GM packing its bags in Oshawa

[Zeitgeist]

13 minutes ago, Wilber said:

"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.

It simply sets a limit on non-domestic sales above existing levels.  Such a program will benefit existing and new domestic producers.  Their sales will remain strong or improve.  Canada and the US share a domestic auto market.  Both countries export and import freely between the two countries and are exempted from tariffs up to a certain quota under the new USMCA (beyond existing sales volumes).  The US insisted on a cap.  It isn't so different from the policy I propose.  Companies outside North America will still be able to increase imports to Canada, but there will have to be a benefit attached to it, whether it's employment, investment, etc.  Canada doesn't export many vehicles outside North America (5%), so counter measures would have minor impact.

Edited November 29, 2018 by Zeitgeist

[Zeitgeist]

7 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

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.

I could say the same about US imports to Canada (Shut it all down).  To what end?

[Wilber]

8 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

It simply sets a limit on non-domestic sales above existing levels.  Such a program will benefit existing and new domestic producers.  Their sales will remain strong or improve.  Canada and the US share a domestic auto market.  Both countries export and import freely between the two countries and are exempted from tariffs up to a certain quota under the new USMCA (beyond existing sales volumes).  The US insisted on a cap.  It isn't so different from the policy I propose.  Companies outside North America will still be able to increase imports to Canada, but there will have to be a benefit attached to it, whether it's employment, investment, etc.  Canada doesn't export many vehicles outside North America (5%), so counter measures would have minor impact.

Again, you are trying to manipulate a market that isn't large enough to support an industry on its own. Foreign makers will either see Canada as not worth the trouble because the sales don't justify it or just add the costs to the price of the vehicle. 

 

Trump tariffs threaten jobs in new US Volvo plant

Edited November 29, 2018 by Wilber

[bush_cheney2004]

6 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I could say the same about US imports to Canada (Shut it all down).  To what end?

 

No you can't...Canada controls neither the US/foreign manufacturers or the import/export markets.    It is dependent on both ends of the deal.

GM will continue to shut down plants in Canada, just as it has previously done until conditions are more favourable to GM, not Canada's "middle class".

[Zeitgeist]

5 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Again, you are trying to manipulate a market that isn't large enough to support an industry on its own. Foreign makers will either see Canada as not worth the trouble because the sales don't justify it or just add the costs to the price of the vehicle. 

 

Trump tariffs threaten jobs in new US Volvo plant

Except that it will be business as usual for existing import sales volumes.  Those sales have value to the foreign auto producers.  They will simply have to offset increased import sales with some investment in domestic auto production.  We had a quota under NAFTA on foreign auto production.  Again, our domestic producers won't be much impacted by counter measures.  Our exports outside North America represent 5% of Canada's auto sector.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

Except that it will be business as usual for existing import sales volumes.  Those sales have value to the foreign auto producers.  They will simply have to offset increased import sales with some investment in domestic auto production.  We had a quota under NAFTA on foreign auto production.  Again, our domestic producers won't be much impacted by counter measures.  Our exports outside North America represent 5% of Canada's auto sector.

 

Bad idea....the U.S. would just respond in kind....and Canada does not have the capacity to meet the challenge.   Two can play at that game, and Canada will never win such a trade war with the United States.   Be happy for what remains from foreign investment.....or risk losing that too.

[Wilber]

1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

Except that it will be business as usual for existing import sales volumes.  Those sales have value to the foreign auto producers.  They will simply have to offset increased import sales with some investment in domestic auto production.  We had a quota under NAFTA on foreign auto production.  Again, our domestic producers won't be much impacted by counter measures.  Our exports outside North America represent 5% of Canada's auto sector.

So you penalize foreign automakers for increasing sales but not domestic makers. That would result in retaliatory tariffs against Canada.

[Zeitgeist]

4 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

No you can't...Canada controls neither the US/foreign manufacturers or the import/export markets.    It is dependent on both ends of the deal.

GM will continue to shut down plants in Canada, just as it has previously done until conditions are more favourable to GM, not Canada's "middle class".

Nor does the US government control US/foreign manufacturers or the import/export markets, as the current shutdowns clearly demonstrate.  Trump is at a loss.  GM will continue to shut down plants in the US, just as it has previously done.  I could say the same things, but I disagree that making "conditions more favourable to GM" rather than to the countries, is the only tool to protect auto jobs.  Only sound rules, domestic and ideally international, will have impact.  We need careful policy that prevents companies that improve sales domestically from cutting employment domestically.  Tariffs have been too a blunt an instrument and have backfired by raising production costs on all existing and future production.

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, Zeitgeist said:

Nor does the US government control US/foreign manufacturers or the import/export markets, as the current shutdowns clearly demonstrate.  Trump is at a loss.  GM will continue to shut down plants in the US, just as it has previously done.  I could say the same things, but I disagree that making "conditions more favourable to GM" rather than to the countries, is the only tool to protect auto jobs.

 

That's fine....auto makers don't care about your goals....just their bottom lines.    Ontario was losing automotive and related jobs (300,000 ?) long before Trump came along, and Ontario kept digging it's own hole deeper and deeper.    There is nothing magic about auto sector jobs....or unions....they will whither still more because of conditions they cannot control.

Those jobs are not coming back....

 

Quote

Only sound rules, domestic and ideally international, will have impact.  We need careful policy that prevents companies that improve sales domestically from cutting employment domestically.  Tariffs have been too a blunt an instrument and have backfired by raising production costs on all existing and future production.

 

Good luck with that.....government control of such things is often called...fascism.

[Zeitgeist]

4 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Bad idea....the U.S. would just respond in kind....and Canada does not have the capacity to meet the challenge.   Two can play at that game, and Canada will never win such a trade war with the United States.   Be happy for what remains from foreign investment.....or risk losing that too.

The US should adopt this policy with Canada.  The US wants to protect existing exports to Canada, which are substantial.  US auto exports to Canada and Canadian auto exports to the US are protected under USMCA (within the quotas).  My proposal is an employment protection that kicks in when auto companies increase sales in the country and cut jobs in the same country.  The company's sales are only impacted negatively under those conditions.  Why would they take the risk of cutting employment with increasing sales if they know they will lose those increased sales?

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, Zeitgeist said:

...  Why would they take the risk of cutting employment with increasing sales if they know they will lose those increased sales?

 

Because labour and pension costs are often unbounded/low funded liabilities.   It is one of the main reasons GM went bankrupt in 2009.

Employment costs are far easier to control/limit than plant burden and material/parts costs.

Canadians already have "employment protection"... it is called "EI".

[Zeitgeist]

14 minutes ago, Wilber said:

So you penalize foreign automakers for increasing sales but not domestic makers. That would result in retaliatory tariffs against Canada.

No, we require some domestic inputs (production/investment) on increased imports above the current baseline.  If countries outside North America wanted to impose the same measures on our auto exports, that would be fine.  At least our domestic auto employment is protected.

[Zeitgeist]

2 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Because labour and pension costs are often unbounded/low funded liabilities.   It is one of the main reasons GM went bankrupt in 2009.

Employment costs are far easier to control/limit than plant burden and material/parts costs.

Canadians already have "employment protection"... it is called "EI".

No, that shifts all of the burden on private individual taxpayers.  We already do that with the GST, which replaced a tax we used to have on the goods we export. 

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

No, that shifts all of the burden on private individual taxpayers.  We already do that with the GST, which replaced a tax we used to have on the goods we export. 

 

Doesn't matter....if Canada wants these fabulous, high paying union jobs, then it has to pay to play.

Automakers don't owe Canada (or the USA) guaranteed employment levels....robotics and AI have already displaced many expensive, carbon based units.

[Zeitgeist]

4 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Because labour and pension costs are often unbounded/low funded liabilities.   It is one of the main reasons GM went bankrupt in 2009.

Employment costs are far easier to control/limit than plant burden and material/parts costs.

Canadians already have "employment protection"... it is called "EI".

The job protection wouldn't impact sales volumes when sales are falling.  Sales are capped and reduced ONLY when employment is cut under rising sales conditions.  The cap is removed when pre-cut employment levels are restored.

[Zeitgeist]

Just now, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Doesn't matter....if Canada wants these fabulous, high paying union jobs, then it has to pay to play.

Automakers don't owe Canada (or the USA) guaranteed employment levels....robotics and AI have already displaced many expensive, carbon based units.

Are you a robot?  We care about people, not robots.

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, Zeitgeist said:

The job protection wouldn't impact sales volumes when sales are falling.  Sales are capped and reduced ONLY when employment is cut under rising sales conditions.  The cap is removed when pre-cut employment levels are restored.

 

Unworkable....artificial control....would collapse under its own weight.   Automakers would leave Canada instead....Canadian automakers can't leave the USA...BECAUSE THERE ARE NONE !

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

Are you a robot?  We care about people, not robots.

 

Really ?   Save that sappy perspective for the next Michael Moore film.   Economics doesn't care....

[Zeitgeist]

2 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Unworkable....artificial control....would collapse under its own weight.   Automakers would leave Canada instead....Canadian automakers can't leave the USA...BECAUSE THERE ARE NONE !

You still don't get what's happening.  Auto producers are leaving the US, Canada, and any place that tries to pay workers fair wages that support a middle class lifestyle.  Remember the American Dream?  Or is it just for the few at the top in your books?

[Zeitgeist]

2 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Really ?   Save that sappy perspective for the next Michael Moore film.   Economics doesn't care....

So really you're just a slave to a system, a system that is man-made.  Wow, how powerless you must feel.

[Wilber]

6 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

No, we require some domestic inputs (production/investment) on increased imports above the current baseline.  If countries outside North America wanted to impose the same measures on our auto exports, that would be fine.  At least our domestic auto employment is protected.

Not really because you would require all models of all vehicles to be built in Canada. If a particular foreign manufacturer's model becomes very popular, they will either have to pay penalties or move production to Canada, which won't happen. The result is higher prices and fewer choices for Canadians.

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, Zeitgeist said:

You still don't get what's happening.  Auto producers are leaving the US, Canada, and any place that tries to pay workers fair wages that support a middle class lifestyle.  Remember the American Dream?  Or is it just for the few at the top in your books?

 

The American Dream has nothing to do with guaranteed employment levels in Ontario.   I do not expect policies in Canada to "protect" the American Dream.

This is about another plant closure in Canada...one of many....haven't seen this much whining since the EMD London plant was closed by Caterpillar.

Auto producers will logically move production to lowest cost and domestic markets.    Canada exports 85% of automotive production to the United States !

[bush_cheney2004]

5 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

So really you're just a slave to a system, a system that is man-made.  Wow, how powerless you must feel.

 

What are you talking about ?  I have been retired for years...after working several of them at a Tier 3 QS9000 automotive parts plant.  

I've seen it all...including union excesses...and they got exactly what they deserved.

[Zeitgeist]

No not at all.  The domestic investment rule applies to overall domestic employment of a company within the country regardless of city/province and regardless of model.  If a company has a hot export to Canada, it has a choice, either accept the current export limit or increase that limit by investing in the domestic auto industry.  Consumers are loyal to domestic producers and will reward companies, foreign or otherwise, that invest in the country.  That has been the story for Japanese auto makers in Canada for sure.

[Zeitgeist]

6 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

The American Dream has nothing to do with guaranteed employment levels in Ontario.   I do not expect policies in Canada to "protect" the American Dream.

This is about another plant closure in Canada...one of many....haven't seen this much whining since the EMD London plant was closed by Caterpillar.

Auto producers will logically move production to lowest cost and domestic markets.    Canada exports 85% of automotive production to the United States !

Whatever.  Go and exploit your own citizens if it means so much to you.