Looks like the Green is moving South

[oldnslo]

Has anyone seen prices lowered by any company that has moved production out of the USA whether union facilities or not? I have not seen car prices going down and what percentage of them are assembled outside the USA or assembled in USA with a high percentage of foreign parts.

Same with tractors and tractor manufacturers.

 

[jyoutz]

My guess is JD is tired of dealing with unions. Notice that most foreign companies who have come and built large manufacturing facilities in the U.S in the last 30-40 years have built them in the south, as did Boeing some years back.

The only large manufacturer that I can think of that built their plant in a union state is Sig Sauer, but notice how they've also gotten the last 4-5 major government firearms, and ammunition contracts. I'm thinking politics are involved.

Or maybe because SigSauer builds one of the best semiautomatic pistols on the planet?

 

[LightningCamaroGuy]

Or maybe because SigSauer builds one of the best semiautomatic pistols on the planet?

Are you really that naive? My guess is no you're not, you just own a Sig, and you fanboy out over the product. If the government only bought JD tractors is it because they're just so good that Kubota, NH, CIH, MF, etc cannot compete, or are other factors involved? If the government only bought F150's is it because GM, Ram, Toyota, can't compete with how good a F150 is? Do you really think that Glock, FN, Beretta, CZ, S&W, Springfield, Walther, HK, etc make inferior pistols that can't compete with SIG's? Look there are some SIG's that I like a lot, but since you want to talk pistols the P320 is not one of those SIG's, and it's had more teething issues then the other pistols it beat in the Army's XM17 competition. But that's just one thing. SIG keeps getting fed all these rifle, and ammunition contracts as well, and I believe optics now, etc. You need to spread out the wealth. The government just keeps feeding this one firearms manufacturer, and it's like they're trying to make them into this monopoly in that arena. That's not good, because then you get things like Google who has no real competition and can make their own terms, but who out there can challenge them?

IMHO, them building in a New England union state to compete with other firearm manufacturers who our government more traditionally bought from, and who were more established in the U.S. was done for political reasons. Other firearms manufacturers had started moving out of the union states, and your largest government firearms suppliers were in the south. FNH for example.

 

[jyoutz]

Are you really that naive? My guess is no you're not, you just own a Sig, and you fanboy out over the product. If the government only bought JD tractors is it because they're just so good that Kubota, NH, CIH, MF, etc cannot compete, or are other factors involved? If the government only bought F150's is it because GM, Ram, Toyota, can't compete with how good a F150 is? Do you really think that Glock, FN, Beretta, CZ, S&W, Springfield, Walther, HK, etc make inferior pistols that can't compete with SIG's? Look there are some SIG's that I like a lot, but since you want to talk pistols the P320 is not one of those SIG's, and it's had more teething issues then the other pistols it beat in the Army's XM17 competition. But that's just one thing. SIG keeps getting fed all these rifle, and ammunition contracts as well, and I believe optics now, etc. You need to spread out the wealth. The government just keeps feeding this one firearms manufacturer, and it's like they're trying to make them into this monopoly in that arena. That's not good, because then you get things like Google who has no real competition and can make their own terms, but who out there can challenge them?

IMHO them building in a New England union state to compete with other firearms companies who our government more traditionally bought from, and who was more established in the U.S. was done for political reasons, and other firearms manufacturers had started moving out the union states, and your largest government firearms suppliers were in the south. FN for example.

I don’t know the process for state government procurement, but the FAR (federal acquisition regulations) are extremely strict for purchasing. Multiple vendor bids are required and must be documented. Good old boy purchasing is illegal.

 

[Eagle1]

I don’t know the process for state government procurement, but the FAR (federal acquisition regulations) are extremely strict for purchasing. Multiple vendor bids are required and must be documented. Good old boy purchasing is illegal.

Have been there as a vendor. You just have to write to requirements to exclude all other competing vendors. Such as 6.8x51 cartridge that was developed by Sig and no other rifles were available in that caliber at contract time. Not saying that happened but it would make a single vendor contract.
That type of writing happens at all levels of government, we played that game well. A little coaching goes a long way.

 

[jyoutz]

Have been there as a vendor. You just have to write to requirements to exclude all other competing vendors. Such as 6.8x51 cartridge that was developed by Sig and no other rifles were available in that caliber at contract time. Not saying that happened but it would make a single vendor contract.
That type of writing happens at all levels of government, we played that game well. A little coaching goes a long way.

I don’t see a lot of single vendor purchases. Our fleet is a menagerie of all different makes. Each year it seems like a different wave of vehicle vendors.

 

[Eagle1]

I don’t see a lot of single vendor purchases. Our fleet is a menagerie of all different makes. Each year it seems like a different wave of vehicle vendors.

That is correct and as it should be. I worked in specialized industry and have seen some interesting requirements in bid requests.
Think about most high tech military weapons. Several companies may develop different solutions to requirements. Once one is chosen, production contracts go to one company, which then will get the contracts for any and all modification that a requested.
Not all contracts are for consumer products. How many companies in the US make tanks today.

 

[Eagle1]

Here a forest service request for a specialty vehicle with specs required direct from one vendor. Is any other vendor really competing. Not wrong they know what they want, I think
OM-RFQ 12444524Q0031.pdf

 

[LightningCamaroGuy]

I don’t know the process for state government procurement, but the FAR (federal acquisition regulations) are extremely strict for purchasing. Multiple vendor bids are required and must be documented. Good old boy purchasing is illegal.

Drop your bias, and wake up. Do you really think everything's just black and white? Do you really think that there aren't backroom political actions taken all the time? Has everything we've seen in our government in just the last decade not taught us to question what goes on in our government? Stories of unions, and crooked politicians working together is a tale as old as time. (if time originated when the unions came into existence) When SIG built in NH it was during a time when no major foreign company moving their production state side was trying to build anything in the northern union states. LMFAO, they didn't want the headache of a union coming in to try and regulate their business. Everyone was wanting to move south, or midwest. Yet SIG builds in the heart of New England, in a union state. Hmmmm.... Traditionally your largest American firearms manufacturers originated in New England states. Maybe SIG just like the tradition, and figured they'd have the best gunsmithing? Yet I really doubt that. They're not making hand built precision rifles, and highend, hand fitted 1911's. No, I feel that them moving to a union state was politically motivated after seeing them getting awarded every type of small arms contract, and our more established suppliers being neglected.

Let me tell you a little story. I can't remember it perfectly but here it goes. "During WWII when we were developing and building new planes and other instruments of war there was a contract out for some plane. I can't remember which plane it was. I think it was a bomber, but it might have been a P61 night fighter or something. Anyway the government put out a contract for a certain plane. At the end it came down to two companies designs for this plane. Again I don't remember which plane won, so I can't remember its manufacturer, but I do remember who the losing manufacturer was. North American lost this contract, but its plane was regarded as the better plane that the military preferred over the one that won the competition. The reason that North American was not awarded the contract for this plane, was that they already had a large contract that had them building the P51 Mustang that had them staying safely afloat. The supposed inferior plane that won the contract was still a good product, and during this time of war the government needed to feed that planes manufacturer something to keep them going strong as they didn't want them to tank, especially during the war effort." That's the gist of it anyway. You don't put all your eggs in one basket. You've got to spread out the wealth, or competing companies cannot hope to survive. SIG makes a good product, but compared to their competitors they do not make a dominant product. Like was already pointed out, that whole 6.8x51/SIG MCX transaction just seemed a little shaded in biased (predetermined maybe?) in how it transpired.

 

[Eagle1]

Maybe the banked that the firearms industry would pull of the Hudson Valley and they could get good people at a bargain prices once they were laid off...
I mean anything is possible right?