Slashdot Mirror


Ford: We're Canceling $1.6 Billion Mexico Facility, Investing In Electric and US Plant (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Today at the Flat Rock Assembly Plant, Ford Motor Company CEO Mark Fields unveiled a large-scale electric vehicle initiative that will run through the company's next five years. Ford plans to invest $4.5 billion in electric vehicle production by 2020, and the company said it will produce 13 new electric vehicles, including a Mustang, an F-150, police cars, and a Transit Custom van. Additionally, Fields revealed that Ford would be canceling a previously announced $1.6 billion-production facility in Mexico. Instead, the company wants to invest $700 million in the existing Flat Rock facility, generating 700 new jobs focused on EV and autonomous initiatives at that location, according to Ford. Ford described seven of the 13 upcoming EVs during its press conference today. The F-150 Hybrid will be available by 2020 in North America and the Middle East, and Fields noted it'll be powerful enough to stand-in for on-site generators in a pinch. The Mustang Hybrid will deliver "V8 power and even more low-end torque" according to Ford; it too is intended for a 2020 release. Generally, electric motors are well suited to applications where you want a lot of immediate torque, so their presence should work well in a light duty truck like the F-150. Among the other notable vehicles highlighted, Ford is planning a fully electric small SUV that can "deliver an estimated range of at least 300 miles" by 2020. The company also wants to produce an autonomous vehicle "designed for commercial ride hailing or ride sharing" in North America by 2021.

24 of 432 comments (clear)

  1. Yay by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Go Trumperor!!!!!

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:Yay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why are Mexican jobs my responsibility? Where were you when people were losing their jobs in the US?

    2. Re:Yay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Trump will keep many highly profitable drugs illegal
       
      Yeah, because Hillary was going to do something different?
       
      I can already see the alt-left's dialogue for the next 4 years... "Obamy said that legalizing Mari-G-Wahna was a great idea but those dastardly Republicans!!!!1!!!!!!!"
       
      Give it the fuck up. Obama escalated the drug war and militarized the police to a higher level then even Bush Jr. then he needed to yank around stoners and gays to stay in office so he changed his tune without actually doing anything to directly help either camp.
       
      It's a nice sentiment for him to have when his foot is half way out the door. I agree with it 100%. But ultimately the guy never did a fucking thing aside from run his mouth and play politics while adults are sitting in cells for a couple joints and facing a prospect of a criminal record that will disqualify from a lot of great employment opportunities.
       
      Face facts here. No matter who won the 2016 election the same truths are there: Perpetual war, NSA up in your business without a warrant, record high national debt and drug legalization will still be backburner issue resurrected from time to time to tally up some fast votes.
       
      Oh, and before you spread any other misinformation around... Marijuana can be reclassified without the need for congressional intervention.
       
      Have a nice day, asshole.

    3. Re:Yay by unixisc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Afraid of a tax-spanking, Ford plays into the hands of the President Elect - and they will be richly rewarded for their grandstanding.

      Meanwhile, a city in Mexico just lost $1.6B of direct investment and many hundreds of jobs. That's O.K., they'll have plenty of other opportunities;

      How did the Mexican city lose something that was yet to be built, or that was yet to hire anybody?

    4. Re:Yay by Minupla · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One would presume the same way the US can gain jobs that had yet to be lost?

      --
      On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
    5. Re:Yay by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wonder why, in the spirit of your post, you haven't offshored your own job to a dozen workers in India, China, or the Ukraine? You're costing them hundreds of thousands of dollars and dozens of jobs...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    6. Re:Yay by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A really big part of the good that will come out of a Trump presidency is that Congress will now clip the wings of the Executive Branch and widespread out-of-control Executive Orders will become a thing of the past.

    7. Re:Yay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why are the jobs of my fellow US workers my responsibility?

  2. Good, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While this is ultimately an economic decision (small car sales are waaaay down and Ford doesn't need another factory), I can't imagine the threat of tariffs didn't factor into the decision to cancel the Mexican factory. Nevertheless, it's amazing how the online comments sections are taking a black vs.white/pro vs. anti-Trump side to a nuanced subject.

    Ultimately, this is good news for Michigan workers, whether or not we bring politics into the discussion.

    1. Re:Good, but... by bobbied · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The question of if Trump deserves the victory lap or not is really moot... What matters is how the voters/workers in Michigan and elsewhere perceive this move by Ford...If THEY think Trump is responsible, then that's all that matters. Give Trump his due, he's at least TRYING to market himself using these accomplishments.

      Besides, all the political posturing is not new... What IS new though is a Republican (even if in name only) is taking credit for something largely seen as a good thing for labor... After all, we've been beguiled with tall tales of Obama's accomplishments for 8 years where he's taken credit for things he wasn't responsible for (and a few things he actively took actions to oppose.)

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:Good, but... by haruchai · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While this is ultimately an economic decision (small car sales are waaaay down and Ford doesn't need another factory), I can't imagine the threat of tariffs didn't factor into the decision to cancel the Mexican factory. Nevertheless, it's amazing how the online comments sections are taking a black vs.white/pro vs. anti-Trump side to a nuanced subject.

      Ultimately, this is good news for Michigan workers, whether or not we bring politics into the discussion.

      Politics has long been a part of every economic discussion, especially where foreign vs domestic jobs are concerned.
      But Obama did a lot more for the auto industry & Michigan, but it'll make scant difference to his legacy.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    3. Re:Good, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Michigan voter here - We voted for Trump already. Hillary called us deplorable. She should have been her talking about the auto bailouts.

    4. Re:Good, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Did she? IIRC, she said "Trump and his basket of deplorables". She did not call YOU deplorable. She doesn't even know you.. That racist David Duke? Yes, deplorable, most of us can agree. That racist Reince Priebus? Yes, deplorable, most of us can agree. Both of those people were Trump supporters, and can reasonably be included as part of a "basket of deplorables" with the fewest of feathers being ruffled. YOU? None of us know you personally, and I doubt Clinton knows you, either. YOU SELF-SELECTED WHEN THE WORD DEPLORABLE WAS MENTIONED CONCERNING THE CANDIDATE THAT YOU SEEM TO PREFER. There are many deplorable assholes in Trump's group. That you include yourself as one of them shows the world what you think of yourself.

  3. Finally Ford see the future. by Higaran · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've alway been a fan of ford, but they have been dragging ass for a long time, only just barely innovating for the last few years. I'm glad they finally realize that they are going to need to really start pulling more into electric and hybrids. I think the biggest thing pushing them is actually emissions. From my understanding it's impossible for a big V8 to pass the new emissions regulations that will be even more stringent next few years.

  4. Trump mentioned in the actual article by Nova+Express · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "We're encouraged by the pro-growth policies of President Trump," Fields said when announcing the investment shift from Mexico to the Flat Rock facility.

    While this is not quoted in the opening paragraph, this would seem to be a significant factor in the decision, and thus maybe worth at least a passing summary in the Slashdot blurb?

    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

  5. Nothing to do with Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You can figure that out in the summary alone. They are doing this because it's nearly $1 billion cheaper to invest $700 million instead of $1.6 billion.

    Follow the money, always follow the money. The Presidency almost NEVER has any impact on business decisions, although people like to think so and I'm sure Trump will play with his little horn falsely touting how he made this happen.

  6. Thanks to Trump? Obviously! by Pollux · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because we all know that billion dollar investments from multi-billion dollar corporations can be changed overnight on the whim of a Tweet.

    1. Re:Thanks to Trump? Obviously! by Aighearach · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The really funny part is that the whole narrative doesn't add up; the claim is they were going to invest $1.6B in Mexico because everything is cheaper there, so instead now they're going to invest $700M in the US because... Trump. That math just doesn't work out. Obviously what actually happened is that the thing they were thinking about building for $1.6B simply isn't going to happen right now, and a totally unrelated thing that costs $700M is happening in the US. Maybe those are related, maybe not, but the narrative is clearly not true.

    2. Re:Thanks to Trump? Obviously! by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 5, Insightful
  7. Re:Losing by ranton · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why do you hate America?

    I love my country, which is why I want it to stay competitive. Factory payrolls, construction contracts, and industrial production all increased after the Smoot-Hawley act as well, but the Great Depression was a grim reminder of what happens when countries try for short term gains through protectionist measures.

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
  8. Re:It's a bit like when Reagan took office by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Hillary wanted to reignite the Cold War with Russia. Over a energy pipeline in Syria that we're not allowed to mention here in the U.S.

    She was hoping, it seems, to become the Lyndon Johnson of the 21st Century.

    So sad, too bad.

  9. Re:A BS Narrative? Rhodes is getting kicked out of by Aighearach · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There are a whole bunch of logical problems with your fantasy. Yeah, sure, before they didn't mind wasting $900M, but now since the President hand-waved and said that Congress will make a bunch of new (totally unspecified) rules, they're suddenly happy with it. That just doesn't work as an explanation. It is plain horse-shit. Your reply had zero content, zero logic. All you did is present a nonsense narrative that is clearly not true.

    Obviously, some true series of events happened. But they're not what is claimed in the story, and they're not what you made up either.

  10. Re:Taking your suggestion to look at the historica by JoeMerchant · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You may notice that the total federal tux burden doesn't hasn't actually changed that much since 1979 - they just move things around, without changing the total. Rates for the lowest-income quintile have consistently gone down over the last 25 years, from 8% to 1.5%.

    A summary by president for your convenience:
    Obama: No significant change (but huge debt which will require future taxes)
    GW Bush: average tax rate reduced from 21% to 17.3%
    Clinton: No change
    GHW Bush: No significant change
    Reagan: Reduced from 22% to 21%

    Two presidents have had tax changes of more that half of a percent, GW Bush and Ronald Reagan. Both reduced taxes.

    Taxes for who? Bush's "base" - sure, their taxes went down. Capital Gains taxes, sure they got reduced by Regan. Workers in the Flint auto making factories, not so much.

  11. Re:mod parent down, RTFA by retroworks · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ford CEO certainly applauded Trump's pro-business posture. But the articles CLEARLY state that the Ford Focus and Escort jobs are going to Hermasillo (a different Mexico factory) and that the jobs in Michigan are for a completely unrelated electric vehicle which was NEVER going to be made in Mexico. Is Ford CEO smart to play it as a "thanks for lower regulations and taxes" move? Perhaps so. But the Michigan jobs (electric vehicles) were NEVER going to Mexico, and the cancelled Mexico plant operations are moving to Hermasillo in Sonora Mexico.

    --
    Gently reply