Could Ford moving to Mexico move Michigan into Trump's column?

Agreed. However, even tho’ we really like our (several years old) Outback, even Subaru does things that “bug” me. The fit of the engine in the engine compartment is so tight that just changing the plugs is a major endeavor. The front seats area is too confined / cockpit-like too — and my wife and I are not big people. My old Honda CRX was more spacious up front, by far.

That said, comparing our Outback to the model-year later Explorer we got to tow heavier loads is remarkable. The Explorer design in many ways is just flat out sloppy. (Wasted space, exposed cables in the passenger compartment, etc.)

But, to your point, Subaru does make good drivetrains: Would they sell to someone they perceived as capable of becoming a significant competitor? And do they have the capacity? Last I heard, they were struggling to keep their own dealers supplied due to their growth in sales.

(I really believe the growth figures — Outbacks are proliferating in even our area - the Mid-South - like rabbits!)

“There was a Freeper here a few months back who gave a great summary of what Ford is up against. Believe it or not, Federal fuel efficiency and safety standards are one of the biggest factors in Ford’s move to Mexico.
The key here is that they’re moving the production of the Ford Focus in particular to Mexico, because that’s their compact car model. What’s happened is that fuel efficiency and safety standards have added so much to the cost of a car that Ford can’t sell the Focus at a competitive price — and by “competitive” I don’t mean competitive with other automakers, I mean competitive with other Ford models.

When you take a $16,000-$20,000 car and add all of the mandated features to it, it becomes a $20,000-$25,000 car. As a result, many customers who would have been in the market for a compact car like the Focus end up paying a few thousand dollars more for a mid-sized Fusion. The end result is that Ford can’t sell enough units of the Focus to keep their average fleet efficiency above the level mandated by the EPA, unless they’re willing to sell them at a loss.

Ford is moving the Focus production to Mexico because it’s the only way they can make them dirt-cheap enough to set the pricing at the compact car level here in the U.S.

Go figure. “

Great post and the FReeper you mentioned was me. I appreciate your memory and recall. I tired of posting the information when it seemed so pointless.

“I agree. International travel sounds exotic and a lot of fun, but no doubt it gets old fast, even for execs.”

I am a senior buyer in the auto industry, in fact I am employed by one of the OEM’s. I can tell you that the global nature of this industry is exhausting. There are times that I begin my day on conf calls at 6 am with Australia and then move around the globe until ending the day at 6 pm with conf calls to Mexico.

There is nothing we would like more than to have our supply base much more local. Not only would it be much more convenient to gather the team, but the reality is that the American worker is the BEST at problems resolution, productivity, etc. The others just don’t culturally understand anything but straight line instructions.

Sadly, as the government targets coal, the same alphabet agencies target all types of manufacturing.

OSHA, EPA, EEOC, FTA, DOT, NTSB, DOE, IRS, SEC, and I am just starting. Then replicate these petty tyrants at the state level. Now let’s layer on the free industrialized world’s most oppressive tax scheme and lawsuit happy legal system. The only wonder is why anybody makes anything here.
If you have never owned or ran a substantial business then you have no idea.

Do not blame Ford, Mexico, or China. If we had a modicum of free enterprise and a rational tax and regulatory regime the US would dominate the world and have jobs enough for all willing workers.

Having been in "second tier" management (design, engineering, production engineering, "chief engineer", procurement and sourcing, production management, etc.) at a modest size company (300+ employees at one point), I have "a pretty good idea".

That said, I think my old employer would still exist, today, though probably in a smaller "niche", if they had planned better & been more aggressive. (Even good products need good marketing, these days.) OTOH... In the environment you or I would provide, they might be clicking along with over 400 employees, today.

Now, regarding Ford, I do not completely absolve Ford -- see my post above. Their long term planning and product execution often stinks too, IMO. So, partially through their own fault, and even more due to the factors you cite, they are in a tough spot.

There seems to be an implied criticism of Trump in all this, but he HAS addressed the points you bring up: Over-regulation, tort reform, and taxation. A problem in that, however, is that even with a Trump win and Republican control of a Congress willing to follow his lead, it will take years to undo the damage. (For example, as we saw with Reagan's tax cuts, it takes time for real economic gains to follow.) In the case of, say, Ford, it would also take years to retool production, and even then, does Ford "trust" that Trump might not be out in 4 years, and draconian regs not be put back into place? (Major body changes are not too bad, but major drivetrain changes are a different matter.)

Then there is the urgency of addressing the jobs and debt situations in a big way, and fast: Again as with Reagan, the first couple years are likely to be rocky. Trump will have to hold together popular and Congressional support, first through the mid-term elections (or he will be totally hamstrung). Then he (or Pence) have to be showing solid economic gains to win again in 2020, both the Presidency and Congress, which in turn is crucial to keeping the economic momentum going for long.

For my own part, and to overcome the above, I think Trump has to do the "carrot and stick" routine, and effectively tie it all together. Ie., he should very publicly say to manufacturers like Ford, something along the lines of: "Now look: We are going to make it possible for you to again manufacture here profitably, mainly by getting out of the way. In return, your job is to be supportive of these efforts, and not bleeping jump the ship, even if the transition years are rocky. If you still do jump ship, we will make life as difficult for you as we can."

This is not pure conservatism, I will concede. But IMO (and I was there starting my own company at the time) we are in a considerably more difficult economic situation than Reagan faced in 1980, and nothing less will work fast and cohesively enough to succeed.

Oh, golly, can I relate! I did not do actual “buying”, but one of my jobs after designing a part was to hunt down who would be the best supplier, get quotes, and work with them, right up to the actual purchase order for the parts. (Then I headed QC when the new parts came in, resolved problem, etc.)

We had a production line manager who thought I had an easy job. He wasn’t the one up @ 3 a.m. with a overseas vendor with marginal English, trying to get things “right”!

BTW, you are right about American workers, or at least most of them as of a decade or more ago: Sure, we had plenty of poor employees, but we also had lots of good and even some terrific employees. It used to irk me to no end when I was not allowed to create a modest program to teach our often interested employees a little more about our product. Sometimes I wondered if our CEO was afraid a lowly line worker might ask a question he had not thought of...

“problems” — heheh. There is “marginal English” and “typo English”...

We’ve come full circle: The Co. of the man who paid his employees more so that they could better afford the product he was selling...

I don't know who started that, it probably involved a union somewhere...wages were raised because effective turnover in the workforce was approaching 100%. It had the desired effect of cutting turnover, so it came pretty close to being a wash, cost wise.

Paying people more so they can afford your product is economic suicide.

I operate a fleet of large cars. Think Crown Vic/Town Car size. When the new CAFE standards were announced the cars were discontinued.

In the two fields where they were used...law enforcement and livery...the replacement vehicle if choice was an SUV, which gets much worse fuel economy.

Paul, the conversation between Ford and Trump seems to me to be no-lose on both sides. Ford says hey, we’re getting killed here, can you help? Trump says, let me see what I can do...

Trump was going to take MI anyway... and WI, and PA and OH and IA and IN...

Let’s not forget the tens of thousands of “immigrants “ being brought here for opportunities to have a better life -— on OUR dime, while the jobs are sent to foreign countries! Ironic, isn’t it? Cloward-Piven, driven to destroy!