Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Boston is also a hub for asset management, biotech and of course, academia. I used to travel there a lot in my old job to meet with portfolio managers and it was my most frequent destination outside of NYC. Those jobs are not moving to Texas.
Study very closely what the morons in Sacramento have done over the past 30+ years, and do the exact opposite; policies which result in stupendously successful companies starting with Toyota leaving California and taking 4,000-5,000+ 6-figure jobs with them to Texas is indefensibly asinine.
The auto industry is red-hot right now, but not a single car is built in a state in which over 70% of the new cars sold statewide every year are from foreign automakers and pay very well; that is also downright stupid as well.
I'm not exactly a huge proponent of eliminating offshoring. Hiring American workers is nice but it shouldn't be done at the expense of the business solely for the sake of creating jobs in the US.
Why not? What's more important -- putting Americans to work, or protecting business profits?
Offshoring is a result of greed, and greed has reached epidemic proportions in this country. Corporate profits are at all-time highs while the gap between rich and poor widens to record levels, and people with master's degrees end up flipping burgers. Workers aren't valued anymore. They're just commodities hired as cheaply as possible and disposed of without a second thought. That's what needs to change.
Corporations are already masking lack of organic growth by continuing to raise dividends and initiate share buybacks. And corporations aren't growing because people increasingly can't afford to buy the products they make. They're apparently too short-sighted to see that as they continue to sacrifice workers in the pursuit of cutting costs, they're creating more people who can't participate fully in the economy. They're putting us all on a long, slow path to financial ruin, all for the short-term goal of lining their own pockets.
They seem to have forgotten that we're all in this together.
Why not? What's more important -- putting Americans to work, or protecting business profits?
Offshoring is a result of greed, and greed has reached epidemic proportions in this country. Corporate profits are at all-time highs while the gap between rich and poor widens to record levels, and people with master's degrees end up flipping burgers. Workers aren't valued anymore. They're just commodities hired as cheaply as possible and disposed of without a second thought. That's what needs to change.
Corporations are already masking lack of organic growth by continuing to raise dividends and initiate share buybacks. And corporations aren't growing because people increasingly can't afford to buy the products they make. They're apparently too short-sighted to see that as they continue to sacrifice workers in the pursuit of cutting costs, they're creating more people who can't participate fully in the economy. They're putting us all on a long, slow path to financial ruin, all for the short-term goal of lining their own pockets.
They seem to have forgotten that we're all in this together.
Heard of unintended consequences?
You know what happens. Instead of companies off-shoring, it will be the tipping point of any company that decided against relocating their corporate headquarters for better business climates. It will open up the flood gates for companies that considered moving for tax inversions to foreign countries. Then, you will have lost hundreds of thousands jobs relocated to Europe or Hong Kong with the low-level work done in India/China(mainland).
Study very closely what the morons in Sacramento have done over the past 30+ years, and do the exact opposite; policies which result in stupendously successful companies starting with Toyota leaving California and taking 4,000-5,000+ 6-figure jobs with them to Texas is indefensibly asinine.
The auto industry is red-hot right now, but not a single car is built in a state in which over 70% of the new cars sold statewide every year are from foreign automakers and pay very well; that is also downright stupid as well.
What about the auto industry is "red hot"? The median salary of the assembly line worker is $14/hr.
A big contributor to Toyota relocating those office jobs that its assembly lines were already in Texas and nearby southern states (see average assembly line wages). But as mentioned earlier, Cali still draws high tech, VC and finance companies plus has a multibillion dollar trade business w/ Asia notwithstanding - or maybe because of - what happens in Sacramento.
Red hot auto market? Hardly. The average car in Mass is 10 years old. Heck I was in western Mass a few months ago and saw a Festiva. Not the new Festiva...the Carter era this was sold for a year here only Festiva.
Car sales are a bit misleading because that is not the real number to look for. Look for new car registration numbers from states and car excise taxes from major cities. Most car sales involve tradeins so frankly it is not *really* creating NEW customers.
Kia is trying to brainwash people in cities with those hampster commercials into buying new cars.
95% of a time a car just sits there. On average of time a car is used only 5% of the time. This is why lyft, rideshare, sidecar and uber scare the hell out of car companies. Heck a new mass transit system just emerged in Boston called Bridj. We already have debates in this country over the right to repair as the codes to repair cars are not always as open from the manufactures. The supply chain of the automotive industry has too much bloat and frankly it shows.
Technically with California and cars there is Tesla that now operates the old NUMMI plant. Tesla has already has sued and won in various states to sell cars directly. Between endless parts suppliers and manufacturers it just makes sense sometimes to just go direct.
Car production does not really mean that much in jobs because hardly anything of it is hand made.
"Workers aren't valued anymore. They're just commodities hired as cheaply as possible and disposed of without a second thought. That's what needs to change. "
And at the same point even with unions and contracts you can be disposed of without a second thought. The largest state contract in Massachusetts history was with the commuter rail contract. 4.26 billion dollars. http://bostinno.streetwise.co/2014/0...rail-contract/
The MBCR was the operator and frankly some thought the default favorite. I don't know how much longer MBCR can operate without a contract. It doesn't mean everyone was laid off as this was a management contract but still. If you are in a union frankly you only count as one vote. So if they vote to go on strike and you do not want to then you have to obey the union. A wildcat strike does not gain anyone anything.
Everything is commoditized or else how would anything be bought or sold or negotiated?
A friend of mine works at a hardware store, it is a small chain where they have high prices on everything. Some customers still shop there because they don't mind paying more. But then this happened. they started selling pumpkins, gords and other seasonal products. The other day a customer came in that runs a farm stand was livid that it happened. But it is called competition. What is wrong with competition? Just like how some slam box stores and yet there's hardly evidence of closing other stores. Before Walmart there was Sears and Woolworths and plenty of other chains. Competition mounts to get more people to shop. Drug stores now sell bread, cheese, eggs and milk, supermarkets now have a hardware and pets section, hardware stores carrying laundry detergent and soda etc.
Saying the car market is not a good gauge because they don't create new customers is a flawed argument. It's not a constant sales model like say disposable razors or beef producers. Cars have are like homes, they have a long but unlike homes also have somewhat limited lifespan unless someone continues to do their own work (mainly on older cars due to the computers from about 2000 or so.) Most replace cars when the warranty is up (which is why the average ownership of a car is 7 years along with leasing options) or it is less expensive to replace it if there is a wreck or catastrophic breakage. Their business isn't about new customers, it's about creating return and loyal customers.
You know what happens. Instead of companies off-shoring, it will be the tipping point of any company that decided against relocating their corporate headquarters for better business climates. It will open up the flood gates for companies that considered moving for tax inversions to foreign countries. Then, you will have lost hundreds of thousands jobs relocated to Europe or Hong Kong with the low-level work done in India/China(mainland).
Possibly, on the other hand, the unintended consequences of moving jobs overseas is that it lowers you domestic customer base. Why, because there are less buyers. We've seen enough companies do this, run lean or look to automate that this is becoming a problem for some companies and industries. Edit: So they move jobs to make it look good in a cost perspective but years later, it eats into their profits when their customer base shrinks too.
Saying the car market is not a good gauge because they don't create new customers is a flawed argument. It's not a constant sales model like say disposable razors or beef producers. Cars have are like homes, they have a long but unlike homes also have somewhat limited lifespan unless someone continues to do their own work (mainly on older cars due to the computers from about 2000 or so.) Most replace cars when the warranty is up (which is why the average ownership of a car is 7 years along with leasing options) or it is less expensive to replace it if there is a wreck or catastrophic breakage. Their business isn't about new customers, it's about creating return and loyal customers.
I wouldn't call it a flawed argument. If the consumer market is not growing it will ultimately die out.
This is where marketing has to play in Can the New Cadillac CTS Catch Up to BMW? - WSJ
"But in some respects it is the same old Cadillac facing the same dilemma. The average age of a Cadillac owner is 65 years old, compared with 49 years for BMW and 48 years for Audi, according to researcher StrategicVision. The new-to-GM eight-speed transmission has been available in rival vehicles for more than a year"
Sometimes you have to start to think about marketing because if it is not sustainable then there is no future in it.
I wouldn't call it a flawed argument. If the consumer market is not growing it will ultimately die out.
This is where marketing has to play in Can the New Cadillac CTS Catch Up to BMW? - WSJ
"But in some respects it is the same old Cadillac facing the same dilemma. The average age of a Cadillac owner is 65 years old, compared with 49 years for BMW and 48 years for Audi, according to researcher StrategicVision. The new-to-GM eight-speed transmission has been available in rival vehicles for more than a year"
Sometimes you have to start to think about marketing because if it is not sustainable then there is no future in it.
I understand that. GM cut off the dead brands after the recession including Hummer, Oldsmobile and Pontiac to streamline. Why, they were spread too thin and sunk money brought in by successful brands like Chevy, Caddy, GMC and even Buick. The problem is we never saw Scion (a Toyota brand) the Kias, the Hyundais and other new brands until the 2000's so they had to take market share from somewhere (Hummer's was different as their market was both high income people and off-roaders before being turned into a suburban SVU with the H2 and H3 when they lost their vision after GM bought them from American Motors.)
As for the article, I don't think there are that many old owners of Cadillacs. I actually see quite a few driving around by me and not every driver I see is that old. Maybe one in three, one in four. Perhaps that is a case of anecdotal evidence but I just don't see the 65 year old Caddy owner as much as younger 30/40 year olds. Perhaps BMW and Audi just get more younger people to buy making a cluster all over the place and leading to lower average ages.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
