Made in the USA? Good or Bad

This is a question I've been wondering about for a while, and a topic in another post reminded me of it. What is everyone's thoughts on Made in the USA quality? Probably waaayyyy back in the day, this saying probably had some accuracy to it, but what about today? Is it still true? I sometimes hear this term in advertising, and always think it's sad that companies have to resort to patriotism to sell their products. Since they can't advertise as being the best, or the cheapest, or strongest, etc, so they slap on an american flag and make people feel guilty for not supporting the US economy. I've mostly seen this on commercials for the big three car companies.

What are other people's thoughts on this? How strongly do you feel about buying american? I can see if everything was equal, and one product was made in the US and the other overseas, then maybe that might be a deciding factor. But when the two aren't equal, how much does the country of origin affect a person's buying decision? I know for some people, they limit themselves to buying american because they think it's good for the country, i.e they'll only buy a domestic car, they wont' even consider a japanese car. But isn't that just telling US companies that they can continue to sell crap, because people will keep buying it regardless? I'm really curious as to what the people overseas think about "Made in the USA" quality. Have we been able to influence their views in anyway with all the propaganda on US television?

Oh yeah, I thought I'd mention that everyone's favorite flashlight company proudly advertises "Manufactured with pride and craftsmanship in the USA" as the first line in their product webpage. I think they also stamp it on the head of everyflashlight too.

Personally, I think alot is pure HYPE. Driven by Unions and politics.

Good question but I for one won't go there on here; too much passion and not articulate enough to say what I feel.

However, I'd like to see a tag on a product that stated:

"Made on planet by folks who give a s**t about the quality, choice of materials used and longevity of this item. It is with pride that we bring you a product that utilizes current technology in design, materials and quality control. It is our expectation that this product will go beyond your expectations and last longer than your needs require. Neither the environment no our fellow man have been wrongly exploited in the manufacture of this item. This item will not be found in abundance in land fills or other garbage."

- Don

I'll start buying American cars again just as soon as the good ol' US of A decides to make another EV here. For now I buy Japanese for the simple reason that Toyota is currently the single choice. With my dollars, I vote for quality and value. Blindly buying "made in the USA" regardless of value creates a vicious circle of low expectations and low value. If given a choice of equal items, I will buy a USA product just about every time.

And that's all I'm gonna say about that.

Hey Don: I think I know a great place to use your tag line....

I tend to buy the best quality product that meets my needs within my budget. Sometimes that's "Made in USA" and sometimes it's not.

My last "Made in USA" vehicle was assembled in the the US but had a German engine, a Mexican transmission, body panels from Canada, and mostly Japaneese electronics.

I can recall having arguments with my father about which was a more "American" car, a Pontiac made in South Korea, or a Honda made in Tennesee. Typical of his generation the Pontiac was American and the Honda was not ...

Take care,

Nowadays 'Made In the USA' merely indicates to me why a (quality) product may have a higher price tag than its competitors (although many made in usa products are competitively priced). I buy based on the 'quality' I estimate for a product. The measures of quality can of course be quite subjective.

I do not think the country of manufacture is as much of an issue nowadays because of wide dissemination and global enterprise. But what the hell do I know?

From an outsider's point of view - made in USA is merely an indication of price premium, compared to made in (some) asian countries.

eg batteries (sold in Aust): Energizer AA made in USA, Duracell made in PRC. Even simple things like this, the Energizers seems better put together (the sticker, quality of metal used, etc)

Although I wouldn't want a car made in USA. eg. Ford F series pickups $60K+, in the same price range you can buy entry level luxury cars, or in same class, Japanese competitors cost $20-35K.

I believe country of origin counts for more than brand name when it comes to electronic goods. There are large variations in quality control wrt individual country's manufacturing techniques and laws/regulations.

I feel betrayed by American companies who are one by one ceasing to be manufacturers and becoming merely distributers of Chinese goods, with no change in price. You would think that when you start using a plant that pays the workforce $3 per day that regardless of the quality, the price would be about 1/10 of what it was when made with US labor. For example, Stanley hardware is now often Chinese, but the only change is the new boxes say made in China. Somebody is becoming unemployed. Somebody is getting rich. The Chinese are facilitating the ripoff, but not benefitting as much from the jobs created as those hurt by the jobs destroyed.

Chinese quality is extreemely variable, from first rate to abysimal. I feel insulted when I suspect the goods were imported to the US because nobody else would settle for the shoddy quality. I find it scarry when the stuff is good -- how do you compete with 29 cents an hour and still buy the average $120k home?

I am concerned when a third of the imported 3/8 inch lag bolts I bought snap off just as they start to snug up. I'd like some quality guarantee, I settle for made in USA when I get the choice, but I grudgingly think Japanese consumer goods are probably the best. But mostly I don't get a choice; when conservatives say "let the market deceide", they don't mean you and me, they mean the buyers for the big retail chains.

Most of all, I don't see much of a future for a country where the only work available is to serve each other hamburgers. I think the bulk of goods can be made competently anywhere, but for stability it is better if they are made close to home. In time standards and expectations will equalise, but in the meantime the overlords will make a lot of money and pain playing one workforce against another.

So if it's imported, I ask "Can I do without?"; if it's made in USA, I ask "Can I use two?". Just trying to protect an endagered species.

there are many differences in products where sometimes made in the usa is good and other times its not. I know for tools, i will not buy anything made in china, they have no good metal and no one sells them any. Japan on the other hand makes fine metals and has acces to buy the best from america and russia. I do not favor EV cars like darell, but you will be hard pressed to find an american, or anyone else for that matter, car that gets 50mpg like a volkswagon jetta tdi.
I know three people that have them and they get 49, 52 and 53 mpg. Its no hype and faster than the gas.

Certain countries have reps for better products in certain categories, and stereotypes are usually somewhat based in truth, just biased truth.

Yay Jetta TDI. I've had 4 VW diesels. Two from Germany, One from Westmoreland, PA, and, unfortunartely, the current one was made in Mexico. I guess making cars are some of the jobs NAFTA cost us. The Mexican Jetta may be my last, the car is still reliable, but the body seems to be made to fall apart.

The owner's manual is condescending (Replacing the radio: owner's manual just says "don't". Towing a small trailer: owner's manul just says "don't".), and the polution controls are boobytrapped -- when oil gets down to the lower line on most dipsticks, you add a quart; for the TDI you add a _half_ quart, and there is a warning that if you overfill the oil it will destroy your catalytic converter.

I don't understand the aversion to building good small cars that US manufacturers have. American diesels are generally bigger and built more for power than efficiency. There are no innovations like hybrid-electric. Maybe someday there will be an american fuel-cell car.

Growing up in the '50s and '60s, the low end toys and tools and disposable goods were typically made in Japan. Back then, if the item was made in Japan, it was typically inferrior in quality and sold at the low end pricing levels. Was this because the Japaneese couldn't make quality product? No, I was led to understand that it was because this was the area of the market the US opened to them at the time. We enforce standards and practices in manufacture along with higher wages which are not the case typically in off shore manufacture.

Years ago, while studying economics in college, there was a notion of how to "internalize externalities". If a factory is situated on a river and sucks in water for cooling and manufacturing and expells poluted water, how do you get the factory to accept the burden of the expense to the environment and the society of their discharge? Well we have succeeded in getting these factories to clean up their acts and stop polution. Of course many of these factories are closed and abandoned now since a factory elsewhere in the world is poluting their river and not bearing the cost of waste management.

Globally, it is not a level playing field but a "global free enterprise" system will likely eventually tend to level the field. We will not see China come up to our level of conspicious consumption. We will not see the quality and diversity of products stay high as the rest of the planet comes to our level. No, I am conifdent that a final level of equilibrium will be below our "current standards" and above China's "current standards".

At random, grab a pair of pliers or a screwdriver from a typical tool drawer from Joe American's house and compare the quality and origin of manufacture to what you would have found 15 years ago.

If we can keep the pressure on the market to keep the quality and longevity of service on items up by willingness to pay a higher price, then the ultimate level of equilibrium might remain higher with fewer turns or replacements on items. However, if we insist on lowest price and spend our $'s at the big chains who scour the globe for the cheapest product, then the level of equilibrium will indeed be well below what we are used to today.

Seems to me that even with better recycling, our limited resources (globally) can not support an economy based on current and future expected populations coupled with "disposable" goods.

Made in America? Yeah, I prefer to support the home team and the supposed values and quallity implied. I prefer quality and choose to pay more and replace less often. For many things, to get best quality, I have to look beyond our shores.

We hold the home team to rules and restrictions (with good reason and intent) that we don't require of companies from foreign origin.

We have domestic chemical industries who make pesticides that we have banned so the pesticides are sold outside of our borders and used on produce that we import????

If we continue to insist on low bid and lowest price, we will see ever increasing import and the level of quality and service life of product will continue to go down.

Regardless of point of origin, the US is a major consumer of global production and through our standards and purchasing habits, we will have a strong influence on the global level of equilibrium as it is approached. As time goes on, and others increase their consumption, we will have less and less effect and control of where we are going.

Ramble mode: off

So how do we avoid the race to the bottom on pay, the environment, and quality? Remember the "side agreements on labor and the environment" associated with NAFTA? Heard anything about them since?

I can go into any number of stores and choose a flashlight -- from a large selection of cheesy imports. Not only does the store trump my ability to choose quality, it also costs the quality maker sales, hurting economies of scale and making his goods more expensive, and even harder to sell. Junk always wins.

If the Chinese adopt the US lifestyle, their polution will suffocate us all and the oceans will die before free market economics sorts it all out.

Quality would seem to be both necessary and an answer. Without quality standards we'll have to get used to the occasional catastrophic failure. If 1/3 of the "bolts" are bad, once in a while all the "bolts" holding something together will fail.

On the other hand, there would seem to be a lot of potential to cut polution by making a few superb, durable items instead of dozens of junky ones.

Well said Evan!

I thought I'd put the kiss of death on this thread with my earlier ramble

As I have said before, I have little confidence in my vote at election time really making any difference; regardless of how it's cast. I do believe that every dollar I spend is a vote that matters and the results are tabulated daily. Both where and on what it is spent on has demonstrable effect.

Made In USA will become Assembled In USA or conceived in USA. This is likely unavoidable with current trends. However Made in accordance to USA standards and expectations in compliance with acceptable business and manufacturing practice might be worth striving for; but not with bureaucratic intervention please!

Frankly, I have little confidence or hope in the common American's willingness or even awareness of the need to combat entropy or mediocrity. Maybe we can, but hey, we don't have to. I don't have to be responsible for what I do or say; I can pay a primium to cover me. Off topic but there's an idea for a new new branch of a great American Institution (Insurance). How about Dumb S**t coverage?

" Oh, gee sorry, dang, I guess I just wasn't paying attention but hey, no problemo. Here's my DS coverage card. Just call that 800 number and I'm sure they'll pick up the damages."

OK, Since I'm already out there........ I don't consider myself a tree hugger but on the other hand, imagine ( Carl Sagen voice) if you will that every man and woman on the planet used Bic disposable razors and replaced them often.

- Don

PS. The above has no bearing on the cost of tea in China, what so ever.

Originally posted by McGizmo:
Well said Evan!

Made In USA will become Assembled In USA or conceived in USA. This is likely unavoidable with current trends. However Made in accordance to USA standards and expectations in compliance with acceptable business and manufacturing practice might be worth striving for; but not with bureaucratic intervention please!

Click to expand...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I agree wholeheartedly with Don's and Evan's posts. However, I think most any level of quality can be acheived in most any country IF, as you said in the quote above, the "manufacturers" insisted on it. But, if there's a penny extra profit in lowering standards to get cheap bids for fabrication, the directors of the "American manufacturers" will jump on it. They must. There are stockholders to answer to and any opportunity for potential profit, short or long term, must be seized lest lawsuits ensue.
So, if you want goods made overseas using "USA standards and expectations in compliance with acceptable business and manufacturing practice", it will be necessary to divest corporations of certain "rights" that were formerly reserved for individual citizens and subject them to the possiblity of having their charters revoked if they act contrary to the public good. That's the origin of corporations. Look it up. But it can't be done without a bureaucracy. Because, face it, a government bureaucracy is the only entity powerful enough, and possessing institutional memory, to reign in the greediness.
Suppose there were no manufacturing standards for drugs - enforced by a "bureaucracy", the FDA?
And don't give me any dittohead crap about the "free market" ensuring quality products. Other than the Yugo, I can't think of another manufacturer that went broke just because they made crap. O.K., maybe AMC

Equation 1 - (large qty. of ignorant consumers) + (large P.R./adv. buget) = (larger profit+CEO bonus).

Equation 2 - (Small qty. of educated consumers) + (small unit profit due to higher mfg. standards) =(Small profits+stockholder lawsuit)=(fired CEO)

Certainly CEO compensation is part of it; those bonuses need to be contingent on the right goals. Those goals need to be a lot longer term. I am a stockholder, and I don't care much about the next quarter, I care about 20 years from now. Everybody asks about how Social Security is using its funds to prepare to pay benefits, but I suspect there is more retirement money in stock now than the trust fund. After I put money into bussiness for a few decades, I want to know I'll be able to draw money out for decades. I don't want .com businesses that sparkle for a few years and then dissappear. Long term growth makes me happy, volitility makes me nervous.

I'd also like to breath clean air and live long enough to enjoy the retirement I saved for, so I want some attention to the environment and job safety. And I'd like the next generation to have stable employment so they don't turn to mugging old people when I'm an old person.

Point is there is nothing from _this_ stockholder demanding short-term schemes to pump the stock price up for one quarter, no demands that a company lower the quality of its goods to use a cheaper fabricator. I want a long view that includes repeat customers. Yes, if an apparently good opportunity is passed up there should be a reason, but that reason can be prudence over the long term, such as contingency planning. For example, if all fabrication is sent offshore to the cheapest bid, local sources of supply may dry up, making the company very vulnerable to the whims of those cheap suppliers. The product could end up both shoddy and expensive. There is also a transfer of know-how; if all aspects are farmed out to a fabricator, after being a fabricator for a while, that fabricator might start making the product without the company I invested in.

I'd like to see more value put into companies having well thought out, realistic long term goals; more like planters of orchards, less like warlords raiding.

Peter M,

Points well taken. There are no easy solutions to be sure. I was refering more to a manufacture's creed or mission statment as opposed to some type of enforceable standard. It seems that your equations at the bottom are a bit restrictive if I follow correctly. My assumption is that the profit margin is determined by manufacturer and then the chain of distribution. With a higher initial cost than Widget A, Widget B will end up selling for a higher price if profit margins are the same. The key here is that informed consumers be inclined, of free will, to buy the more expensive, quality product. If price and savings are their only consideration, as stated above, Junk wins and we can count on economies of scale going to the 20 that get you 80 and then to the 20 that get you the 80 and then the 20 that get you 80 until we are left with little selection of what is likely cheap product.

There is a higher path we can take but we have to choose. Will the same bkrats who have made the market open to electric cars be the ones we count on for assuring us of better product? Can we count on an enlightened approach and handling of a deviation from the status quo? I think not and expect the opposite from them. However, currently no one is pointing a gun at our heads telling us what to buy. We just need to be aware that every dollar spent is positive reinforcement and a vote of acceptance to those who receive it.

I find it a bit ironic that currently there is another thread (which indirectly inspired this one) where a boycott is being called against a product which has been deemed too expensive. It may well be too expensive or the profit margin too high for the market to accept. I don't know. But to me the irony is that the call to boycott is against a product that independent of price, is raising the bar in terms of quality and sophistication to its predesessers. This is just MHO. Aditionally, I find it interesting that other threads have sprouted where "A2" substitutes are being touted as better and cheaper alternatives. These are lights being manufactured by companies who are likely capable of near SF quality if not parity. Have they chosen to offer anything of a higher quality or level? Not that I have seen. Why? Because the main market they are after won't pay the premium. I understand this but with higher bench marks, perhaps the level can be raised.

Don't get me wrong here. Man has evolved to this point without the A2 and he will continue to evolve even if the A2 never comes out. Additionally, it is unlikely that most people would ever receive $225 worth of utility from owning an A2. Some of us would. Some of us would get maybe $125 worth of utility and $100 worth of pleasure and the A2 would be deemed worthwhile. I'm just glad that it is being offered and if expectations are raised, perhaps $125 flashlights will look better than they did before. Perhaps expectations and quality could be elevated.

If certain companies didn't have an easy perceived out with legal action, they might be more inclined to raise the quality of their offerings if the felt they were losing market share to a higher caliber. On the other hand if they are loosing market share to a cheaper import, don't look to them for better quality in the offering.

Most of us have gone beyond mere utility in flashlights to more esoteric and higher levels of expectation. We expouse the virtue of a $25 light that can be kept on a key ring as dang near mandatory! One thing is certain, the greater the number of these quality lights we know that find their way into the general population, the lesser the number of pieces of plastic that will end up in land fill.

- Don

EDIT: While slowly composing this, I see Evan has made some eloquent statements. Nicely worded!

Evan, You are exactly right in your concern for long term value vs. short term stock prices. Unfortunately, it is not shared by a large enough majority of stockholders. CEO's get pressure from the institutional investors who, with a few exceptions, are under pressure themselves and will not hesitate to dump a stock quarter to quarter.

Don, You too are right. My post invokes standards that are not enforcable in any practical, defensible way. My concern is with the "race to the bottom" many companies engage in. One thing that may help is to overturn the court decisions granting corporations the same, (and in some cases greater), rights than individual citizens, thereby making them accountable to the states in which they were chartered. Sure, this gives "big bad government" much power over the behaviour of corporations. But the alternative, which we pretty much have now, is the corporations controlling the government, (who, like it or not is us.), or at least integrating with the government, (facism). And before all the anti-regulation free market fundamentalists flame me, would someone please tell me a single instance in which deregulation has resulted in a better quality, less expensive product or service. More profits, yes. Better jobs or products/services? Can't think of one.

[edit]: Telecom comes closest. Prices are down but so is quality. Then we have Worldcomm.
Airlines are the same story w/o the corruption, at least so far.

Why are the highest quality products coming from American companies, always from the smallest companies? Obviously lower retail prices allow greater market penetration therefore greater brand recognition. But economies of scale and sheer volume allow huge profits from smaller margins on cheap, quickly produced and widely distributed, disposable junk. I'm no economist, but the math tells me that .01 profit each from a billion units adds up to more than $10 each from a million educated consumers. Especially when you can make that penny twice a year because the junk you sell won't last longer than 6 months.
Ask the average Joe to name a car mfg., a boat mfg. a furniture mfg., etc. Chances are that the answers will be the mfg. that has the cheapest product, not the best one. A tiny minority of people can afford the best of any one thing. Most can't afford the best anything. Ever. Their good paying mfg. jobs went to Mexico or India. Now the products they used to make must be priced cheaply to account for stagnant wages these former factory workers are experiencing due to the job exodus. Of course the savings realized from slave labor and lack of environmental responsibility won't be fully reflected in the retail prices of this junk. You know where the lion's share of that goes. And it ain't into the pension fund of the laid off worker.
Cheap beats good every time in the land of declining living standards. If it were not thus, SprawlMarts wouldn't be popping up like so much malevolent fungus.

Damn, this rant went way longer than I intended. Sorry. I'll have to donate to the bandwidth fund.

Buy American, the job you save may be your own. Check J.D. Powers reports for how close GM and Honda/Toyota/Nissan are to each other. The great lead by the Japanease is past tense. Same thing with regard to MPG except for the Diesel Cars, which are awesome. Only VW makes a diesel car for the U.S.

David