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.
Go Trumperor!!!!!
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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.
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.
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/
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.
I have read the linked article and article in WSJ and WashPost. There appears to be some confusion in the Ars Technica article, and in the summary. The investment in the Flat Rock Michigan plant is to create new electric vehicles, to maintain employment for the Ford Escort employees, as Ford continues its plan to move the Escorts to 100% in Mexico. This is similar to the November story, when Ford moved mature Lincoln manufacturing from Louisville KY to Mexico, but invested in a new vehicle manufacturing in KY rather than close the plant.
From the Post https://www.washingtonpost.com... :
"At Ford, Joseph Hinrichs, president of Ford in the Americas, said the decision to produce the newly announced cars in the United States was made recently and without consulting people connected to Trump. Ford Executive Chairman Bill Ford shared the news with Trump in a phone call Tuesday morning, though the details of that call were not immediately available.
While the Ford Focus will soon be produced south of the border, Hinrichs said the 3,500 workers who currently make the car at its production facility in Wayne, Mich., will instead build two yet-to-be-named vehicles, and thus those jobs will stay in place."
Trump seems very talented at getting his name into headlines about decisions that have nothing to do with him
Gently reply
Another win for The Donald
And a loss for our domestic car companies who apparently are starting to become less competitive to appease our new President. In what world is a car company deciding to cancel $1.6 billion in investment for the future and replace it with only $700 billion of investment a good thing?
This may have nothing to do with the new administration. Ford could have simply realized they couldn't justify $1.6 billion in investment for new facilities, and needed to be more cautious by enhancing current factories. But if they really did make this decision because of fear of tariffs, we are already starting to see some of the worst consequences of protectionism. American companies being coerced to decrease efficiency to appease those who oppose the modernization of our workforce cannot be considered a win for anyone concerned about the long term economic health of our country.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Everybody knows Ford sucks. Hard. They haven't won a NASCAR championship in years.
Is there even a single part on a modern NASCAR car that has any relation at all to an actual production vehicle?
I think that argument is kind of like "Law degrees from Yale suck: Their football record was only 3-7 this year."
Aren't you guys supposed to be experiencing cognitive dissonance over your loyalties to fossil fuels about now?
Someone had to do it.
Because we all know that billion dollar investments from multi-billion dollar corporations can be changed overnight on the whim of a Tweet.
Given that there's 3 super cars that are hybrids(McLaren P1, Porsche 918, Ferrari La Ferrari) I'm very interested how the first hybrid sport/muscle/pony car regular people can afford will turn out. Not expecting super car performance but if done right it could be quite a car.
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
I thought Ford was the only one who didn't take a bailout? GM and Chrysler got billions shoveled at them, but Ford didn't take any of the 2008 money...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Trump seems very talented at getting his name into headlines about decisions that have nothing to do with him
Except for the part in the article where Ford's CEO is quoted as saying: "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. Earlier in the day, the CEO told CNN he views the investment as a "vote of confidence" in the president-elect.
I have read the linked article and article in WSJ and WashPost
OK, so did you miss that part, ignore it, or what?
Maybe it costs 1.6 billion to build a new factory in Mexico, and $700 million modernizing an existing plant in the United States. Under the previous rules they thought were going to be in place, they would have recouped the $900 million dollar difference. Trump's plan is to incentivize building in the US, disincentivize building elsewhere- and this changes the risks and calculations associated with the project.
So I wouldn't say the 'Narrative is clearly not true.' With Gruber, Rhodes, and Clinton continuously lying to the America public I can see where you'd get the idea that a 'narrative' would be pushed regardless of the facts on the ground, but please consider that not everyone operates that way.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
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.
We're both engaging in conjecture, you seem upset that my conjecture is different from yours. Perhaps you'd be happier on something that isn't so much a discussion board as a proclamation board?
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Even a business 101 class would inform you that predictability is an important business concern. Businesses do not do knee-jerk reactions that cost $900M based on new rules that haven't even been made! That's complete nonsense. No conjecture required to reject that as an explanation. Notice, I didn't actually engage in conjecture; I'm not saying why they did it, I'm saying exactly that we don't know why. We don't have enough information to make a reasonable claim, but we do have enough information to reject the stated claims.
> However, do not delude yourself or anyone else that GOP == "no new taxes", just because W chanted it like an idiot throughout his election cycle most assuredly does not make it true. Look at the historical record, in practice the GOP raises taxes just as much
Let's do look at the historical record. Here are the actual numbers, the average federal tax rate for all households:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...
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.
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.
I understand your conjecture as saying that Ford was going to spend $1.6G in Mexico rather than spending $700M in the US, for essentially the same thing, before changing its decision. It seems very odd that Ford would spend $900M extra just to locate a plant in Mexico rather than the US. Labor costs would be less in Mexico, but by that much?
Aighearach's conjecture is that there were two unrelated projects, one costing $1.6G and one costing $700M, and they dropped the first and are proceeding with the second instead. This avoids having to explain why plants in Mexico are so much more profitable than plants in the US. The $700M project looks to be higher tech, and more suited for doing in the US.
The problem with attributing a major change to Trump's election is that we don't know what's going to happen. Trump has said he'll do something to discourage sending jobs abroad. This is probably not good for his business interests, so I don't know if he'll actually do it. (One thing we know about Trump is that he's a big liar.) If he does propose something, I don't know how Congress will react. It's mostly controlled by mainstream Republicans, who might or might not support Trump's initiatives, and who are unlikely to want to pass such a proposal.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes