So, would you agree with the statement that NAFTA and all of the other free trade agreements killed (or is killing) GM?
Not really. As NAFTA allows them (* the powers at GM *) to move jobs to Mexico. Even though the cost of the labor there is too expensive compared to other places on the globe. That is my opinion though. It allows them to move jobs from US to Canada to Mexico and back as volumes adjust.
The problem I was tying to point out is that foriegn car companies pay $10 to $15 an hour plus some small benefits in an area that had no jobs. While even if the US auto makers move to a location where there are no jobs to try the same thing, the UAW moves in and they set up $20 to $28 an hour plus much better benefits.
But you see here is the problem I have. I grew up in one of the UAW houses. Oh My Dad was not a Union man 100%. He voted how he thought would be best. He and my mother told and educated me to think for myself and then decided after I have reviewed data.
So to continue with the UAW, these jobs are no longer the available and the volume gets smaller each year. The UAW was trying to argue that they deserved a share of the pie and also a "fair" wage. While early on the fair wage and working conditions were points that needed to be addressed. It turned into an issue of ask and if we get it then great. It became a business in its' own right. So while I see the beneits I also see the negatives of the Union.
As to unfair tariffs with Japan and other countries that either subsidize an market or add tariffs to products to protect markets or even to ban the import of foriegn products so a market can be protected.
When a company can pay people less in another country and also have protection from competition in their own country, it gives them a base to work and guarentee a certain volume of the market as there is no competition or limited competition. When a company has the protection or investment of a government to draw upon it makes them able to compete better.
In China, all companies who operate locally must be owned 50% locally and not 51% or more foriegn owned. So the companies that go in many times provide the technology and the local provide the man power and the money. It also get complicated or more complicated as they get banks that are both local and foriegn owned to invest. So it makes it hard to say that the locals or foriegn have the 50% or a little more.
In Korea I am not sure of the laws, but given thei national pride, if it does not have a Korean Name it will not sell. So, no one would buy the Aveo, but they would buy the Daewoo version.