Buy a used Japanese car - go on used Japanese welfare.

March 1, 2006 9:43 AM

Buying American: Does buying a foreign *used* car matter?

I've always bought cars made in America, from American-based companies. (Multi-national corporate yadda yadda, I know..) I've got my eye on a used VW which seems like a good deal, but my conscience is nagging me.

The damage is done, right? Does it the used car market matter to the Buy American mindset? VW isn't going to get another sale and I'm not in the market for a new car. The used car dealer is not associated with any make - it's an independent outfit that has done me well in the past.

posted by unixrat to society & culture (54 comments total)

You can make your own rules on this, you know. Any decision you make about anything should be your own, not what someone else tells you. Well at least as far anything legal goes......
posted by JJ86 at 9:46 AM on March 1, 2006

I know I'm not answering your question, but is buying "American" really that?

My understanding is that some foreign makes are more American than US makes, ai the Toyota Camry.

Why isn't a Consumer Reports guide a more useful tool in your decision making process?
posted by MrMulan at 9:50 AM on March 1, 2006

If you need to fix it you'll have to buy foreign parts.
posted by thirteenkiller at 9:50 AM on March 1, 2006

A lot of foreign cars are made in the USA (like Toyota, Mercedes, BMW).
posted by zonkout at 9:52 AM on March 1, 2006

If you are buying a used VW, you'll be doing a lot of fixing.
posted by zonkout at 9:53 AM on March 1, 2006

My understanding is that some foreign makes are more American than US makes, ai the Toyota Camry.

Toyota has spent alot of money to get you to think that, but ultimately it doesn't change the fact that all the profits go back to Japan, where cars built by American manufacturers are subject to outrageous tarriffs, where all their suppliers are Japanese, etc. etc.

The head says: not a dime will make its way to Germany.

The heart says: other people will think I don't buy American, and, frankly, I didn't.

I guess its just a matter of if you area head person or a heart person.
posted by ChasFile at 9:56 AM on March 1, 2006

Like you won't be buying foriegn parts with many US models...

One way you might hurt "US" manufacturers is by helping to supress the secondary market for US cars, and thereby making a new US car worth less in the long run.

MrMulan is right though, some foriegn cars are more American than American cars. If you're worried about the Made in the USA image, then get a Ford or something. If your worried about the jobs, you've got to look deeper than the label.
posted by jaysus chris at 9:56 AM on March 1, 2006

A lot of foreign cars are made in the USA (like Toyota, Mercedes, BMW).

But again, the profits on the sale of those "made in the USA" cars doesn't stay here long, nor help our economy much.
posted by ChasFile at 9:57 AM on March 1, 2006

Your title cracks me up. As though the taxes you pay when you buy a car would be mailed off to the car's country of origin. As though maintenance performed on that car wouldn't be keeping local mechanics in business. As though new imported vehicles aren't subject to tariff. America makes money off imported goods sold in America. Buying a foreign car still supports American businesses in the long run.

And the fact that you're considering patronizing a local, independently owned business is probably the most important factor. You can embrace globalism while actively supporting your local economy. Win-win.
posted by padraigin at 9:58 AM on March 1, 2006

The only way that "American" car makers will get better and start making quality products is for people to stop rewarding them for making crap.

But if you feel strongly about the "buy American" thing, then you really should buy a new American car. If you want to support the industry, buying used doesn't do much for their current predicament.
posted by cptnrandy at 9:58 AM on March 1, 2006

Right - I understand that some "American" cars are made in Mexico/Canada/* and some "Foreign" cars are made in the US.

I've always bought American cars made in the US - I've been very careful about that.
posted by unixrat at 9:59 AM on March 1, 2006

Just to put it in perspective a little I have/had a Pontiac Vibe (read Toyota Matrix). It's sort of an American car and sort of a Japanese car. That's pretty much typical of most "American" cars nowadays.
posted by JJ86 at 9:59 AM on March 1, 2006

One way you might hurt "US" manufacturers is by helping to supress the secondary market for US cars, and thereby making a new US car worth less in the long run.

This is correct. Less demand means the value of used american cars goes down, which makes people less likely to buy a new one.
posted by insomnus at 10:00 AM on March 1, 2006

My father gave me a hard time when I bought my first Honda (made in Ohio, thankyouverymuch). Then he went out and bought his "American" Chevrolet Trailblazer. The sticker on the door had a tiny red maple leaf and said "Made in Canada". Ha.
posted by MeetMegan at 10:01 AM on March 1, 2006

Last time I was in a Toyota dealer, they had a giant poster that read "Are you really buying a foreign car?" The poster then clear enumerated that every car on the market either had significant numbers of its parts, or was assembled, in different countries.

* Toyotas made in the U.S.
* Chevys made in Mexico.
* Hondas made with American engines.
* Fords made in Canada.

It just doesn't matter anymore. Buy what you feel is the best for your pocketbook, not your heart.
posted by frogan at 10:01 AM on March 1, 2006

I guess this doesn't seem like a direct answer to your question, and so matt et al can delete it if they see fit, but here goes: I want to challenge your premise.

First of all, as zonkout points out, many "foreign" brands are now produced in the U.S., like the ones mentioned. Secondly, many "domestic" auto corporations are foreign-owned, like Chrysler (owned by Daimler, i.e. Mercedes-Benz). Thirdly, some "foreign" brands are domestic owned (like Volvo, now a Ford company). So you can see that domestic production has nothing to do with domestic ownership has nothing to do with foreign-sounding-ness of brand name.

So I would encourage you to ask yourself, what is your real goal? If, as your initial post hints, you don't want to support any "multi national corporations", then you should not drive at all because all automotive companies, and all oil companies for that matter, have a complex web of ownership that extends to all corners of the globe.

I suspect that wanting to support "domestic" producers is more of a proxy to something like helping ensure that people around you, and in America more broadly, have good, satisfying jobs and are just generally taken care of. Of course this is a laudable goal, and I'm not trying to rag on you for feeling this way. But is the type of car you buy really such a good proxy to this end? I don't think it is, for the reasons I've mentioned and many more. Why don't you consider other means to the same end? Perhaps you could become more politically involved and help pass laws to ensure good transitional financial support and retraining when workers do get displaced (which is an inevitable consequence of globalization). Or, to support treaties that require certain minimum levels of work safety in offshore contractors (won't be relevant to cars in particular, but other things like textiles).

I know stuff like political activity, working for laws and treaties, sounds a lot more difficult than just choosing which car to buy. But it actually stands a chance of making a difference, too.
posted by rkent at 10:03 AM on March 1, 2006

A Toyota made in the US still employees American workers and supports an American town.

Go ahead and buy that American car assembled in Mexico. People will wonder why don't support American workers.
posted by DieHipsterDie at 10:05 AM on March 1, 2006

If, as your initial post hints, you don't want to support any "multi national corporations", then you should not drive at all because all automotive companies, and all oil companies for that matter, have a complex web of ownership that extends to all corners of the globe.

No, the 'multi-national' bit was a nod to the idea that there are no truly 'American' car companies anymore. They own and are owned by a mixture of foreign and domestic interests.
posted by unixrat at 10:06 AM on March 1, 2006

Voting with your money is a perfectly reasonable choice to make, whether it's buying fair trade coffee or supporting the domestic economy. And would you please listen to what unixrat says before attacking him.
posted by insomnus at 10:06 AM on March 1, 2006

The only way that "American" car makers will get better and start making quality products is for people to stop rewarding them for making crap.

They stopped making crap several years ago, while foreign companies' quality has plummeted (according to JD Power & Associates). But what hurts them most, IMO, is that American cars' value depreciates faster than most foreign cars. That means that even if an American car is built better and is more reliable than a Mercedes, people would rather buy a Mercedes so that it doesn't lose value.

If you want to help the U.S. auto industry, maybe buying an American used car is the way to do it -- so that used values will increase and help people get past the obsolete "American cars are crap" notion that's simply not true.
posted by JekPorkins at 10:08 AM on March 1, 2006

At the risk of invoking Godwin, some folks to this day will not buy a Volkswagen because it's a German originally designed at Hitler's personal orders and specifications.

But if you're not in that (small) crowd, go for the 'Wagen. In a multinational, free-trade world, the theory goes, if you can buy foreign cheaper than domestic, that's a good thing, because in the big picture, if all consumers in all countries seek the best values, on a global average the standard of living goes up because all consumers can acquire more good things, which maximizes employment to produce goods as well. At least that's my theory.

If you don't subscribe to that, better check the country of origin of every piece of fruit and vegetable you pick up in the supermarket, every gallon of gasoline you buy, and every pair of skivvies you pick up at Walmart.

All that said, I've always bought American cars for no other reason than that's what my father always said was the right thing to do.
posted by beagle at 10:20 AM on March 1, 2006

jaysus chris is right. resale value of used cars matter, and have an impact of the selling price of new cars from the same manufacturer. Of course, the fact that american manufacturers have been using 0% financing and big rebates to sell their new cars for the past 5 years has probably hurt resale values even more.

As for the "damage" of profit going overseas when buying a Toyota that's been built in the US. Depending on your goals, I think a more important metric is how much or little of that profit is reinvetsted in the US.
posted by Good Brain at 10:21 AM on March 1, 2006

If you don't subscribe to that, better check the country of origin of every piece of fruit and vegetable you pick up in the supermarket, every gallon of gasoline you buy, and every pair of skivvies you pick up at Walmart.

I do. :) Well, except for that Walmart thing.
posted by unixrat at 10:27 AM on March 1, 2006

I've got my eye on a used VW which seems like a good deal, but my conscience is nagging me.

February 5, 2003

Volkswagen and Audi will recall more than half a million vehicles to replace a defective ignition coil that leaves the cars prone to sudden power losses and potential engine damage.

Recalled models include 2001, 2002, and early production 2003 Volkswagen Golf/GTIs, Jettas, New Beetles, and Passats, and Audi A4s and TTs. All have 1.8-liter turbocharged engines.

They stopped making crap several years ago, while foreign companies' quality has plummeted (according to JD Power & Associates).

The link to JD Power does not support that assertion.
posted by MLIS at 10:33 AM on March 1, 2006

The japanese factories (mostly in southern, "right to work states") in america treat their workers much worse than american car manufacturers. You can quickly google up some articles about how they fire people who get injured, etc. I've never understood why most "liberals" jump through such logical hoops in order to rationalize buying japanese cars: japanese industry is a prime example of fascism (a partnership between business and government). I know, american industry has blood on its hands too (my grandfather worked for Ford at the time of the "battle of the overpass"), but think about this, unlike japanese, english has no commom term for "working to death" (KAROSHI). Personally, I'd rather someone burn an american flag than buy a japanese car. Flame away, fascist apologists.
posted by 445supermag at 10:36 AM on March 1, 2006

At the risk of invoking Godwin...

The Beetle was comissioned by Hitler and designed by Porsche (the man, not the company). Nazis had a lot less influence in, say, the Jetta or the new Touraeg. And Hitler probably would have kept VW out of the horrible marketing mistake that is the Phaeton, VW has no one to blame that on but themselves.

I think you know that anyone who associates VW with Nazis is about as intelligent as the person who refers to Mexicans as "dirty" or one who uses terms like "Polack". I find it surprising that you bring it up at all. And pre-emptively calling yourself out does little to excuse making an ethnic slur.

Buying an American car to help prop up the US economy is like going outside in winter without a jacket and rubbing your hands together to keep warm. Will it help? Sure. Does it fundamentally fix the basic problem? Not in the least.

Like others have said, if you really think buying American makes a difference, buy American for both new and used.
posted by GuyZero at 10:44 AM on March 1, 2006

The link to JD Power does not support that assertion.

According to JD Power (via the link I provided), Lincoln, Buick and Cadillac have higher quality than everyone except Lexus and Porsche. Also, Ford, Mercury, Chevrolet and Chrysler have higher than average quality, while Volkswagen, MINI and Land Rover (a British product of Ford), have worse quality than everyone except Kia. And Audi is near the bottom, between Suzuki (better than Audi) and Daewoo.

Of the 38 brands, only 2 of the the bottom 19 are American brands (Dodge and Jeep), and only 4 are european assets of U.S. companies (Jaguar, Volvo, Land Rover, Saab)

How many people realize that Volkswagen and MINI make the 3rd and 4th worst cars for sale in the U.S. in terms of quality? People just go along with the "American companies make crap" thing, driving their Mexican VW's and assuming every time they're in the shop that the American cars must be really awful if this is how a "German" car is.

Did you not scroll down to the charts?
posted by JekPorkins at 10:46 AM on March 1, 2006

BIG BUSINESS AND THE THIRD REICH
Volkswagen’s history of forced labour

During the war in Europe (1939-41), followed by the world war (1941-45), millions of people were reduced to slavery, not to mention deportations and the extermination of millions of people belonging to defenceless minorities. The Barbarossa operation - the invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941 - was a particular opportunity for Volkswagen to improve its fortunes, in terms of the exploitation of forced labour. In early August 1940, even before the Battle of Britain, everything was in place to plunder the labour force and material resources of the communists.

Did Krups, Braun, and Mercedes-Benz make Nazi concentration camp ovens? Did Hitler name the Volkswagen?

As for the VW, Hitler didn't name it but there's no question he helped create it. Ferdinand Porsche had been working on a popularly priced "people's car" (whence "Volkswagen").

At a 1934 meeting Hitler told him to make the car an air-cooled four-seater with a streamlined shape "like a beetle." Hitler announced the new car at the Berlin Auto Show. The Nazis sold VW "subscriptions" and a factory was built, but only a few cars were made before hostilities began.

Ferdinand Porsche was long viewed as an unwilling participant in Hitler's war machine but a recent investigation suggests he and his company may have been in deeper than was previously thought.

A five-year study by a team of German historians found that as much as 80 percent of VW's wartime workforce of 16,000 may have been slave laborers.

In 1991 the head of the investigative team, Bochum University history professor Hans Mommsen, declared at a symposium, "It's quite clear that Porsche was responsible for hiring concentration camp inmates for the factory's labor camp." Porsche contacted SS leader Heinrich Himmler directly to request slaves from Auschwitz, Mommsen said.
posted by MLIS at 10:58 AM on March 1, 2006

it doesn't change the fact that all the profits go back to Japan

Does it matter all that much whether the money goes into the pockets of rich old men in Detroit versus the pockets of rich old men in Tokyo?
posted by gyc at 11:04 AM on March 1, 2006

Thanks MLIS. GuyZero, sorry but I don't consider it an ethnic slur to bring up the fact that a small number of people (they're mostly dying off) still shun VW because of its origins. Other people shun Japanese goods for similar reasons. They're perfectly rational people, they don't harbor ethnic hatreds, they just can't reconcile the purchase of a vehicle that has an association with events that killed a good fraction of their relatives in gas chambers. I for one do not question the intelligence of these people.
posted by beagle at 11:30 AM on March 1, 2006

Does it matter all that much whether the money goes into the pockets of rich old men in Detroit versus the pockets of rich old men in Tokyo?

especially when neither of them pay US taxes...
posted by eustatic at 11:32 AM on March 1, 2006

rkent: If, as your initial post hints, you don't want to support any "multi national corporations",

unixrat: No, the 'multi-national' bit was a nod to the idea that there are no truly 'American' car companies anymore.

If you're issue is not with multinational corporations, then your issue must be helping America colonize the world. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but that is the truth.


beagle: because in the big picture, if all consumers in all countries seek the best values, on a global average the standard of living goes up because all consumers can acquire more good things, which maximizes employment to produce goods as well. At least that's my theory.

Of course that is a perfectly good theory within the limited scope of the implied assumptions. Unfortunately in the real world there is environmental impact and labour exploitation.


MLIS: The link to JD Power does not support that assertion.

Indeed! Despite JekPorkins' protestation, all manufacturers have remarkably similar ratings on the JD Power metric. I wonder if that is a comment on the state of the industry, or if the metric just isn't very useful.
posted by Chuckles at 11:35 AM on March 1, 2006

Did I protest? I clarified and expounded, but I don't remember protesting. The point was that the "Detroit should stop building crap" attitude is unfounded. Does someone here disagree with that?
posted by JekPorkins at 11:39 AM on March 1, 2006

Sorry if I sounded confrontational, but I do think you need a lot more evidence to back up your statements. And saying "foreign companies' quality has plummeted" seems completely unfounded.

My guess is, Honda engines are good for 300,000 miles, GM engines aren't. I don't know enough about cars to say if that qualifies as disagreement on the general point though. I ride a bike :)
posted by Chuckles at 12:11 PM on March 1, 2006

Toyota has spent alot of money to get you to think that, but ultimately it doesn't change the fact that all the profits go back to Japan,

Yeah, spending money building factories. Who cares where the profits go? You can invest in toyota if you want, and get your share. The question is, what contry gets the jobs. Getting a ford made in mexico or China dosn't help any Americans.
posted by delmoi at 12:20 PM on March 1, 2006

About J.D. Power and associates: They are a marketing company. They do not test vehicles. Why do people keep quoting them as though they are some independent research group? All they do is survey car owners and make statistics out of the results.

From here:
How are cars rated?
By the total number of problems per car. Each reported problem counts equally: A broken radio knob is weighted the same as a blown transmission.

So if 15% of Subarus have a radio knob that falls off, then Subarus will look worse than 10% of Cadillacs that have their transmissions fail.

Go with Consumer Reports; they get no money from the auto companies (unlike J.D. Power), they actually test cars, and their owner survey results actually pay attention to the relative seriousness of the reported problems.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 12:52 PM on March 1, 2006 [1 favorite]

If you don't want to buy a Volkswagen because of the Nazi association, you'd better stay the hell away from Ford, also.
posted by Faint of Butt at 1:04 PM on March 1, 2006

No, the 'multi-national' bit was a nod to the idea that there are no truly 'American' car companies anymore. They own and are owned by a mixture of foreign and domestic interests.

Oh, there are. They're just build-to-order makers based out of small workshops.

As for the economic consequences: well, it's an intricately connected world. There's always the argument that your used VW will be more fuel-efficient, making a microscopic difference to the price of energy for US industries that have nothing to do with the building of cars.

The idea that a car purchase can be classed as benefitting Americans rather than foreigners is frankly silly unless you're in the market for a Panoz Esperante or something along those lines. Even if you're buying a Porsche or Ferrari, a chunk of the cost has gone into the pockets of a US importer, a US dealer, and even the EPA employee paid to check that it meets emissions standards. The 'foreign' factories based in the US, particularly the South, bring jobs but also get sweet incentive deals from state governments. The price of a Ford or GM sustains high healthcare costs for other Americans. And so it goes.

And as others have said, just because JD Power claims something doesn't make it true.
posted by holgate at 1:48 PM on March 1, 2006

445supermag: I've never understood why most "liberals" jump through such logical hoops in order to rationalize buying japanese cars

I know a number of republicans with Nissans and Acuras and the like who have made similar claims, 445supermag. I have no clue what political partisanship has to do with this -- unless you think labor unions and American trade have to do with only one political party.

It's a game of pieces and percentages. Ford and GM have a number of parts made overseas and assemble vehicles both in and out of the US. "Foreign" companies will assemble their vehicles in the US. There may be bad labor practices at play in domestic factories for Japanese companies -- that's food for thought, but I think it's short-sighted to connect it to the Japanese work ethic (perception of which is based on cliche in the US more than reality).

Look at it this way: I own a Mazda that was assembled in the same plant that builds new Ford Mustangs. It has a large quantity of Ford parts and Ford owns a percentage (33% or more) of Mazda. So in theory, I'm giving lip service to Ford but more money to a Japanese company. But at the same time, Ford is paying Japanese designers -- higher, more prestigious positions -- for frame and some engine design. The new Ford Fusion is based on a Mazda platform, along with several other cars.

Decide what you prize -- American manufacture, assembly, design, or service and go with the company and product that serves those needs the best. It's pretty easy to determine these factors by thumbing through reviews in auto magazines.
posted by mikeh at 1:50 PM on March 1, 2006

they just can't reconcile the purchase of a vehicle that has an association with events that killed a good fraction of their relatives in gas chambers

Well, I suppose we can differ on this point, but to me that's racism. Or at least some weird version of bias based on historical events that no one today had anything to do with. It's hate-lite.

I mean, if you're talking about actual Holocaust survivors who walked out of concentration camps, starved to the brink of death, sure, I can understand that. I have nothing but sympathy for them. If I went through that I'd probably be upset just by hearing someone speaking German. But for anyone else, I'd say it's getting to be pretty much time to let racism based on the events of WW2 go.

I take this issue kind of personally because my father-in-law is a Volkswagen dealer. He's German. Is there blood on his hands? How would shunning him (or any VW dealer) based on the events of WW2 be anything but racism at this point? Should he refuse to sell to Russians because his own father was killed on the Russian front when he was a child? This kind of retributive clinging to the past is what keeps people killing each other in a lot of ethnic wars around the world. I don't see it as rational. It's no different from the hatred the Nazis had towards Jews.

Sorry for derailing this thread. To unixrat's original question, I would reiterate my initial suggestion: if you feel that "buying American" makes any difference at all, then buy American. There are always good deals to be had if you're willing to wait a bit. I don't personally think that your decision which car to purchase makes any difference to the state of the US auto industry, but YMMV.
posted by GuyZero at 1:58 PM on March 1, 2006

just because JD Power claims something doesn't make it true.

Agreed. But I don't see any contrary assertions or cites to more persuasive authority that controvert the assertion that American cars are not crap, comparatively. (All cars are crap, empirically) Just because nobody claims something doesn't make it true, either.
posted by JekPorkins at 2:01 PM on March 1, 2006

Nazis had a lot less influence in, say, the Jetta or the new Touraeg. And Hitler probably would have kept VW out of the horrible marketing mistake that is the Phaeton

I just want to say that this is a very interesting thread and this is the funniest thing on it.
posted by AmbroseChapel at 2:03 PM on March 1, 2006

Profits go to the company owners, and a large number of Americans own stock in Toyota
posted by Mick at 2:28 PM on March 1, 2006

445supermag: I've never understood why most "liberals" jump through such logical hoops in order to rationalize buying japanese cars

I know a number of republicans with Nissans and Acuras and the like who have made similar claims, 445supermag. I have no clue what political partisanship has to do with this -- unless you think labor unions and American trade have to do with only one political party.

What I meant was that it should be repubs making that argument, its just that a lot of liberals just plain like japanese cars and the labor abuses are not thought of (or are rationalized away "its their culture").


...determine these factors by thumbing through reviews in auto magazines.

I thumb through Hot Rod, Hot Rod Mechanix, Car Craft, American Rodder and Hemmings when researching a car that I want to buy.
posted by 445supermag at 2:48 PM on March 1, 2006

Great thread. I've wondered about this for years. rkent hit the nub:

helping ensure that people around you, and in America more broadly, have good, satisfying jobs and are just generally taken care of. Of course this is a laudable goal

Of course it is laudable to help those around you but does the laudability decrease with distance? Which should be a more important factor in your ethical purchasing decision: your effect on the workers standard of living or where those workers live? The latter may be easier to determine but that doesn't make it more important. Who wants you to Buy American and why?
posted by denishowe at 3:58 PM on March 1, 2006

Point one: Mick is right. The profits go to wherever the shareholders are. Become one if you want to keep profits in your area.

Point two:

Japanese Cars Score Highest in Magazine

DETROIT - For the first time in nine years, all of the top picks in Consumer Reports' annual vehicle guide are made by Japanese automakers. The Honda Civic is the magazine's top small sedan, while the Toyota Highlander Hybrid is the top mid-sized sport utility vehicle, according to results released Wednesday.

Vehicles from Nissan Motor Co. and Subaru, a division of Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd., round out the top picks in 10 categories.

Asian brands also fared best in the magazine's survey of vehicle reliability. Toyota Motor Corp.'s Lexus brand was first, while Honda was second and the Toyota brand was third. Ford Motor Co.'s Mercury brand was the only domestic nameplate to crack the top ten.

Personally, I wonder whether vegetarians have to be concerned about buying leather in a used car.
posted by NortonDC at 6:08 PM on March 1, 2006

The profits go to wherever the shareholders are. Become one if you want to keep profits in your area.

Wow, that's up there with "Let them eat cake", I mean, sure, that's good advice if you're a member of the leisure class and make your money off of investments, but would you tell laid off american workers to just invest in toyota and the profits stay here? Of course, who will have anything to invest if they don't have a job. Hell, I've got a job, and I don't have anything to invest.
posted by 445supermag at 7:02 PM on March 1, 2006

I haven't communicated my point in the second part of that statement, at least not to you, 445supermag. The point is that profit flow is not some celestial untouchable; it's up to the shareholders. So if you buy a share, you're influencing it and directing those profits toward your own area. Want the fruit of Honda's success or failure coming to your neighborhood? Go buy a share. It's about $30.

None of what you contributed changes the truth of first part. "The profits go to wherever the shareholders are" still holds.
posted by NortonDC at 7:45 PM on March 1, 2006

That Trailblazer might have been assembled in Canada, but most of the engineering work was done in the US by people like me.

Look on the back of your Ipod - notice how Apple makes a big deal about it being designed in California, even though they're made in China.
posted by rfs at 8:51 PM on March 1, 2006

I haven't communicated my point in the second part of that statement, at least not to you, 445supermag.

Well, I am a little dim. So if I don't like a company's labor practices I should buy some of their stock? I think I'll stick with not buying their products. Most people make most of their money from their jobs, owning one share of honda stock is not going to make enough difference to make up for losing a job. Nor will owning a hundred or even a thousand shares.
posted by 445supermag at 9:01 PM on March 1, 2006

This is an awesome thread. I just have to say, while American cars may not be crap on the whole, GM is still doing a good job of keeping that reputation alive (look at the JD Power charts, the only GM brand above the industry average is their luxury brand). Also, if you're looking at quality in terms of USED American cars, you have to look at the JD Power rankings for the year of car that you're looking to buy. TODAY'S car quality means very little in terms of cars built 5-10 years ago.
posted by antifuse at 2:13 AM on March 2, 2006

Wow, that's up there with "Let them eat cake"

Well, sort of. But a lot of average workers have pension funds that make money by - guess what - investing it in the stock market. The average joe with a company pension probably has a fair exposure to the stock market, probably more than someone who is self-employed with little retirement savings.
posted by GuyZero at 4:31 AM on March 2, 2006

From NortonDC's link:
After Lexus, Honda and Toyota, the brands rounding out the top ten for reliability were Mitsubishi, Subaru, Acura, Scion, Mercury, Mazda and Suzuki. The ten lowest-rated brands were Audi, Infiniti, Saturn, Lincoln, Jaguar, Mercedes-Benz, Volkswagen, Land Rover, Hummer and Porsche.

Might want to reconsider that VW. At least look it up in Consumer Reports.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 9:16 AM on March 2, 2006

but would you tell laid off american workers to just invest in toyota and the profits stay here? Of course, who will have anything to invest if they don't have a job. Hell, I've got a job, and I don't have anything to invest.

No, I would tell them to get a job at the Toyota plant. Duh.
posted by delmoi at 12:06 PM on March 2, 2006