under NAFTA.  This is why we have so many joint ventures between the old "Big 3" (who are no longer the biggest 3) and Japanese companies.  Japanese, German, and South Korean auto manufacturers have had to domesticate their auto sector.  These policies did work to create jobs to some extent within North America, however, it has become worth it to all auto companies to off-shore to lower cost jurisdictions.  Excessive tariffs, however, will simply add to domestic production costs, as they have on steel and aluminum.

South Korea and Japan have heavy handed government intervention in the economy.  Japanese big industry is connected to old families and state support.  Big time!.  They protect their domestic industries from imports by creating a bureaucratic nightmare for companies that dare to try and cut through the red tape. 

We have non-unionized auto production in Ontario already: Japanese companies producing domestically in Canada and paying close to what the unionized employee are paid, but they are paid these wages because the precedent for good wages was set by unions.

Canadian manufacturing in the auto sector has always been high tech and highly productive.  Don't you dare try to make Canada out to be any less capable than we are.  We can produce EV and hybrid with the best of them.  Our tech sector is smaller scale because we're a smaller country.  Fuck that "hewers of wood" resource stereotype.  You don't know Canada.

Corporations don't have an obligation to protect Ontario unless Ontarians make them have an obligation, and we bloody will.  Canadians will protect themselves.  We have policy and money and will shape our society as we see fit.

We have domestic investors and consumers with clout.  What's more, I'm sure foreign investors would be relieved to see a government set policy that creates a more stable and predictable auto manufacturing sector.  Companies respond to bottom lines.  Impact their sales and they will listen.  Right now GM is seeing what it can get away with.  It's seeing whether governments will actually go after their sales as a means of protecting the middle class.  It's betting that governments won't.

Canada is highly competitive.  Stop repeating lies.  Go join your prez's fake news feed.  It seems Canada has to set its own auto policy because the US federal departments don't seem to know how to write good policy.  It's all about the blunt instrument of self-defeating tariffs.  Where are your wunderkinds?  Maybe they're afraid of getting fired?

 

 

 

[bush_cheney2004]

12 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Okay, I'll be checking out of this forum for a while because you're wrong on too many of these issues and I'm too busy with my other consulting work to subject myself to more silly trolling and ill-informed views.  Here are some facts that you can choose to ignore:

 

That's fine...you can run...but you can't hide.

 

Quote

Right to work is a race to the bottom, period.  It's protecting jobs by lowering wages and benefits and weakening unions, period.  It's great for the shabbiest US states that had poor paying jobs to begin with.  If you want the US to have an economy more like Mexico's with a much smaller middle class, knock yourself out. 

 

Actually, it attracts more foreign car plants to the USA.    Worry about Canada...the USA and Mexico will not save your "middle class".

 

Quote

Canadian manufacturing in the auto sector has always been high tech and highly productive.  Don't you dare try to make Canada out to be any less capable than we are.  We can produce EV and hybrid with the best of them.  Our tech sector is smaller scale because we're a smaller country.  Fuck that "hewers of wood" resource stereotype.  You don't know Canada.

 

I know Canada has no major domestic car make...even for EVs.   Stop using that lame "we're small" excuse while still demanding such big things.   The Oshawa plant was already a sideshow in Canadian auto production...doomed to close sooner or later.

 

Quote

Canada is highly competitive.  Stop repeating lies.  Go join your prez's fake news feed.  It seems Canada has to set its own auto policy because the US federal departments don't seem to know how to write good policy.  It's all about the blunt instrument of self-defeating tariffs.  Where are your wunderkinds?  Maybe they're afraid of getting fired?

 

Maybe the U.S. doesn't depend on decisions made in Canada.    Canada is not cost competitive for automotive production, and hasn't been long before Trump ever became president.    Stop whining and feeling sorry for yourself and do something instead.   Design something....build something....compete....instead of depending on foreigners to make it happen.   That's just pathetic.

 

 

 

[Zeitgeist]

9 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

That's fine...you can run...but you can't hide.

 

 

Actually, it attracts more foreign car plants to the USA.    Worry about Canada...the USA and Mexico will not save your "middle class".

 

 

I know Canada has no major domestic car make...even for EVs.   Stop using that lame "we're small" excuse while still demanding such big things.   The Oshawa plant was already a sideshow in Canadian auto production...doomed to close sooner or later.

 

 

Maybe the U.S. doesn't depend on decisions made in Canada.    Canada is not cost competitive for automotive production, and hasn't been long before Trump ever became president.    Stop whining and feeling sorry for yourself and do something instead.   Design something....build something....compete....instead of depending on foreigners to make it happen.   That's just pathetic.

 

 

 

We don't "depend" on foreign interests.  We work with them because often the interests are the same.  We are increasingly having to seek policies with safeguards against the bad foreign and trade policies of some other countries...What's sad about you is that you have a brain but don't have any positive policy ideas.  You criticize and that's it.  You just said that the middle class isn't worth saving.  Well I'm not here to protect those who already have much more than they need.  Government isn't primarily for them either, though it has provided many of the conditions that allowed them to become successful.  You represent a narrow band of the spectrum.  I don't really worry about Canada, because I know that we'll work together as a society to problem solve and find solutions that benefit everyone, not a rich minority.  Sadly, your views will be your demise, because while you think they protect the rich, they alienate the larger segments of society to such a great extent that at some point they're going to lash out.  Better add a few feet to that wall...

Edited November 28, 2018 by Zeitgeist

[bush_cheney2004]

22 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

We don't "depend" on foreign interests.  We work with them because often the interests are the same.  We are increasingly having to seek policies with safeguards against the bad foreign and trade policies of some other countries...

 

Thank you for confirming exactly what I have been saying....very consistent with a dependence on not only foreign direct investment, but also foreign (75% USA) export markets.

 

Quote

What's sad about you is that you have a brain but don't have any positive policy ideas.  You criticize and that's it.  You just said that the middle class isn't worth saving.  Well I'm not here to protect those who already have much more than they need.  Government isn't primarily for them either, though it has provided many of the conditions that allowed them to become successful.  You represent a narrow band of the spectrum.  I don't really worry about Canada, because I know that we'll work together as a society to problem solve and find solutions that benefit everyone, not a rich minority.  Sadly, your views will be your demise, because while you think they protect the rich, they alienate the larger segments of society to such a great extent that at some point they're going to lash out.  Better add a few feet to that wall...

 

There is no wall on the northern border...and more Canadians know which side to be on for their own self interests.   Your "society" has the same fracture lines it has always had, no matter how much you pretend otherwise.   I don't have to worry about Canada's problems, but you sure seem invested in what happens across the border.   

There's your trouble...

[Wilber]

2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

No I would not.  Read my post.  Capped means that current sales volumes continue but can't be exceeded without an equal proportion of domestic employment.  I won't even call it production.  An alternative to adding employment in proportion to increased sales could be investing in the economy or infrastructure in some form.  It doesn't have to be a tariff.

"Adding employment" is no different from a tariff as far as a manufacturer is concerned, it increases their costs. If Canada wants to be in the car business, it has to export and any restrictions we put on foreign manufacturers will be responded to in kind.

[Zeitgeist]

8 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Thank you for confirming exactly what I have been saying....very consistent with a dependence on not only foreign direct investment, but also foreign (75% USA) export markets.

 

 

There is no wall on the northern border...and more Canadians know which side to be on for their own self interests.   Your "society" has the same fracture lines it has always had, no matter how much you pretend otherwise.   I don't have to worry about Canada's problems, but you sure seem invested in what happens across the border.   

There's your trouble...

You seem to have great interest in "Canada's problems", but you don't see the mutual interests in global, continental, and domestic policies that curb the losses of good jobs in Canada and the US.  I find it funny that you're so bent on calling out our dependence on the U.S. (Canada is also the US's biggest export market), yet you counter every made in Canada policy, product, politician...We hear a lot about anti-Americanism, but your posts are very ant-Canada.  Then why bother commenting?  Of course you don't care about Canada... 

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

You seem to have great interest in "Canada's problems", but you don't see the mutual interests in global, continental, and domestic policies that curb the losses of good jobs in Canada and the US.  I find it funny that you're so bent on calling out our dependence on the U.S. (Canada is also the US's biggest export market), yet you counter every made in Canada policy, product, politician...We hear a lot about anti-Americanism, but your posts are very ant-Canada.  Then why bother commenting?  Of course you don't care about Canada... 

 

Because I enjoy blowing the exact same crap back 'atcha.  Maybe you preferred it more when Americans ignored Canada while some Canadians remain obsessed with what is happening in the United States ("because it affects us !!!")

How many times do I have to tell you that the U.S. economy is not nearly as dependent on exports, and the export base that it does have is far more diversified than Canada's. 

GM has been marginal for a long time, and sure can't afford to continue playing games in Ontario.   Shut it all down.