Made in China ... I'm pissed !

Page 5 of 6  
On 10/09/2010 04:04 PM, clams wrote:


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 packaging? same.

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.

--
nomina rutrum rutrum

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Heck - I'm betting the copper used in the wiring was probably imported, nevermind any natural rubber that may have been used, etc
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I think all that remains here is made by the Amish. :-(
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/09/2010 04:51 PM, Cameo wrote:

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.
--
nomina rutrum rutrum

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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 jobs.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/12/2010 05:19 AM, dgk wrote:

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 opinion.
--
nomina rutrum rutrum

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

As long as oil is cheap, freight transportation costs are essentially negligible.
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).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/12/2010 08:59 AM, clams wrote:

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 unbelievably retarded.
--
nomina rutrum rutrum



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/12/2010 01:28 PM, clams wrote:

transportation is far from cheap dude. for low value items, they can be a significant percentage of the finished item cost. maybe even 30%.
--
nomina rutrum rutrum

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/12/10 11:59, clams wrote:

??????
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

That should have been "grown". Poor typing skills + auto correct can result in some weird results.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/21/10 07:20, clams wrote:

Thanks - couldn't come up with "grown" last week.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Wrong again - "Intel ... employs three quarters of its chip-making employees in the United States".
http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/19/technology/intel_jobs/index.htm
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/19/2010 08:28 AM, clams wrote:

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 tax benefits.
http://www.intel.com/jobs/malaysia / http://www.intel.com/jobs/china/sites/dalian.htm http://www.intel.com/jobs/israel/sites/jerusalem.htm http://www.intel.com/jobs/israel/sites/qiryat-gat.htm http://www.intel.com/jobs/ireland/sites/leixlip.htm http://www.intel.com/jobs/costarica/sites/heredia.htm etc.
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.
--
nomina rutrum rutrum

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
--

- dillon I am not invalid

Toby (Tri-Umph That's the Sweet Truth)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
:> I don't know of many street tires that are "made in U.S.A." anymore.

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 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kelly_Springfield_Tire_Company
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.
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    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.