cardboard, if recycled, is more likely comes from china. all that paper
you set aside for recycling alongside the garbage? gets sent to china
for processing, then sent back here, often printed and ready to go as a
new package. glass containers? same [but see below]. plastic
dude, you're /way/ behind the times. the n.c. furniture industry has
been annihilated in recent years.
you are correct in that, in as much as they're assembled here, but like
the auto industry, those guys get their controllers, motors, wiring
harnesses, steels drums, etc. made in china first.
made from chinese polyester.
unfortunately, same deal. "made in" is usually "assembled in", and does
not address the source of the components.
so why are we buying spy plane parts from austria and uk???
the heat exchanger and the controls and the copper pipe is all most
likely made in china. see above.
and snap-on, and craftsman, and vaughn - that's why i buy them. but
irwin, owners of the vise grip brand, recently sold out to china. and
they kept their prices the same and have the temerity to call them
"original". i've already bought my last pair of irwin vice grips.
my accord was made in marysville, oh. isn't it bizarre that japanese
companies can manufacture in the u.s. but u.s. companies can't?
and fender's squire guitars is made where?
you're right and wrong on that. recycling glass is a waste of freakin'
time for exactly the reasons you state. however, more cheaply
recyclable though it may be, p.e.t. has other issues and it shouldn't be
in the food chain at all.
increasingly not so. and p.e.t. packaging films used for those clear
shiny bags and vacuum formed cartons are made in china.
p.e.t. is an endocrine disruptor and implicated in the diabetes
epidemic. stay away from it. the drinks industry will tell you
otherwise because the clear, shiny, CO₂ impermeable plastic is great for
sales. but the f.d.a. doesn't allow that material to be used for
storage or intra-industrial containers for a reason. the only rationale
the p.e.t. producers and big soda companies have been able to use to get
that stuff approved for the retail channel is it's alleged "short term
usage". again, stay away from p.e.t.
Bottom line is obvious that in YOUR mind, unless something is made 100% in
and from US materials, it's not part of the US maunfacturing process.
By that (very narrow minded) definition, I give up. Obviously it's an all
or nothing situation.
Hint - That's been long gone for many, many , many years.
Even back in the 50's -60's when textiles were commonly made in the US,
components of the process such as the dyes were often imported, so even back
then hardly any US textiles / apparel were truly 100% made in the US. I
would not be surprised if some component of cars were imported as well.
I think the reason for Boeing's outsourcing is not entirely their
constant push for lower costs. It is often dictated by potential buyers
of Boeing planes as a condition for sale. Well, at least Boeing has not
yet set up a complete assembly line in China as Airbus has with the A320
model. This is like a death wish on the part of Airbus because it helps
China to develop her own commercial aircraft industry undercutting
Airbus and Boeing in price. So who will have the last laugh?
could not agree more - airbus are being retarded.
though i have to say, i don't think there will be many buyers for
chinese-made aircraft. losing a tire or a compressor is one thing.
losing avionics, a wing or blowing the cabin pressure at 30kft - that's
a whole different story.
Those Chinese made A320s will be sold to Chinese airlines --- at least
initially. But still, that just means fewer European made planes will be
exported there. That will still translate to fewer French and German
I can explain it. It's cheaper to do it that way. As long as the
bottom line is better for the corporation, screw America first. And
those corporations are now allowed to spend as much as they want on
our elections. Gee, I wonder which party they're pouring money into.
how on earth can that be??? you feed the the things into a drum
roaster, then spray them with saline. that's an automated process [or
at least, it should be]. if it's automated, where is the labor saving?
if there's no labor saving, wtf is the point in shipping to china so
they can pollute our food with their their toxic waste tainted salt?
nixon was fundamentally wrong when he spoke of "engaging" china and
portraying it as a huge potential new sales market. chinese peasants
had no money to buy anything we made. he could have "engaged" africa or
india if that was the objective.
however, if nixon's agenda was to open up a compliant, subservient and
easily exploited new union-free labor market, he was right on [i mean,
where did we turn to get our railroad labor? the africans and indians
don't stand for that]. oh brother, he was right on. and the chinese
rulers for their part have not only embraced the opportunity, taken the
ball and run with it, they're off in the next parish when it comes to
jumping on the opportunity it's afforded them for intellectual property
theft and industrialization.
as i said before, if you have an industrial manufacturing capability,
you have a war capability. if you export your industrial manufacturing
capability, you export your war capability. not a very smart move in my
As long as oil is cheap, freight transportation costs are essentially
Along that line, it's common for apparrel & household textiles to be shipped
back and forth through numerous countries from start to finish.
Cotton can be ground in one country and combined with polyester made in
another country which was made from oil out of the mid east. The yrans can
be made in yet another country and the goods can be knit or woven in yet
still another country. Dyeing and finishing can be done elsewhere and the
pieces cut in one country while sewn in another.
Bottom line, there are essentially no vertically integrated companies
anymore (outside of perhaps China for some items).
shipping doesn't factor into it if there is no factory to ship to.
right, but you have it done in places that have the capacity [1st] and
do it cheap [2nd]. shipping factors into the latter. you don't make
choices only based on shipping costs unless you have a number of choices
available to you and it's simply a matter of competitive contracts.
in san francisco, there is still a lot of textile manufacturing. all
chinese owned. sweatshops. they do work on contract for companies like
patagonia. [and man, you should see the conditions. unbelievable that
they're legal. if they're legal.] and as you say, companies like
american apparel manufactures here too. so again, how can those guys
make it work, but others can't? look at how these manufacturers manage
their union situation and you'll find your answer.
as for shipping, the cost per ton of rail vs. truck can be 5x cheaper
for rail on some bulk commodities. but how many truck drivers are union
vs railroad workers?
it all comes down to union management. if management can handle its
labor, and thus unions, we've retained those industries. where
management is bad and can't handle its unions, particularly in a
political climate where union destruction has been seen as paramount and
de-industrialization is regarded as acceptable collateral damage, then
we've lost them.
we should look to germany for how they reconciled their union
requirements with their manufacturing requirements. de-industrializing
and thus wrecking our national military security just to get rid of
unionized labor and it's tendency to vote "the wrong way" is just
Agreed, but without cheap oil, it would be prohibitive to ship products
numerous times during the manufacturing cycle.
With transportation costs so cheap (nearly negligible) they can afford to go
most anywhere to find the cheapest labor for each stage of the production.
er, that's called a "press release". and it's fishing for a government
license to suck on the taxpayers teat.
translation: when it says "this will support the creation of 800 to
1,000 permanent high-tech jobs", that's not "intel will be hiring
800-1000 new employees". "support the creation of" is double-speak and
includes people outside the company. it's also a projection [and such
projections are as reliable as when the fed "projects" an end to the
financial crisis] - it doesn't say a damned thing about the other jobs
they've shed at other u.s. locations - this is not a "net expansion".
for the future, be careful to learn the difference between "employee"
and "contractor" status and how companies use those words to carefully
manage their public profiles. especially when they want handouts and
odd how it can have so many fabrication facilities outside the u.s., yet
we're being asked to believe they make all their stuff here. i
certainly don't own any intel chips with "made in usa" lasered into them.
I don't know of many street tires that are "made in U.S.A." anymore.
The Kelly Springfield plant that was in Tyler, TX (where I went to
high school) was sold to Goodyear about 10 or 12 years ago. They
closed the plant on January 2. They tires they made there are now
being made mostly in Mexico (which may now be a mistake).
Did you buy the tires because there was some direct indication that
they actually were made here? Or did you assume they were? The first
WOULD be "bait & switch". The second is cavet emptor.
I'd bitch to Pep Boys and Cooper. But those $400 tires would probably
run $650 if they were made in, say, Tyler.
One small point - Kelly Springfield has been owned by Goodyear for decades
(since 1935), so the plant wasn't sold to Goodyear 10 years ago since they
already owned Kelly SPringfield. In the 90's the wholly owned subsiduary
(Kelly) was officially absorbed into the parent company (Goodyear). See
Michelin, Goodyear, Bridgestone, Cooper and others all still have US Tire
Plants. If you take the time to look, it is pretty easy yo find street tires
made in the USA. Take a look at http://www.harriger.com/tires.htm . If you
record the DOT ID off the tire and enter it at
http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/manufacture/ you can get the plant location.
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.