Hermosillo is 70% White/European, Well how do you like that?

[Roadrunner]

Post in a nutshell:

Why do people not like the Fusion's assembly point? Is it because you assume "Mexico = Latinos", and the dislike is based on racist beliefs? Why is the same dislike not given to the Crown Vic, built in Canada? Why is owning a Fusion seen as a "foreign car" but a car with a Canadian assembly point considered not?

_

 

Original post:

 

Not to spin things, but Wikipedia sez:

 

As of the census of 2005 there were 641,791 people living in the city of Hermosillo and 701,838 people living in the municipality of Hermosillo.

The racial makeup of the city was 70% White/European, 28% Mestizo and Amerindian, 1% Chinese. There are also many Americans, Canadians, Filipinos, Koreans, Japanese and Pacific Islanders.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermosillo%2C_Sonora

 

So (in theory) that means the people making the Fusion/Milan/MKZ are mostly white, not Latino.

 

My point in presenting this information is that there are a lot of Americans who say "boo! boo Fusion/MKZ made by 'Mexican' labor!" However, it's not so-called "Mexicans" by race (correct term Latino), but "Mexicans" by nationality that are making the cars. It appears white people -- white people like the UAW workers who work in Michigan -- are building the Fusion/MKZ.

 

Now - this makes for a new point:

(NEW WORDING) If people hate on Mexican labor because Latinos build it, and I'm saying it is not Latinos who build the car, then what argument is there to hate on Hermosillo's workers and products if that is not the same hatred placed on CAW products?

 

Point is, look - Hermosillo might be in Mexico, but I have this feeling the workers are white. White like me and most of you.

So, by stripping away the ability to make a racist argument, what are your reasons for hating on Hermosillo ?

Edited June 28, 2007 by Roadrunner

[BlackHorse]

Not to spin things, but Wikipedia sez:

 

As of the census of 2005 there were 641,791 people living in the city of Hermosillo and 701,838 people living in the municipality of Hermosillo.

The racial makeup of the city was 70% White/European, 28% Mestizo and Amerindian, 1% Chinese. There are also many Americans, Canadians, Filipinos, Koreans, Japanese and Pacific Islanders.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermosillo%2C_Sonora

 

So (in theory) that means the people making the Fusion/Milan/MKZ are mostly white, not Latino.

 

My point in presenting this information is that there are a lot of Americans who say "boo! boo Fusion/MKZ made by 'Mexican' labor!" However, it's not so-called "Mexicans" by race, but "Mexicans" by nationality that are making the cars. It appears white people -- white people like the UAW workers who work in Michigan -- are building the Fusion/MKZ.

 

Now - this makes for a new point: How can UAW laborers hate on Hermosillo and not CAW? I think people hate on Hermosillo because they think it's "Mexican" (Latino-race) labor. It's not because it's "made in Mexico" because they don't hate Ford products "made in Canada"

 

Point is, look - Hermosillo might be in Mexico, but I have this feeling the workers are white. White like me and most of you.

So, by stripping away the ability to make a racist argument, what are your reasons for hating on Hermosillo ?

 

It's a clever play roadrunner but it's been done before. You're saying "Look I'm not being racist but look at this data I found based on racial bias." Doesn't work buddy. You're basically trying to tell everyone "Hey it's ok to buy a Fusion because it's mostly white folks working at the plant." The whole post is tongue & cheek, wink wink to me. It's a clever prevarication but it still wreaks of racial bias in it's nature. Richard should just go ahead and shut it down again.

 

What was the very first thing you said?

 

Not to spin things, but Wikipedia sez:

 

Usually a good indication that spin is exactly what is about to follow.

Edited June 28, 2007 by BlackHorse

[namragus]

Probably the UAW doesn't like the Mexican plant because it is not unionized and the workers get paid far less. I don't think it is more complicated than that.

[BlackHorse]

Probably the UAW doesn't like the Mexican plant because it is not unionized and the workers get paid far less. I don't think it is more complicated than that.

 

 

It's a union plant.

[namragus]

It's a union plant.

 

There I go talking out of my ass, but what about the wages?

[RichardJensen]

Wages are competitive.

 

Also, RoadRunner, it's probably not a good idea to compare racial assignments across a border. Unless someone here can show how the U.S. Census 'White/Caucasian' and 'White/Caucasian of Hispanic descent' translate to 'White/European' and 'Amerindian/Mestizo' in Mexico........

 

There are undoubtedly many people in Mexico who claim Spanish descent while having only a marginal percentage of Spanish blood (for comparison, how many "Kiss me I'm Irish" types in the U.S. are 100% Irish?). What demographic would these people, transplanted into the U.S., fit into? 'White/Caucasian of Hispanic descent'? What?

Edited June 28, 2007 by RichardJensen

[thegeneral]

Be careful what you say on a forum its public data and retrievable.

[macattak1]

I am not sure how real or clear the point even is. If one wants to bring race into a conversation it needs to be much more clearly defined in it's purpose, or it just sounds like some alterior motive or something like that along that line.

 

I was camping the other day in Mt. Rushmore. New person pulled in and we talked. In the middle of the conversation [me] "...we went to Yellowstone last year..." [him] "...alot of orientals there..."

 

My wife, who is "oriental" was standing there we were both like...whaaaaaa? Not sure why he even said it. Not sure he knows why he even said it. Not sure why the thread was even really started.

 

Odd. But that is usually how racial conversations often start out or end...

Edited June 28, 2007 by macattak1

[Roadrunner]

It's a clever play roadrunner but it's been done before. You're saying "Look I'm not being racist but look at this data I found based on racial bias." Doesn't work buddy. You're basically trying to tell everyone "Hey it's ok to buy a Fusion because it's mostly white folks working at the plant."

 

Here's how I see it:

 

People say buying a Fusion is UnAmerican because it's built in Mexico -- but, oh, a Crown Vic from STAP is okay.

 

I think that these people are arguing this because Canada is seen as a "white" country whereas Mexico is seen as a "Latino" country.

 

They're both foreign countries - but Canada has "the right color people" to count their products as supposedly "not foreign". Note I'm putting all of this in quotation marks because I don't believe in these assumptions, like Canada having "the right color people" and being a "'white' country".

 

What these stats suggest to me is: there are white people helping building the Fusion.

 

Hermosillo is unionized, too. So, I'm trying to figure out why Americans here can hate on the Fusion as if "it's a foreign car" whereas the Crown Vic or Edge are seen as "not foreign." I think it's a double standard based on race.

 

I came to the conclusion it was a racial thing, because they are both technically foreign cars. So by removing race (white people build the Fusion), what arguments are left to hate on Hermosillo?

 

For clarification, I'm of the breed that says buying a Ford is buying an American car, and buying a Toyota (regardless of assembly location) is buying a foreign car.

Edited June 28, 2007 by Roadrunner

[jpd80]

I found this interesting article from 2004 - MADE IN USA

 

Twenty years ago we used to hear that the problem with the US car industry was the workers. We don't hear that any more now that Japanese companies are building cars in the US. The problem with American cars is bad design. You can see that just by looking at them.

 

All that extra sheet metal on the AMC Matador wasn't added by the workers. The problem with this car, as with American cars today, is that it was designed by marketing people instead of designers.

 

Why do the Japanese make better cars than us? Some say it's because their culture encourages cooperation. That may come into it. But in this case it seems more to the point that their culture prizes design and craftsmanship.

 

For centuries the Japanese have made finer things than we have in the West. When you look at swords they made in 1200, you just can't believe the date on the label is right. Presumably their cars fit together more precisely than ours for the same reason their joinery always has. They're obsessed with making things well.

 

Not us. When we make something in America, our aim is just to get the job done. Once we reach that point, we take one of two routes. We can stop there, and have something crude but serviceable, like a Vise-grip. Or we can improve it, which usually means encrusting it with gratuitous ornament. When we want to make a car "better," we stick tail fins on it, or make it longer, or make the windows smaller, depending on the current fashion.

 

Ditto for houses. In America you can have either a flimsy box banged together out of two by fours and drywall, or a McMansion-- a flimsy box banged together out of two by fours and drywall, but larger, more dramatic-looking, and full of expensive fittings. Rich people don't get better design or craftsmanship; they just get a larger, more conspicuous version of the standard house.

 

We don't especially prize design or craftsmanship here. What we like is speed, and we're willing to do something in an ugly way to get it done fast. In some fields, like software or movies, this is a net win.

 

But it's not just that software and movies are malleable mediums. In those businesses, the designers (though they're not generally called that) have more power. Software companies, at least successful ones, tend to be run by programmers. And in the film industry, though producers may second-guess directors, the director controls most of what appears on the screen. And so American software and movies, and Japanese cars, all have this in common: the people in charge care about design-- the former because the designers are in charge, and the latter because the whole culture cares about design.

 

I think most Japanese executives would be horrified at the idea of making a bad car. Whereas American executives, in their hearts, still believe the most important thing about a car is the image it projects. Make a good car? What's "good?" It's so subjective. If you want to know how to design a car, ask a focus group.

 

Instead of relying on their own internal design compass (like Henry Ford did), American car companies try to make what marketing people think consumers want. But it isn't working. American cars continue to lose market share. And the reason is that the customer doesn't want what he thinks he wants.

 

Letting focus groups design your cars for you only wins in the short term. In the long term, it pays to bet on good design. The focus group may say they want the meretricious feature du jour, but what they want even more is to imitate sophisticated buyers, and they, though a small minority, really do care about good design. Eventually the pimps and drug dealers notice that the doctors and lawyers have switched from Cadillac to Lexus, and do the same.

 

Apple is an interesting counterexample to the general American trend. If you want to buy a nice CD player, you'll probably buy a Japanese one. But if you want to buy an MP3 player, you'll probably buy an iPod. What happened? Why doesn't Sony dominate MP3 players? Because Apple is in the consumer electronics business now, and unlike other American companies, they're obsessed with good design. Or more precisely, their CEO is.

 

I just got an iPod, and it's not just nice. It's surprisingly nice. For it to surprise me, it must be satisfying expectations I didn't know I had. No focus group is going to discover those. Only a great designer can.

 

Cars aren't the worst thing we make in America. Where the just-do-it model fails most dramatically is in our cities-- or rather, exurbs. If real estate developers operated on a large enough scale, if they built whole towns, market forces would compel them to build towns that didn't suck. But they only build a couple office buildings or suburban streets at a time, and the result is so depressing that the inhabitants consider it a great treat to fly to Europe and spend a couple weeks living what is, for people there, just everyday life. [1]

 

But the just-do-it model does have advantages. It seems the clear winner for generating wealth and technical innovations (which are practically the same thing). I think speed is the reason. It's hard to create wealth by making a commodity. The real value is in things that are new, and if you want to be the first to make something, it helps to work fast. For better or worse, the just-do-it model is fast, whether you're Dan Bricklin writing the prototype of VisiCalc in a weekend, or a real estate developer building a block of shoddy condos in a month.

 

If I had to choose between the just-do-it model and the careful model, I'd probably choose just-do-it. But do we have to choose? Could we have it both ways? Could Americans have nice places to live without undermining the impatient, individualistic spirit that makes us good at software? Could other countries introduce more individualism into their technology companies and research labs without having it metastasize as strip malls? I'm optimistic. It's harder to say about other countries, but in the US, at least, I think we can have both.

 

Apple is an encouraging example. They've managed to preserve enough of the impatient, hackerly spirit you need to write software. And yet when you pick up a new Apple laptop, well, it doesn't seem American. It's too perfect. It seems as if it must have been made by a Swedish or a Japanese company.

 

In many technologies, version 2 has higher resolution. Why not in design generally? I think we'll gradually see national characters superseded by occupational characters: hackers in Japan will be allowed to behave with a willfulness that would now seem unJapanese, and products in America will be designed with an insistence on taste that would now seem unAmerican. Perhaps the most successful countries, in the future, will be those most willing to ignore what are now considered national characters, and do each kind of work in the way that works best. Race you.

 

Is that insistance on taste now coming through in good design?

[igor]

I still do not see how one can justify Canadian assembly being "better" for USA than Mexican assembly ..

 

this question gets asked over and over again, but never answered .. Both Hermosillo and Oakville are unionized, both produce products that are enhancing Ford's image, products scoring well on quality and reliability, both have shiny happy unionized people working for them ..

 

so why is VIN starting with 2 better than one starting with 3?

 

Igor

[hoss96racing]

it would be so much easier if we just declared canada and mexico as the 51st and 52nd states... that way this issue would be resolved along with immigration and all of the illegals crossing the border... :wacko:

[igor]

Maybe because Canada has a lower trade imbalance with the U.S. They actually produce products we import, other than illegal immigrants.

HUH? aren't we complaining that Mexico is taking away job from US because they produce things for US consumption?

 

Maybe you meant that Canada actually consumes some os US products, but you will be please to know that outside the poor northern Mexico, one of NAFTA's core provisions was to cheaply get products from US to Mexico for consumption ..

 

Finally, I would like to know the trade balance sheets between US states ... after all the NAFTA deal did in fact put Canada and Mexico as 51st and 52nd states from economic/ trade perspective - so it makes sense to add perspective of how some states (like Michigan) are losing jobs to other states ( say Alabama) because trade imbalance..

 

Igor

[630land]

Within the Latino world there is racism against "Indian looking" people, and "white/Spanish" looksing are 'upper class'. Check out Spanish Language TV and see some blondes are 'stars'. The 'white Latinos' own land, and the poor "Indians' are the ones running here.

 

So, no matter where one goes, some form of "us versus them' exsits.

 

100 years ago it was "blue blooded' English desnedants of the "Pilgrims" vs 'those shanty Irish, Italians, Polish'. Believe what you want, but most 'real white Americans' are desended from former 'those people who are ruining our country'

 

Me, I am Irish descent and my grandad's family snuck in from Canada! Whatever...

Edited June 30, 2007 by 630land

[RichardJensen]

Yeah, Roadrunner. The thing is the people describing themselves as 'white/european' in Hermosillo would be tagged as 'Hispanic' or worse by the racists in this country.

[Roadrunner]

Yeah, Roadrunner. The thing is the people describing themselves as 'white/european' in Hermosillo would be tagged as 'Hispanic' or worse by the racists in this country.

 

I will have to look into this more.