Texas vs Ohio

[charrison]

There's no doubt times are tough in Ohio. The state has lost 200,000 manufacturing jobs since 2000, home foreclosures are soaring, and real family income is lower now than in 2000. Meanwhile, the Texas economy has boomed since 2004, with nearly twice the rate of new job creation as the rest of the nation. The nearby table compares the states over a decade or so.

Let's start with the fact that Texas's growth puts the lie to the myth that free trade costs American jobs. Anti-Nafta rhetoric doesn't play well in El Paso, San Antonio and Houston, which have become gateway cities for commerce with Latin America and have flourished since the North American Free Trade Agreement passed Congress in 1993. Mr. Obama's claim of one million lost jobs due to trade deals is laughable in Texas, the state most affected by Nafta. Texas has gained 36,000 manufacturing jobs since 2004 and has ranked as the nation's top exporting state for six years in a row. Its $168 billion of exports in 2007 translate into tens of thousands of jobs.

...

Ohio politicians deplore plant closings even as they impose the third highest corporate income tax in the country (10.5%) and the sixth highest personal income tax (8.87%). A common joke is that Ohio lays out the red carpet for companies -- when they leave the state. By contrast, Texas has no income tax, a huge competitive advantage.

...

On the other hand, Texas is a right to work state and has been adding jobs by the tens of thousands. Nearly 1,000 new plants have been built in Texas since 2005, from the likes of Microsoft, Samsung and Fujitsu. Foreign-owned companies supplied the state with 345,000 jobs. No wonder Texans don't fear global competition the way some Presidential candidates do.

linkage


Some interesting stats in this article. Maybe this is why is usually the see economy doing much better than others.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: charrison

There's no doubt times are tough in Ohio. The state has lost 200,000 manufacturing jobs since 2000, home foreclosures are soaring, and real family income is lower now than in 2000. Meanwhile, the Texas economy has boomed since 2004, with nearly twice the rate of new job creation as the rest of the nation. The nearby table compares the states over a decade or so.

Let's start with the fact that Texas's growth puts the lie to the myth that free trade costs American jobs. Anti-Nafta rhetoric doesn't play well in El Paso, San Antonio and Houston, which have become gateway cities for commerce with Latin America and have flourished since the North American Free Trade Agreement passed Congress in 1993. Mr. Obama's claim of one million lost jobs due to trade deals is laughable in Texas, the state most affected by Nafta. Texas has gained 36,000 manufacturing jobs since 2004 and has ranked as the nation's top exporting state for six years in a row. Its $168 billion of exports in 2007 translate into tens of thousands of jobs.

...

Ohio politicians deplore plant closings even as they impose the third highest corporate income tax in the country (10.5%) and the sixth highest personal income tax (8.87%). A common joke is that Ohio lays out the red carpet for companies -- when they leave the state. By contrast, Texas has no income tax, a huge competitive advantage.

...

On the other hand, Texas is a right to work state and has been adding jobs by the tens of thousands. Nearly 1,000 new plants have been built in Texas since 2005, from the likes of Microsoft, Samsung and Fujitsu. Foreign-owned companies supplied the state with 345,000 jobs. No wonder Texans don't fear global competition the way some Presidential candidates do.

linkage


Some interesting stats in this article. Maybe this is why is usually the see economy doing much better than others.

Add to that Texas #1 in oil refining, #1 energy production, and #2 in Ag. Ohio doesnt have much going for it. Texas has a very diversified economy.

 

[senseamp]

Let me guess, Texas Miracle 2.0?

 

[KrispyKreme50]

Ohio should take a look at Singapore, which has been successful in building a modern and prosperous society despite just about every economic handicap that you could think of (lack of land, lack of natural resources, etc...). The government of Singapore realized early on that it needed to create an environment favorable to business and investment. For example, if I recall correctly, Singapore does not tax capital gains and has a light regulatory climate, which create a strong incentive for companies to move jobs to Singapore. The point here is that Ohio should look at what successful states/countries are doing and try to emulate them instead of clinging on to failed policies.

 

[Painman]

Ohio has been unprepared for the economics of the 21st century, because it made the same mistake Michigan did. Assume that heavy industry would stay there forever, and turn out little besides obedient know-nothings from the public schools.

Possibly Interesting anecdote, I grew up in Flint, MI during the 70s and 80s. My mother taught classes in and around there during the same time frame. We came to the same conclusion that the schools weren't really trying to teach a damn thing, because the shops only cared if you could operate a rivet gun or an impact wrench. My mother actually spoke to parents of students who couldn't read, and the parents didn't give a damn because "he'll take over his daddy's job.".

These states are completely fucked for a generation or 2. Futzing with NAFTA won't help them. They need to retool in order to be competitive in 21st century industries (Biotech, Microtech et al) and they need to offer a skilled workforce.

No one can wave a magic wand and make these states better in the short term. If the Fed were to take pity upon Michigan/Ohio and invest in them somewhow, it should focus upon the educational systems in place, and they should start by firing every single person currently in charge of these systems. These states and their localities are being run by retards, because the schools there have cranked out nothing but retards for the last 30 years.

Retards beget more retards.

 

[kedlav]

Originally posted by: Painman
Ohio has been unprepared for the economics of the 21st century, because it made the same mistake Michigan did. Assume that heavy industry would stay there forever, and turn out little besides obedient know-nothings from the public schools.

Possibly Interesting anecdote, I grew up in Flint, MI during the 70s and 80s. My mother taught classes in and around there during the same time frame. We came to the same conclusion that the schools weren't really trying to teach a damn thing, because the shops only cared if you could operate a rivet gun or an impact wrench. My mother actually spoke to parents of students who couldn't read, and the parents didn't give a damn because "he'll take over his daddy's job.".

These states are completely fucked for a generation or 2. Futzing with NAFTA won't help them. They need to retool in order to be competitive in 21st century industries (Biotech, Microtech et al) and they need to offer a skilled workforce.

No one can wave a magic wand and make these states better in the short term. If the Fed were to take pity upon Michigan/Ohio and invest in them somewhow, it should focus upon the educational systems in place, and they should start by firing every single person currently in charge of these systems. These states and their localities are being run by retards, because the schools there have cranked out nothing but retards for the last 30 years.

Retards beget more retards.

<--From Ohio. We have one of the best environments for high school graduates in the country. We have a very, very good community college system that is pretty much accessible to anyone in the state, as well as two very well ranked public schools (Ohio State and Miami University) and three decent mid-majors (Toledo, Cleveland State, and Cincy). There are a number of good to great private schools as well (John Carroll, Baldwin Wallace, and of course, Case Western). Out issue isn't so much a skilled workforce, as it is braindrain. Between the high taxes keeping corporations out, as well as the willingness to leave due to the lackluster environment, there really aren't many good paying, high-skill jobs in Ohio, despite the fact that we're one of the better ranked states for high school students getting post-secondary degrees. While I sympathize with most union workers who lost their jobs due to free trade agreements providing them with low-cost labor competition, I'm also pissed as hell at the state of taxes in Ohio (I get fucked pretty good on state taxes, which are definitely higher than the nat'l norm).

 

[M2008S]

well, i just casted my vote as a 17 year old in ohio. polls were a bit scattered... i was the only 17 yr old at my polling place and they didnt seem to know what they were doing.

 

[StageLeft]

NY state is doing the same thing as Ohio, then. Its taxes are high and that's why it's stagnant. Upstate NY laments its weakening population base and wonders why businesses are leaving while it levies massive taxes on business and population to throw money and bullsh*t public projects that are doomed from the start or more impotent social programs.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
NY state is doing the same thing as Ohio, then. Its taxes are high and that's why it's stagnant. Upstate NY laments its weakening population base and wonders why businesses are leaving while it levies massive taxes on business and population to throw money and bullsh*t public projects that are doomed from the start or more impotent social programs.

Remember when NYC was going down the drain and then Rudy cut taxes multiple times to make the city more competitive.

Seems like a lot of politicians don?t think of things like that when the raise taxes. All they look at it their state budget and focus on the fact that they need more revenue to offset their spending habits.

I wonder if there is a chart that compares low tax states with high tax states when it comes to job growth and overall economic health.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Skoorb
NY state is doing the same thing as Ohio, then. Its taxes are high and that's why it's stagnant. Upstate NY laments its weakening population base and wonders why businesses are leaving while it levies massive taxes on business and population to throw money and bullsh*t public projects that are doomed from the start or more impotent social programs.

Remember when NYC was going down the drain and then Rudy cut taxes multiple times to make the city more competitive.

Seems like a lot of politicians don?t think of things like that when the raise taxes. All they look at it their state budget and focus on the fact that they need more revenue to offset their spending habits.

I wonder if there is a chart that compares low tax states with high tax states when it comes to job growth and overall economic health.

I bet there is one and with the ease with which companies can move from state to state, it makes it hard to be competitive with a low-tax state.

The problem in NY as in other states is that government, like other human establishments, inexorably seeks to grow. It's in human nature, which is why taxes continue to ultimately go up even though they are already too high by most estimations and state population does not go up. As the tax base shrinks, the remaining base gets hit harder, because government does not like to shrink itself.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Skoorb
NY state is doing the same thing as Ohio, then. Its taxes are high and that's why it's stagnant. Upstate NY laments its weakening population base and wonders why businesses are leaving while it levies massive taxes on business and population to throw money and bullsh*t public projects that are doomed from the start or more impotent social programs.

Remember when NYC was going down the drain and then Rudy cut taxes multiple times to make the city more competitive.

Seems like a lot of politicians don?t think of things like that when the raise taxes. All they look at it their state budget and focus on the fact that they need more revenue to offset their spending habits.

I wonder if there is a chart that compares low tax states with high tax states when it comes to job growth and overall economic health.

In areas that have a highly educated workforce and high tech/biotech (i.e. california, the northeast) taxes probably don't hurt as much, but in states like Michigan and Ohio where they haven't joined the 21st century, taxes on corporations hurt like hell.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
NY state is doing the same thing as Ohio, then. Its taxes are high and that's why it's stagnant. Upstate NY laments its weakening population base and wonders why businesses are leaving while it levies massive taxes on business and population to throw money and bullsh*t public projects that are doomed from the start or more impotent social programs.

I'm from Ohio and I hate the fact that they are going down the same path as Michigan... get this idea that you can tax business to save everything else. Then when all the businesses leave, and people go with them, making the tax revenue plummet, thier solution is to raise taxes again, which just worsesns the problem, like a downward spiral. Michigan just lost Comerica to Texas after the last round of tax hikes, and Comerica was one of thier flagship businesses besides the big 3. Kinda embarrassing that the Tiger's Stadium is named Comerica Park, and now Comerica is snubbing the state for greener pastures.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Skoorb
NY state is doing the same thing as Ohio, then. Its taxes are high and that's why it's stagnant. Upstate NY laments its weakening population base and wonders why businesses are leaving while it levies massive taxes on business and population to throw money and bullsh*t public projects that are doomed from the start or more impotent social programs.

I'm from Ohio and I hate the fact that they are going down the same path as Michigan... get this idea that you can tax business to save everything else. Then when all the businesses leave, and people go with them, making the tax revenue plummet, thier solution is to raise taxes again, which just worsesns the problem, like a downward spiral. Michigan just lost Comerica to Texas after the last round of tax hikes, and Comerica was one of thier flagship businesses besides the big 3. Kinda embarrassing that the Tiger's Stadium is named Comerica Park, and now Comerica is snubbing the state for greener pastures.

Yes. Do you know that for every $100k in true home value on my house I pay 3.7% of that value in taxes each year? I get a paltry $450 or so off that, so for a $200k house a person around here pays about $6500 in property taxes/year. The result of course is that when property values shot up in the rest of the nation, they didn't here. Also, now that property values are starting to drop everywhere (including here), surprise, surprise my property was just appraised at the same value it supposedly had a year ago, despite people in my immediate area selling for less!

There are benefits, such as less costly homes, but for somebody who moves out of the area, they have comparitively little worth. Heh, maybe that was the intent to begin with

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
NY state is doing the same thing as Ohio, then. Its taxes are high and that's why it's stagnant. Upstate NY laments its weakening population base and wonders why businesses are leaving while it levies massive taxes on business and population to throw money and bullsh*t public projects that are doomed from the start or more impotent social programs.

Same problem in Vermont. The solution that our moron legislation seems to offer is to do what we currently are doing, only harder. Tax the fuck out of income and businesses and create massive regulatory hurdles. They act like Vermont has some huge incentives for businesses that they would have to give up to leave. There are none. Our transportation infrastructure is crap and (like most states honestly) falling apart because the transportation fund has been robbed to fund pie in the sky feel good projects. I guess its hard to brag about repaving a torn up road when compared to some new government agency that duplicates half the work another one already did.

Our education system is ok, except college is to expensive for most local kids even at state schools, and we spend more then neighboring states for basically the same middle of the pack results...and the majority of the kids just leave the state afterwards because jobs are scarce. So the few businesses that are here complain there aren't any qualified workers (willing to work for crap wages).

 

[wirelessenabled]

Originally posted by: charrison

There's no doubt times are tough in Ohio. The state has lost 200,000 manufacturing jobs since 2000, home foreclosures are soaring, and real family income is lower now than in 2000. Meanwhile, the Texas economy has boomed since 2004, with nearly twice the rate of new job creation as the rest of the nation. The nearby table compares the states over a decade or so.

Let's start with the fact that Texas's growth puts the lie to the myth that free trade costs American jobs. Anti-Nafta rhetoric doesn't play well in El Paso, San Antonio and Houston, which have become gateway cities for commerce with Latin America and have flourished since the North American Free Trade Agreement passed Congress in 1993. Mr. Obama's claim of one million lost jobs due to trade deals is laughable in Texas, the state most affected by Nafta. Texas has gained 36,000 manufacturing jobs since 2004 and has ranked as the nation's top exporting state for six years in a row. Its $168 billion of exports in 2007 translate into tens of thousands of jobs.

...

Ohio politicians deplore plant closings even as they impose the third highest corporate income tax in the country (10.5%) and the sixth highest personal income tax (8.87%). A common joke is that Ohio lays out the red carpet for companies -- when they leave the state. By contrast, Texas has no income tax, a huge competitive advantage.

...

On the other hand, Texas is a right to work state and has been adding jobs by the tens of thousands. Nearly 1,000 new plants have been built in Texas since 2005, from the likes of Microsoft, Samsung and Fujitsu. Foreign-owned companies supplied the state with 345,000 jobs. No wonder Texans don't fear global competition the way some Presidential candidates do.

linkage


Some interesting stats in this article. Maybe this is why is usually the see economy doing much better than others.

Wondering where the WSJ gets their numbers for this? Do they make them up to prove their point? According to the US Census, Texas was the second largest exporter in 2007, after California, at $130 billion.

Makes sense that those two are the biggest exporters since they have the largest populations and are on the coast making shipments easy. Comparing and contrasting California and Texas tax policy might make more sense to determine if the Texas tax policy makes any difference to the amount of foreign exports.

As a point of interest the state of Washington, with 6 million people, exports $62 billion, which is about 1/2 the exports of Texas, population 21 million. Not many folks would call Washington a business friendly state.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: PingSpike
Same problem in Vermont...

I heard on NPR that vermont has this problem and has been sending people to MA to try and recruit kids back home in the 27-35 age range. I am a product of a city in Canada that has an incredibly high percentage of colleges to the population, which it does in some silly effort to increase the comparitively weak economy. Of course, you educate a person and what do they do if they have no job? They move, so the end result is that the area throws gobs of tax money to educate kids who just take that education and bail.

We have plenty of pie in the sky ideas here. Rochester has recently thrown money at a fast ferry to link to Toronto, which died miserably and cost millions to recover from, built a professional soccer stadium (WTF!), which is also dying a miserable death, has done some others, and now as the cherry on top is undertaking a project more costly and idiotic than the others _combined_, which is to build to the tune of a 1/4 Billion (which will of course end up overrunning) a center that combines a performing arts center with a massive bus station (yes, bus station) and community college, a trifecta of insanity. However, it will "make 1000 jobs", so it's win/win, right?

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: charrison

There's no doubt times are tough in Ohio. The state has lost 200,000 manufacturing jobs since 2000, home foreclosures are soaring, and real family income is lower now than in 2000. Meanwhile, the Texas economy has boomed since 2004, with nearly twice the rate of new job creation as the rest of the nation. The nearby table compares the states over a decade or so.

Let's start with the fact that Texas's growth puts the lie to the myth that free trade costs American jobs. Anti-Nafta rhetoric doesn't play well in El Paso, San Antonio and Houston, which have become gateway cities for commerce with Latin America and have flourished since the North American Free Trade Agreement passed Congress in 1993. Mr. Obama's claim of one million lost jobs due to trade deals is laughable in Texas, the state most affected by Nafta. Texas has gained 36,000 manufacturing jobs since 2004 and has ranked as the nation's top exporting state for six years in a row. Its $168 billion of exports in 2007 translate into tens of thousands of jobs.

...

Ohio politicians deplore plant closings even as they impose the third highest corporate income tax in the country (10.5%) and the sixth highest personal income tax (8.87%). A common joke is that Ohio lays out the red carpet for companies -- when they leave the state. By contrast, Texas has no income tax, a huge competitive advantage.

...

On the other hand, Texas is a right to work state and has been adding jobs by the tens of thousands. Nearly 1,000 new plants have been built in Texas since 2005, from the likes of Microsoft, Samsung and Fujitsu. Foreign-owned companies supplied the state with 345,000 jobs. No wonder Texans don't fear global competition the way some Presidential candidates do.

linkage


Some interesting stats in this article. Maybe this is why is usually the see economy doing much better than others.

I think the biggest factors that cost job losses is this "right to work" thing. We all know the traditional manufacturing companies are not doing well, and the US is undergoing a rapid transformation from traditional type of manufacturing to high valued added manufacturing. So any state that rely on traditional manufacturing needs new business with newer type of business model to come in to make up for the losses of traditional manufacturing jobs. But with states like Ohio and Michigan without the "right to work" laws, and all the union businesses, new business will do everything to avoid going there.

Reduce tax is good, being in a good location is good too, but unless this union membership business is taken care of, it will be difficult for Ohio to attract new businesses.

 

[piasabird]

Texas the land of low tax and prosperity? It seems like a lot of texas use to be open wasteland as far as I could tell when I lived near El Paso, TX. I have heard that Austin is a lot prettier. Seemed pretty hot in texas last time I was there.

 

[KentState]

Having lived in Ohio my entired life and splitting that between the Cleveland/Youngstown area and Cincinnati/Dayton, there are two distinct regions. The job loss is all mainly tied to union jobs with Delphi, GM, Ford, and so on. The majority of these business are in the nothern part of the state which is becoming much like Flint and Detroit. Columbus and south is a lot better with decent job growth.

The voters are pretty much split along the same lines. The south typical goes to the Ruplicans while the north goes to the Democrats. This also falls in line with most of the location of the blue and white collar jobs.

I just feel that articles like this sometimes paint Ohio as having issues all over, but this is very regional. The only exception is the high taxes which holds the southern part of the state from even growing quicker.

 

[techs]

Gee, you think oil going for 100 per barrel has helped Texas?
And NAFTA has certainly created jobs in Texas, since it is on the border of Mexico.
Its the rest of the country NAFTA is hurting.
What's killed Ohio is the Republican anti-workder policies that Have encouraged and made it easier for corporations to replace good paying jobs with lower paying ones.
So Ohio loses good jobs, while other states get lower paying jobs.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: wirelessenabled

Originally posted by: charrison

There's no doubt times are tough in Ohio. The state has lost 200,000 manufacturing jobs since 2000, home foreclosures are soaring, and real family income is lower now than in 2000. Meanwhile, the Texas economy has boomed since 2004, with nearly twice the rate of new job creation as the rest of the nation. The nearby table compares the states over a decade or so.

Let's start with the fact that Texas's growth puts the lie to the myth that free trade costs American jobs. Anti-Nafta rhetoric doesn't play well in El Paso, San Antonio and Houston, which have become gateway cities for commerce with Latin America and have flourished since the North American Free Trade Agreement passed Congress in 1993. Mr. Obama's claim of one million lost jobs due to trade deals is laughable in Texas, the state most affected by Nafta. Texas has gained 36,000 manufacturing jobs since 2004 and has ranked as the nation's top exporting state for six years in a row. Its $168 billion of exports in 2007 translate into tens of thousands of jobs.

...

Ohio politicians deplore plant closings even as they impose the third highest corporate income tax in the country (10.5%) and the sixth highest personal income tax (8.87%). A common joke is that Ohio lays out the red carpet for companies -- when they leave the state. By contrast, Texas has no income tax, a huge competitive advantage.

...

On the other hand, Texas is a right to work state and has been adding jobs by the tens of thousands. Nearly 1,000 new plants have been built in Texas since 2005, from the likes of Microsoft, Samsung and Fujitsu. Foreign-owned companies supplied the state with 345,000 jobs. No wonder Texans don't fear global competition the way some Presidential candidates do.

linkage


Some interesting stats in this article. Maybe this is why is usually the see economy doing much better than others.

Wondering where the WSJ gets their numbers for this? Do they make them up to prove their point? According to the US Census, Texas was the second largest exporter in 2007, after California, at $130 billion.

Makes sense that those two are the biggest exporters since they have the largest populations and are on the coast making shipments easy. Comparing and contrasting California and Texas tax policy might make more sense to determine if the Texas tax policy makes any difference to the amount of foreign exports.

As a point of interest the state of Washington, with 6 million people, exports $62 billion, which is about 1/2 the exports of Texas, population 21 million. Not many folks would call Washington a business friendly state.

A recent forbes article had Washington ranked 5th for overall business climate, which was right behind 4th ranked Texas. California was much further down the list.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: techs
Gee, you think oil going for 100 per barrel has helped Texas?
And NAFTA has certainly created jobs in Texas, since it is on the border of Mexico.
Its the rest of the country NAFTA is hurting.
What's killed Ohio is the Republican anti-workder policies that Have encouraged and made it easier for corporations to replace good paying jobs with lower paying ones.
So Ohio loses good jobs, while other states get lower paying jobs.

Take a moment to read the article. Ohio has far larger problems than NAFTA. The main loss of manufacturing jobs has been automation and not nafta.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: techs
Gee, you think oil going for 100 per barrel has helped Texas?
And NAFTA has certainly created jobs in Texas, since it is on the border of Mexico.
Its the rest of the country NAFTA is hurting.
What's killed Ohio is the Republican anti-workder policies that Have encouraged and made it easier for corporations to replace good paying jobs with lower paying ones.
So Ohio loses good jobs, while other states get lower paying jobs.

Lets see.

We have the three major airlines. American, Contiential, and Southwest.
We have Dell.
We have AT&T.
We have Clear Channel.
We have Toyota's Truck Plant.
We are #1 in beef/#2 overall in Ag.
We had record crops this year. Soybean, Peanuts, Cotton, as well as others. Cotton alone was over $8billion.
We are #1 in energy production.
Working on #1 in ethanol.
Working on #1 in alternative energy.

Texas has the most diverse economy in the country. Its republican controlled, business friendly, and has good wages to boot.

 

[KentState]

Originally posted by: techs
Gee, you think oil going for 100 per barrel has helped Texas?
And NAFTA has certainly created jobs in Texas, since it is on the border of Mexico.
Its the rest of the country NAFTA is hurting.
What's killed Ohio is the Republican anti-workder policies that Have encouraged and made it easier for corporations to replace good paying jobs with lower paying ones.
So Ohio loses good jobs, while other states get lower paying jobs.

You really have no clue as to what types of jobs where lost in Ohio. The "good" jobs are still here, it's the GM, Delphi, and Ford jobs which is a result of those companies entering into agreements with unions that are unrealistic. If you read my post above, there is a clear division in the parts of Ohio where the union jobs have sunk the area, while the non-union job areas are doing well.

 

[Midnight Rambler]

The main loss of manufacturing jobs has been automation and not nafta

Totally, totally clueless.

Just one example for you. One of the plants that produce the product for which I am responsible was highly automated, yet the number of jobs for humans stayed approximately the same, they just changed in terms of job responsibility, etc. Automation requires a massive amount of human support ... attendants, PM, repairs, etc.

This plant was closed in December and the product production was re-sourced to Mexico. I spent several months down there helping them get started. Guess how much of the "automation" (equipment) went south ? Basically zilch. Where (4) workers were required for each highly automated manufacturing "cell" up here, the Mexicans just took the basic superstructure of the cell (a "pallet" based conveyor system), the dedicated assembly "pallets", and then brought in manual peeners, rivetors, screw guns, etc. And then added 18 manual laborers per cell, plus 2 repair/service men. They're tripping over themselves and producing less than half of what we did here. Not to mention quality sucks, PPM is rising faster than I can calculate it.

And another nugget for you ... Honda just announced they are closing their Marysville, OH motorcycle plant. Also highly automated yet it employed thousands.