all set with chinese chit

[Mike P]

Originally Posted by basswipe

There's this idea in today's world that if its not made in the US its made in China.You really can't lump Fein,Heckler and Koch,Toyota and Shimano with the "Made In China" crap,you just can't as all four make some of the finest products in their respective categories.When it comes to guns and power tools I have no issue buying German.When it comes to cars I have no issue buying Toyota.When it comes to fishing reels I buy Shimano.When an American company builds a better sander than my Fein,builds a better light truck than my Tacoma I'll be the first guy in line to buy American.

Guns are different.Germans and Americans make so much damn fine weaponry.An HK91 is an outstanding rifle.There's a reason Fabrigue Nationale exists(and makes our M16s)...the FAL and FNC are the some of the finest rifles on the planet.Fishing reels?Are there any made in the US anymore?Shimano reels are an outstanding product.


These are just a few of the products that simply put are superior in there performance.Other than that I try to buy as much American as I can.I'll never buy a Chinese made apple pie but I will buy their fireworks.

Well, the fact of the matter is, almost every Toyota sold in the US is built right here, by American workers. So you can feel extra special good about it.

[nightfighter]

Originally Posted by Mike P

Well, the fact of the matter is, almost every Toyota sold in the US is built right here, by American workers. So you can feel extra special good about it.

It's true. More of their parts are American made than Ford's. But at least most of those ford parts are made just over the Canadian border, not in China. Also sad that our largest export is gasoline.... Pencil pushers have pushed all our manufacturing offshore.

[GregW]

Originally Posted by nightfighter

It's true. More of their parts are American made than Ford's. But at least most of those ford parts are made just over the Canadian border, not in China. Also sad that our largest export is gasoline.... Pencil pushers have pushed all our manufacturing offshore.

Ross,
Sadly it is the American consumer that pushed the jobs offshore. I always hear people complain that walmart has forced smaller shops out of business. If the consumer never flocked to walmart we would still have the smaller shops and the jobs to go with it. It is truly sad , and I wish more people to a look into what would help the economy and make those choices.


On a seperate note , why do people incorrectly claim that toyota is a "top" vehicle? It has been the most recalled brand for several years. Can't be that "well built" if they have to keep recalling them.

[spence]

Originally Posted by GregW

Ross,
Sadly it is the American consumer that pushed the jobs offshore. I always hear people complain that walmart has forced smaller shops out of business. If the consumer never flocked to walmart we would still have the smaller shops and the jobs to go with it. It is truly sad , and I wish more people to a look into what would help the economy and make those choices.

I'd say it has more to simply do with globalism and market forces. Yes, certainly people's choices have had a big impact, but the path of least resistance to profit will always be there...

On a seperate note , why do people incorrectly claim that toyota is a "top" vehicle? It has been the most recalled brand for several years. Can't be that "well built" if they have to keep recalling them.

Strong "brand identity".

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by GregW

Ross,
Sadly it is the American consumer that pushed the jobs offshore. I always hear people complain that walmart has forced smaller shops out of business. If the consumer never flocked to walmart we would still have the smaller shops and the jobs to go with it. It is truly sad , and I wish more people to a look into what would help the economy and make those choices.

Actually, the consumer is not responsible for net jobs lost by buying from Walmart. The money the consumer saves by buying at Walmart will be spent elsewhere in the economy, creating or saving other jobs.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Actually, the consumer is not responsible for net jobs lost by buying from Walmart. The money the consumer saves by buying at Walmart will be spent elsewhere in the economy, creating or saving other jobs.

I think it's a fair observation that the "big box" stores in general have had a tremendous impact on modeling consumer behavior.

They can both leverage their buying power as well as squeeze the manufacturer to reduce costs. While the consumer might see an increase in variety and cheaper prices, the flip side is lower quality products or people buying junk they really don't need...while still racking up a lot of debt.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I think it's a fair observation that the "big box" stores in general have had a tremendous impact on modeling consumer behavior.

This "modeling" has been going on in the U.S. for well over a century. Walmart is just another in the line of department store types in which the new model finds ways to sell at lower costs. Just about all the usual brand items have gone through this selling process--even automobiles with Henry Ford's assembly line manufacturing and the growth of dealerships. And this "modeling" is based on the age-old model of haggling where the consumer tries to buy at the cheapest price. Any type of intervention to "model" the consumer into buying at smaller, single owned outlets at a higher price will have to overcome the natural and reasonable desire to save money, and will have to be done by force against free market principle. Whenever this has been done, either by price fixing or by socialist governments, economic activity dwindles, and instead of job growth, unemployment and shrinking economy results.

They can both leverage their buying power as well as squeeze the manufacturer to reduce costs. While the consumer might see an increase in variety and cheaper prices, the flip side is lower quality products or people buying junk they really don't need...while still racking up a lot of debt.

-spence

Reducing manufacturing costs should be the aim of competitive manufacturers. If lower quality results, then there will be a market for better quality producers. There are many niche products of all types that sell on the basis of quality at a higher price and they do well.

Have you been to a Walmart? Many, if not most, of the goods are brand items. It's not all junk. Most of it is not junk. And this is just a guess--I'd guess that most Walmart customers go there in order not to rack up a lot of debt, or to rack up less of it than they would if they had to pay higher prices.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

This "modeling" has been going on in the U.S. for well over a century. Walmart is just another in the line of department store types in which the new model finds ways to sell at lower costs. Just about all the usual brand items have gone through this selling process--even automobiles with Henry Ford's assembly line manufacturing and the growth of dealerships. And this "modeling" is based on the age-old model of haggling where the consumer tries to buy at the cheapest price. Any type of intervention to "model" the consumer into buying at smaller, single owned outlets at a higher price will have to overcome the natural and reasonable desire to save money, and will have to be done by force against free market principle. Whenever this has been done, either by price fixing or by socialist governments, economic activity dwindles, and instead of job growth, unemployment and shrinking economy results.

That's the academic analysis. I think what I've read in this thread is that people see the rise of Wal-Mart (and other similar stores) precisely as a product of the free market and they are concerned with the long-term impact.

Reducing manufacturing costs should be the aim of competitive manufacturers. If lower quality results, then there will be a market for better quality producers. There are many niche products of all types that sell on the basis of quality at a higher price and they do well.

I said to reduce the costs, as in total costs so they can buy at a lower wholesale cost. While some niche products do sell well, my observation is that they're increasingly being crowded out.

Have you been to a Walmart? Many, if not most, of the goods are brand items. It's not all junk. Most of it is not junk. And this is just a guess--I'd guess that most Walmart customers go there in order not to rack up a lot of debt, or to rack up less of it than they would if they had to pay higher prices.

I try not to shop at Wal-Mart often although I certainly have been inside them several times. There's quite likely a relationship between my experience and shopping behavior.

As for brand names, that's something a lot of people are concerned with.

It's very common for brand names to compromise their quality because of pressure to meet a retailer's cost targets. Much of this is hidden to the average consumer. There's a reason that same bottle of fruit juice costs 1/2 as much as the local grocery store, or that gas grill that used to be 500 dollars is now magically 250...and it's not just because of buying power. I work with these manufactures every day and see what goes on first hand...

Now obviously, a company is making a business decision to potentially tarnish their reputation in exchange for access to more consumers. But as retail is consolidated into bigger stores, there really is less freedom to do so. Yes, it's all the mechanics of the market, but back to what I'm hearing...do they see lower quality, lower wages and a proliferation of offshore manufacturing? or do people believe they're better off with convenient access to lower price products?

If the growth engine of the US economy is in small business, I'd think the market share of large corporations in retail would be an issue for discussion. To do so isn't a de facto endorsement for extreme government control, but reality is that the government does regulate commerce and quite often manages imports/exports for strategic gain.

-spence

[GregW]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Actually, the consumer is not responsible for net jobs lost by buying from Walmart. The money the consumer saves by buying at Walmart will be spent elsewhere in the economy, creating or saving other jobs.

No, actually that is completely wrong. The economy is run by many factors , not just one purchase.

First example, consumer spending is often driven by confidence. Confidence is closely related to the unemployment rate. Walmart is the worse offenders off forcing companies to go offshore to produce products at the price that walmart demands. When there are massive job losses it causes a problem in two ways. Those that are laid off don't have money to spend and those that do have jobs don;t have the same confidence, therefore not spending as much money as before.

Second reason: Walmart does not pay a viable wage. When supermarkets have unions (and I am not arguing for or against them) they can not compete price wise and may be forced out. Those employees went from making a livable wage to being forced into a low wage by the only place in town.

Do you work for walmart?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by GregW

No, actually that is completely wrong. The economy is run by many factors , not just one purchase.

I was speaking to the factor you brought up--the consumer pushing jobs offshore by spending at places like walmart. In respect to that factor, the money saved by spending there is money that can be spent elsewhere. Is that completely wrong?

First example, consumer spending is often driven by confidence.

I don't know about other consumers, but the only confidence I look to in spending is the confidence that I can afford to spend. Is your spending restricted by "consumer confidence" or by your own ability and desire? I have yet to talk to anyone who has confided that they weren't going to buy something because of some poll manufactured "consumer confidence" being down.

Confidence is closely related to the unemployment rate. Walmart is the worse offenders off forcing companies to go offshore to produce products at the price that walmart demands. When there are massive job losses it causes a problem in two ways. Those that are laid off don't have money to spend and those that do have jobs don;t have the same confidence, therefore not spending as much money as before.

Walmart has been around for many years during which time the unemployment rate has varied from low to high. So during the times that the rate was low, was Walmart responsible for the low unemployment? It seems you're implying that Walmart is part of the reason for high unemployment. If that's the case, the rate should have been and stayed high for a long while rather than fluctuating. And how does Walmart "force" companies to go offshore? Are you speaking of products that are produced solely for sale at Walmart? Is there some kind of contract between Walmart and these manufacturers wherein their products can only be sold through Walmart? If so, then Walmart is "forcing" the creation of a company that otherwise would not exist. As I mentioned to Spence above, much of what is for sale in Walmart are normal brand products that can be purchased at other stores for a higher price. If they are forced by Walmart to manufacture at a lower price, why are their products more expensive elsewhere, and is it not good for the consumer that Walmart sells them cheaper? And doesn't this lower price help those that are laid off rather than hurt them? And there are other stores, there really are, that those who choose not to spend at Walmart, can spend--with confidence. I have not seen a real correlation between Walmart, unemployment, and so-called "consumer confidence."

Second reason: Walmart does not pay a viable wage. When supermarkets have unions (and I am not arguing for or against them) they can not compete price wise and may be forced out. Those employees went from making a livable wage to being forced into a low wage by the only place in town.

So how do Walmart employees avoid starvation and homelessness? I have been going to Bowling Green, Ohio for several years to visit my son. When I first started going there, there were two large grocery stores (Kroger and a Value-something-or-other) and a K-mart. A Meier store moved in about ten years ago, then a Walmart followed. At first the Meier was the price competitor, which drove the Value-something-or-other out of business. Then Walmart created even more price competition. The Kroger is doing well and has lowered prices and maintained or improved quality and service, as well as has Meier, and a new really low-priced grocery store named Aldi has moved in. The town now has four grocery stores with varying competitive prices and quality including the super Walmart and Meier. The Kmart was in trouble and went out of business before Walmart moved in. The consumers have benefitted. There are more jobs.

Do you work for walmart?

No

[GregW]

Is my spending influenced by confidence? Yes 100%. For example if I feared losing my job my spending would instantly be cut back. That is just common sense.
And ultimately even a rumor of layoffs can instantly cripple an economy.
Here is an example for you. You are a manufacturing company that employs production workers. Wal-Mart, one of the larger purchasers, says that they will now only pay $7 for a product you were recently charging $10 for. A foreign company will make it for that price. To answer your question: why were they charging "so much more?" , is because the company pays American citizens , American wages and also pays research and development , while foreign companies will copy the product changing one minor thing and then selling it to American markets.
So, you as an executive have two choices. To lay off workers and stop selling to Wal-Mart or to ship all or part of the production off shore to be able to meet Wal-Mart’s price demand. Following so far?
Now that there are rumors of layoffs, common sense would tell you that those factory workers will instantly cut back spending. This seems minor at first until you consider all the others affected by it. The local restaurants see a decrease in business, so those employees spend less. The tr#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g company that moves the products hears of this and instantly their employees are worried and spending less. This follows suit with all other industries from real estateto the guy filling the vending machine.
Now, do you understand how this can quickly affect a lot of industries?
Now imagine it in a lot more towns.

Now, the other issues. Is the money saved by purchasing cheaper goods at Wal-Mart, and then pushed back into the economy? Not necessarily. And even if it is the value of the dollar is greatly effected due to the problem with the economy.

Is Wal-Mart the only offender? No, of course not. I used it as an example.
If you think Wal-Mart has nothing to do with unemployment, then tell me how many manufacturing jobs it supports, and how many jobs it has sent overseas?

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Actually, the consumer is not responsible for net jobs lost by buying from Walmart. The money the consumer saves by buying at Walmart will be spent elsewhere in the economy, creating or saving other jobs.

no, they just buy a larger quantity of crap

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by GregW

Ross,
Sadly it is the American consumer that pushed the jobs offshore. I always hear people complain that walmart has forced smaller shops out of business. If the consumer never flocked to walmart we would still have the smaller shops and the jobs to go with it. It is truly sad , and I wish more people to a look into what would help the economy and make those choices.

I find that hard to believe

The consumer can't resist the carrot of lower prices dangled in front of them.
people make 10 to 30 grand a year and want their dollar to stretch as far as possible so they get more quantity because of a lower price.

it's turned us into a throw away society since all the crap breaks or does not last, not to mention is obsolete as technology advances.

I'd like to be able to buy products made right here in the USA when I can. the more companies choose to ship their manufacturing over seas, the harder that is to continue. Now just about the only way to buy an American woodworking machine, is to get an old used one if you can find it. the chinese crap is junk for the most part