31–40 of 121 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mexican workers get a dramatic quality of life improvement. US workers don't have to work for less than market value / cost of living prices. Tens of thousands of US people continue to get cheap cars. Sounds like a great deal.
Yes, US workers get to enjoy unemployment instead. Brilliant solution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the US now gets no new jobs but the price for the cars will go up as the labour cost increases, proving the very trivial point that tariffs function as a tax on domestic consumers. If the goal of the policy was to redistribute money from Japanese carmakers and American consumers to Mexican factory workers they've done a great job, very altruistic. Also it's quite hilarious how quickly the reputation of the US…
Raising your neighbor's income means they will import more from you, it's not backfiring, it's working as intended.
> The US-Mexico-Canada Agreement requires 40% or more of parts for each passenger vehicle be manufactured by workers who are paid at least $16 per hour... On face value this seems to be a very progressive condition.
It's kinda two ways. It raises the cost of automobiles (that's why analyses project a reduction in automobile sales by a bit over a million vehicles per year), reduces labour demand, and erases more low-skilled work; but those who do get the jobs may be paid more than otherwise, until the numbers expire.
What do new cars cost in the US? Does a price difference of $500 or $1000 really make someone say "all right, I'd rather do without a car"?
Sounds like a boon for Mexico, good for them. I guess it's kind of satisfying to see these policies have the opposite of the intended effect.
It's good for the US to have economically prosperous neighbors too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's kinda two ways. It raises the cost of automobiles (that's why analyses project a reduction in automobile sales by a bit over a million vehicles per year), reduces labour demand, and erases more low-skilled work; but those who do get the jobs may be paid more than otherwise, until the numbers expire.
> It raises the cost of automobiles (that's why analyses project a reduction in automobile sales by a bit over a million vehicles per year) What do new cars cost in the US? Does a price difference of $500 or $1000 really make someone say "all right, I'd rather do without a car"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's kinda two ways. It raises the cost of automobiles (that's why analyses project a reduction in automobile sales by a bit over a million vehicles per year), reduces labour demand, and erases more low-skilled work; but those who do get the jobs may be paid more than otherwise, until the numbers expire.
> It raises the cost of automobiles (that's why analyses project a reduction in automobile sales by a bit over a million vehicles per year) What do new cars cost in the US? Does a price difference of $500 or $1000 really make someone say "all right, I'd rather do without a car"?
The answer to this is obviously yes if you think about it (assuming you're talking about deciding against buying a new car specifically). The question is how many people?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's kinda two ways. It raises the cost of automobiles (that's why analyses project a reduction in automobile sales by a bit over a million vehicles per year), reduces labour demand, and erases more low-skilled work; but those who do get the jobs may be paid more than otherwise, until the numbers expire.
> It raises the cost of automobiles (that's why analyses project a reduction in automobile sales by a bit over a million vehicles per year) What do new cars cost in the US? Does a price difference of $500 or $1000 really make someone say "all right, I'd rather do without a car"?
The article is making it sound like some kind of backfire, and I'm not really sure why. It's gotta be good in the long run for US auto workers if their competitors' wages triple.
What are these 'wages' of which you speak? Robots do not have hourly wages: "Auto component maker Piolax, will also raise the hourly wage at its Mexican plant to $16 within the year. The company is also installing robots to mitigate rising labor costs, President Yukihiko Shimazu said."
There are obviously places where it makes sense, but a $15/hr human is preeeetty cheap compared to the price, programming, and maintenance of a robot.
Seeing the quote from Yukihiko, I feel it reads like PR or a soothing word to stockholders who hate to hear about employees and wages
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It raises the cost of automobiles (that's why analyses project a reduction in automobile sales by a bit over a million vehicles per year) What do new cars cost in the US? Does a price difference of $500 or $1000 really make someone say "all right, I'd rather do without a car"?
My guess is no, but it might make someone say "all right, I'd rather get a used car".
Also it might make some families go "all right I won't get a 2nd (or nth) car".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My guess is no, but it might make someone say "all right, I'd rather get a used car".
And person a getting a used car might make person b who was going to get a used car not get a car at all (or get a lower quality used car making person c...). Also it might make some families go "all right I won't get a 2nd (or nth) car".