Forum Discussion
ShinerBock wrote:
wilber1 wrote:
ShinerBock wrote:
wilber1 wrote:
You don’ think they could have sold a lot more of those small trucks here if they had been 25% cheaper? How many trucks do you think Toyota and Nissan would sell here if they were 25% more expensive? It didn’t protect the UAW because none of the plants are unionized and most are in right to work states where they pay substantially less. Basically, those states are doing the same thing as Mexico.
You are stuck on this 25% as if they were exactly 25% more expensive which is false. If you look at original MSRP of Toyota pickups in the early 90's, the MSRP of these pickups actually increased when they start building the pickup in Fremont, California. The prices never decreased from that point on either so where you are getting this notion that the trucks built overseas were 25% more? Please show me links that these trucks cost 25% more because I am not seeing it.
1990 Toyota Pickup
1991 Toyota Pickup
The UAW was the one that negotiated the 25% chicken tax with President LBJ to protect UAW jobs, and it is them who continue to lobby to keep it in place. Not the US truck manufacturers because it did nothing to help protect them. The UAW wants you to believe that it is the greedy US manufacturers that were the ones that want to keep it in place, but that is not true based on lobby records.
I'm not saying they are 25% more expensive but it does restrict competition which allows them to charge more than if they had that competition.
The Chicken tax also protects Toyota and Nissan from foreign built trucks. It allows them and US manufacturers to charge more for their trucks because they don't have to fear foreign built vehicles.
Toyota, Nissan and other foreign car builders are not UAW. Right to work states allow them to build their vehicles in the US at much lower labour rates. Just like Mexico.
You just said "You don’ think they could have sold a lot more of those small trucks here if they had been 25% cheaper?" So where are you getting this notion that they cost 25% more when being built in the US?
Also, just because Toyota and Nissan is currently not UAW does not mean that the UAW is not the one who orchestrated the chicken tax or is not the one who keep lobbying to keep it going because they are. It benefited them when Ford had to build/revamp factory for the new Ranger and it benefited them when GM had to build/revamp a factory for the Colorado/Canyon. It also benefited the UAW when Toyota built the pickup in Fremont, California NUMMI plant until they decided to move to a right to work state like Texas in 2003. For over a decade the UAW benefited from Toyota pickup production.
The tax meant they had to charge 25% more for their product in order to make the same profit.
You aren't listening. Not having to pay that 25% because they build their trucks in the US means they cay pocket the 25% they used to give government and charge the same for their trucks. It also means US manufacturers can keep their prices up. The UAW can't stop foreign manufacturers from locating in the US but they can protect US manufacturers from vehicles built outside the US and that is what they are doing by lobbying for the chicken tax. For a foreign manufacturer to sell light trucks in the US, it has to commit to building a plant here, otherwise it won't make financial sense.wilber1 wrote:
ShinerBock wrote:
wilber1 wrote:
You don’ think they could have sold a lot more of those small trucks here if they had been 25% cheaper? How many trucks do you think Toyota and Nissan would sell here if they were 25% more expensive? It didn’t protect the UAW because none of the plants are unionized and most are in right to work states where they pay substantially less. Basically, those states are doing the same thing as Mexico.
You are stuck on this 25% as if they were exactly 25% more expensive which is false. If you look at original MSRP of Toyota pickups in the early 90's, the MSRP of these pickups actually increased when they start building the pickup in Fremont, California. The prices never decreased from that point on either so where you are getting this notion that the trucks built overseas were 25% more? Please show me links that these trucks cost 25% more because I am not seeing it.
1990 Toyota Pickup
1991 Toyota Pickup
The UAW was the one that negotiated the 25% chicken tax with President LBJ to protect UAW jobs, and it is them who continue to lobby to keep it in place. Not the US truck manufacturers because it did nothing to help protect them. The UAW wants you to believe that it is the greedy US manufacturers that were the ones that want to keep it in place, but that is not true based on lobby records.
I'm not saying they are 25% more expensive but it does restrict competition which allows them to charge more than if they had that competition.
The Chicken tax also protects Toyota and Nissan from foreign built trucks. It allows them and US manufacturers to charge more for their trucks because they don't have to fear foreign built vehicles.
Toyota, Nissan and other foreign car builders are not UAW. Right to work states allow them to build their vehicles in the US at much lower labour rates. Just like Mexico.
You just said "You don’ think they could have sold a lot more of those small trucks here if they had been 25% cheaper?" So where are you getting this notion that they cost 25% more when being built in the US?
Also, just because Toyota and Nissan is currently not UAW does not mean that the UAW is not the one who orchestrated the chicken tax or is not the one who keep lobbying to keep it going because they are. The UAW benefited the chicken tax when Ford had to build/revamp a factory for the new Ranger and it benefited them when GM had to build/revamp a factory for the Colorado/Canyon. The UAW also benefited the UAW when Toyota built the pickup in Fremont, California NUMMI plant until they decided to move to a right to work state like Texas in 2003. For over a decade the UAW benefited from Toyota pickup production.ShinerBock wrote:
wilber1 wrote:
You don’ think they could have sold a lot more of those small trucks here if they had been 25% cheaper? How many trucks do you think Toyota and Nissan would sell here if they were 25% more expensive? It didn’t protect the UAW because none of the plants are unionized and most are in right to work states where they pay substantially less. Basically, those states are doing the same thing as Mexico.
You are stuck on this 25% as if they were exactly 25% more expensive which is false. If you look at original MSRP of Toyota pickups in the early 90's, the MSRP of these pickups actually increased when they start building the pickup in Fremont, California. The prices never decreased from that point on either so where you are getting this notion that the trucks built overseas were 25% more? Please show me links that these trucks cost 25% more because I am not seeing it.
1990 Toyota Pickup
1991 Toyota Pickup
The UAW was the one that negotiated the 25% chicken tax with President LBJ to protect UAW jobs, and it is them who continue to lobby to keep it in place. Not the US truck manufacturers because it did nothing to help protect them. The UAW wants you to believe that it is the greedy US manufacturers that were the ones that want to keep it in place, but that is not true based on lobby records.
I'm not saying they are 25% more expensive but it does restrict competition which allows them to charge more than if they had that competition.
The Chicken tax also protects Toyota and Nissan from foreign built trucks. It allows them and US manufacturers to charge more for their trucks because they don't have to fear foreign built vehicles. Toyota and Nissan can now charge the same for their trucks without paying the 25%. That 25% now stays in their pockets instead of going to government. Their profit per truck can now equal or exceed the US manufacturers because they aren't paying the tax and are non union.
Toyota, Nissan and other foreign car builders are not UAW. Right to work states allow them to build their vehicles in the US at much lower labour rates. Just like Mexico.
People have some strange ideas about the real consequences of tariffs.- Same thing with the Nissan/Datsun 620 versus 720. The 620 was built in Japan up 1979, and was replaced by the 720 in 1980 by the 720 which was built in Tennessee.
According to NADA, average original MSRP increased between the foreign built 620's and US built 720's.
1979 Nissan/Datsun 620 Prices and Values
1980 Nissan/Datsun 720 Prices and Values
So where are you getting this notion that the foreign built trucks are 25% more? wilber1 wrote:
You don’ think they could have sold a lot more of those small trucks here if they had been 25% cheaper? How many trucks do you think Toyota and Nissan would sell here if they were 25% more expensive? It didn’t protect the UAW because none of the plants are unionized and most are in right to work states where they pay substantially less. Basically, those states are doing the same thing as Mexico.
You are stuck on this 25% as if they were exactly 25% more expensive which is false. If you look at original MSRP of Toyota pickups in the early 90's, the MSRP of these pickups actually increased when they start building the pickup in Fremont, California. The prices never decreased from that point on either so where you are getting this notion that the trucks built overseas were 25% more? Please show me links that these trucks cost 25% more because I am not seeing it.
1990 Toyota Pickup
1991 Toyota Pickup
The UAW was the one that negotiated the 25% chicken tax with President LBJ to protect UAW jobs, and it is them who continue to lobby to keep it in place. Not the US truck manufacturers because it did nothing to help protect them. The UAW wants you to believe that it is the greedy US manufacturers that were the ones that want to keep it in place, but that is not true based on lobby records.ShinerBock wrote:
wilber1 wrote:
The ones that stayed were the ones who started to build them here because of the tax. Foreign built trucks are at a 25% disadvantage from the get go. That was the whole idea behind the tax and it worked.
The ones that stated here actually sold trucks that people wanted so it was justifiable to build the trucks here. Foreign trucks are not at a 25% advantage from the get go either. Once you calculate lower labor rates, lower domestic taxes, less environmental regulations, lower employee pension compensation, and so on that is required in the US but not in other countries, then that 25% starts to dwindle. There is still a benefit to build here, but it isn't 25%.
I have stated that it did work for it's intended purpose which was to force companies to build in the US to protect the UAW, but it DID NOT protect the US manufacturers from competition. If it did, then they would have not had any competition while the chicken tax has been in place, but that is not the case. They had lots of competition. Those that built what consumers wanted stayed while those that built what we didn't want and instead tried to sell us what they thought we "needed" went away just like any brand that doesn't sell foreign or domestic.
Heck, it even forced Ford and GM to build factories here to compete with Honda, Toyota, and Nissan in the midsize truck market. So how did it help them from competition there?
You don’ think they could have sold a lot more of those small trucks here if they had been 25% cheaper? How many trucks do you think Toyota and Nissan would sell here if they were 25% more expensive? It didn’t protect the UAW because none of the plants are unionized and most are in right to work states where they pay substantially less. Basically, those states are doing the same thing as Mexico.wilber1 wrote:
The ones that stayed were the ones who started to build them here because of the tax. Foreign built trucks are at a 25% disadvantage from the get go. That was the whole idea behind the tax and it worked.
The ones that stated here actually sold trucks that people wanted so it was justifiable to build the trucks here. Foreign trucks are not at a 25% advantage from the get go either. Once you calculate lower labor rates, lower domestic taxes, less environmental regulations, lower employee pension compensation, and so on that is required in the US but not in other countries, then that 25% starts to dwindle. There is still a benefit to build here, but it isn't 25%.
I have stated that it did work for it's intended purpose which was to force companies to build in the US to protect the UAW, but it DID NOT protect the US manufacturers from competition. If it did, then they would have not had any competition while the chicken tax has been in place, but that is not the case. They had lots of competition. Those that built what consumers wanted stayed while those that built what we didn't want and instead tried to sell us what they thought we "needed" went away just like any brand that doesn't sell foreign or domestic.
Heck, it even forced Ford and GM to build factories here to compete with Honda, Toyota, and Nissan in the midsize truck market. So how did it help them from competition there?ShinerBock wrote:
wilber1 wrote:
ShinerBock wrote:
Toyota and Nissan sold trucks with the chicken tax and they are still here because they sold 4wd extended cab trucks with long beds unlike the others who mostly sold 2wd regular cab trucks with short beds.
They are still here because they build them in the US and are not subject to the tax.
Toyota and Nissan(Datsun)built trucks overseas for decades that were subject to the chicken tax. It wasn't until the fifth generation design that the Toyota pickup(now called the Tacoma) was finally built in the US. Toyota was selling enough of them, especially the 4wd variants to justify building an assembly plant in the late 80s. My 84 Toyota was built in Japan.
The reason why the other makes did not build an assembly plant here was because they were not selling enough of their trucks to justify it. If the chicken tax did protect the big three like you say, then it did a piss poor job at it since several foreign trucks were sold in US market while the chicken tax was in place and the only once that stayed where the ones that were selling what the people wanted.
The ones that stayed were the ones who started to build them here because of the tax. Foreign built trucks are at a 25% disadvantage from the get go. That was the whole idea behind the tax and it worked.wilber1 wrote:
ShinerBock wrote:
Toyota and Nissan sold trucks with the chicken tax and they are still here because they sold 4wd extended cab trucks with long beds unlike the others who mostly sold 2wd regular cab trucks with short beds.
They are still here because they build them in the US and are not subject to the tax.
Toyota and Nissan(Datsun)built trucks overseas for decades that were subject to the chicken tax. It wasn't until the fifth generation design that the Toyota pickup(now called the Tacoma) was finally built in the US. Toyota was selling enough of them, especially the 4wd variants to justify building an assembly plant in the late 80s. My 84 Toyota was built in Japan.
The reason why the other makes did not build an assembly plant here was because they were not selling enough of their trucks to justify it. If the chicken tax did protect the big three like you say, then it did a piss poor job at it since several foreign trucks were sold in US market while the chicken tax was in place and the only once that stayed where the ones that were selling what the people wanted.philh wrote:
RobertRyan wrote:
That's nice, but your " trucks" are totally irrelevant outside NA where Global companies are making huge profits . Australia is the largest market outside NA for US Pickups and roughly 2000 are sold annually. Mainly " Lifestyle" or PR uses
Funny, in Australia, trucks are #1 and #2 on the top vehicle sales list
source
They are not " trucks" here but Utes or cars. Trucks refer to your HDT or MDT vehicles anything that is not a CAR/ truck. People get upset here if you refer to a midsize Pickup or US Pickup as a "Truck". You do not take your Navistar or Freightliner to the Supermarket to buy food, but you do with your RAM , Silverado, or Ford
