First Cessna Skycatcher arrives in Wichita from China

So, is this thread about:

A. Debating the quality/value of the 162 Skycather

B. Someone's medical issues

C. Macro-economics

Macro medical issues of the 162. I do like that you've been paying attention though :D.

Mini Tour, I'd like to see more things made by American employees also. Unfortunately, it looks like we've hit a point in our history that it's no longer economical to manufacture products. If protectionism didn't work in the 30s, imagine the blow back we'd suffer from protectionism in this world economy. I wish it was the solution but it's not. Hopefully people smarter than us can come up with a solution.
 
The problem with outsourcing to third-world countries is that we're not competing with them, we're being put out of business by them. How can we compete with Chinese and Cambodian labor making less than one dollar a day, in countries with no health regulations, occupational safety rules, unions, and other things that American workers are afforded. Also, it doesn't matter if products are cheaper if people don't have jobs to pay for them. For example, it doesn't matter if the 162 sells for $300,000 or $100,000 if unemployment is high because all of the jobs have been shipped overseas, most Americans won't be able to afford it - they can barely afford day-to-day expenses. That is what is happening in this economy, and more outsourcing is not the way to fix it. Protectionism at least gives the American worker a fighting chance.
 
The problem with outsourcing to third-world countries is that we're not competing with them, we're being put out of business by them. How can we compete with Chinese and Cambodian labor making less than one dollar a day, in countries with no health regulations, occupational safety rules, unions, and other things that American workers are afforded. Also, it doesn't matter if products are cheaper if people don't have jobs to pay for them. For example, it doesn't matter if the 162 sells for $300,000 or $100,000 if unemployment is high because all of the jobs have been shipped overseas, most Americans won't be able to afford it - they can barely afford day-to-day expenses. That is what is happening in this economy, and more outsourcing is not the way to fix it. Protectionism at least gives the American worker a fighting chance.

I get the strange feeling that you somewhat believe businesses are in business to give people jobs. Quite frankly, that's not true. Sure, it could be a benefit of being in business, but the fundamental goal is to make profit, for the shareholders/owners.
 
I wish it was the solution but it's not.
Any suggestions for where to start?

Protectionism at least gives the American worker a fighting chance.
Yep.

I get the strange feeling that you somewhat believe businesses are in business to give people jobs. Quite frankly, that's not true. Sure, it could be a benefit of being in business, but the fundamental goal is to make profit, for the shareholders/owners.
The only goal in business is to make a profit.

Now tell me how many businesses with zero employees (zero...not one) make a profit.

You spend a little, you make a little.

-mini
 
The only goal in business is to make a profit.

Now tell me how many businesses with zero employees (zero...not one) make a profit.

You spend a little, you make a little.

-mini

A business with zero employee's doesn't loose money. A business with many employee's, making a product which could be made much cheaper elsewhere, and thus priced cheaper if sold elsewhere, has a strong potential to loose money.

Everyone's outraged about the Skycatcher being manufactured in China. Where's the outrage about the Columbia/Cessna 400 production being moved to Mexico?
 
A business with zero employee's doesn't loose money. A business with many employee's, making a product which could be made much cheaper elsewhere, and thus priced cheaper if sold elsewhere, has a strong potential to loose money.
And an airplane sitting in the hangar doesn't cost any money to the owner. An airplane flying 40 hours/month on charter flights is going to have the potential to lose the owner money. Sure...but sitting in the hangar it sure as hell ain't making any money.

So, one more time. How many business with zero employees are making a profit?

-mini
 
And an airplane sitting in the hangar doesn't cost any money to the owner. An airplane flying 40 hours/month on charter flights is going to have the potential to lose the owner money. Sure...but sitting in the hangar it sure as hell ain't making any money.

So, one more time. How many business with zero employees are making a profit?

-mini

What's your point? A business isn't a business unless it has employee's
 
Okay, thanks. That wasn't hard, was it?

Really, you want to play this game. I'm asking, what's your point of asking the question.
My point is that you seem to be of the belief (correctly) that the company's only reason for being is to make a profit. Yet you're missing the important part that without someone to produce something, perform a service, do something to generate revenue for the company....they have no revenue and thus no profit for the shareholders.

It's pretty simple, really.

...but a business can be a business without employees. I'm not sure where you're getting that a business isn't a business without employees, but that's not true. You won't make any money, but you can still be a business.

I'm sorry that you felt it was a game. I was just interested in getting an answer to a question you were dancing around.

-mini
 
I get the strange feeling that you somewhat believe businesses are in business to give people jobs. Quite frankly, that's not true. Sure, it could be a benefit of being in business, but the fundamental goal is to make profit, for the shareholders/owners.

Of course businesses are in business to make money. That is why there needs to be legislation on business that essentially forces them to keep jobs here, because businesses are willing to anything to maximize profits. Ethics mean little to them, workers mean even less. Protectionist legislation protects the middle class, instead of the status quo which makes the rich richer and the poor staggeringly poorer.
 
That is why there needs to be legislation on business that essentially forces them to keep jobs here...
I don't want to force them to keep jobs here. If they still want to outsource the jobs and have no one buy the product because it's taxed to hell and back and is too expensive, I sure as hell don't care. That's their decision as a business. I'm not sure I'd make that call, but I'm not going to say they should be forced to keep jobs here.

It's kinda like taking a 152 to ORD. Can you? Sure. Are you going to pay for it? You betcha. No one forces you to go elsewhere, but economically it's smarter to.

-mini
 
Okay, thanks. That wasn't hard, was it?


My point is that you seem to be of the belief (correctly) that the company's only reason for being is to make a profit. Yet you're missing the important part that without someone to produce something, perform a service, do something to generate revenue for the company....they have no revenue and thus no profit for the shareholders.

It's pretty simple, really.

...but a business can be a business without employees. I'm not sure where you're getting that a business isn't a business without employees, but that's not true. You won't make any money, but you can still be a business.

-mini

But, if a business is in business to make a profit, they have to operate. Operations are hard to accomplish with no employee's. Thus, if you have no employee's, you can't operate, and thus really aren't a business.

I don't understand what your getting at. Business's aren't charity's. Sure, they have to operate, but why should the government tell them that they have to operate in a specific way? Why force them to use American labor, when it (realistically) will cost them more than foreign labor? They (businesses) are trying to make a profit, and maximize it. So, the government is essentially forcing them to lower their profit, with no recourse.
 
But, if a business is in business to make a profit, they have to operate. Operations are hard to accomplish with no employee's.
A hah! You done said it yourself.

Thus, if you have no employee's, you can't operate, and thus really aren't a business.
You should go and incorporate KSCessnaDriver, Inc. tomorrow. Then convince the government you aren't really a business since you didn't hire any employees. It'll make your tax preparation cheaper at the end of the year if you don't have business taxes to file. Good luck.

why should the government tell them that they have to operate in a specific way? Why force them to use American labor, when it (realistically) will cost them more than foreign labor? They (businesses) are trying to make a profit, and maximize it. So, the government is essentially forcing them to lower their profit, with no recourse.
Where did I say I wanted to force them to use American labor?

Give them a reason to produce the product in America. No import tax. So they can sell the product for less money. So people will buy it...because it's $.52 cheaper.

That's not forcing anything. As a matter of fact, the only time I've used the word "force" in this entire thread is in the compound word "workforce" and to clarify that I'm not for forcing anything. You can read for yourself if you like. I don't want to force anything. Let the company decide. Just make it cost more if that's what they decide.

-mini
 
A hah! You done said it yourself.

You should go and incorporate KSCessnaDriver, Inc. tomorrow. Then convince the government you aren't really a business since you didn't hire any employees. It'll make your tax preparation cheaper at the end of the year if you don't have business taxes to file. Good luck.


Where did I say I wanted to force them to use American labor?

Give them a reason to produce the product in America. No import tax. So they can sell the product for less money. So people will buy it...because it's $.52 cheaper.

That's not forcing anything. As a matter of fact, the only time I've used the word "force" in this entire thread is in the compound word "workforce" and to clarify that I'm not for forcing anything. You can read for yourself if you like. I don't want to force anything. Let the company decide. Just make it cost more if that's what they decide.

-mini

I'm not going to sit here and argue what you feel isn't forcing, and what others feel like forcing is. It ultimately comes down to what you believe in economics, and well, that usually ends up as well as politics. That said, I'll agree to disagree and move on.
 
It'd be really terrific if the world actually worked that way. Unfortunately, it doesn't. Not even close. You can impose tariffs and legislation which force companies to manufacture products in country with good ol' American labor all you want. You know the end result? More companies in bankruptcy. Because the one critical element that your beautiful theory seems to completely ignore is that John Q Consumer has a price which t he is willing to pay for any given product. And if no company is able to deliver that product at John Q's price point, then John Q ain't buyin'. Period.
Except that Cessna Joe now spends his disposable income at x number of other companies. One of those companies hire John Q Consumer. He now has a disposable income (which is taxed again!!!) that he can spend. So instead of needing to get his widget for $3 because that's all he has left from his unemployment check, he can buy his widget for $35 because he has that much money left.

Guess what you have now? You now have money being pumped, hell...damn near flooding into the economy and Uncle Sam still gets his cut so we can send our Megapower military over seas to be the world's police force.

Money for Americans (from the creation of jobs)...who may go out to start their own business and hire some employees to pay them wages and pay taxes on all of that hard earned money because someone is finally buying something because someone actually has a job in this country.

Money for America (tax revenue).

Money for Business (from the profit margins).

I just can't see a negative in any of that.

-mini
 
Except that Cessna Joe now spends his disposable income at x number of other companies. One of those companies hire John Q Consumer. He now has a disposable income (which is taxed again!!!) that he can spend. So instead of needing to get his widget for $3 because that's all he has left from his unemployment check, he can buy his widget for $35 because he has that much money left.

Guess what you have now? You now have money being pumped, hell...damn near flooding into the economy and Uncle Sam still gets his cut so we can send our Megapower military over seas to be the world's police force.

Money for Americans (from the creation of jobs)...who may go out to start their own business and hire some employees to pay them wages and pay taxes on all of that hard earned money because someone is finally buying something because someone actually has a job in this country.

Money for America (tax revenue).

Money for Business (from the profit margins).

I just can't see a negative in any of that.

-mini
Interesting that you've completely ignored what I said about price point. So you're saying that if all the folks who staff... Oh I don't know... Lets say movie theaters... So lets say all the people who staff movie theaters got together and decided for whatever reason that they needed to be paid 3x as much as they're paid now. Lets say this makes movie ticket prices go from $10 to $25. So you're saying that won't matter because just as many people will go see movies because all the extra money that is magically injected into the economy from the higher ticket price.

Bad example? Lets try another. Lets say for whatever reason milk produced on American farms cost $10/gal while imported milk cost $2/gal. You're saying that if we impose taxes on milk imports that drive the price for imported milk up to $12/gal, all the dairies will sell only domestic milk. And that everyone will buy just as much milk at $10/gal as they did at $2/gal because of all that wonderful new money flying around the economy and no dairies will close and no one will get laid off. Is that it?

If so, perhaps you'd like to put your money where you mouth is. As it happens I'm getting ready to move so I've got to get rid of some stuff around the house. I've got a couple of book shelves that I paid $12 each for new. I'll sell you both of them for $50. I got a toaster that cost $30 new. I'll let you have it for $150. I got a set of dishes. They cost about $30 new, but some of them are missing now because they've gotten broken. Give me $259 and they're yours. I got a jar full of old picture hooks, $27. Yep its all expensive, but think of the good you'll be doing for the economy. Heck between you, me and my junk drawer, I bet we can have the national economy back on track by the end of the week. Why didn't we think of this sooner?
 
Follow along. This works with any big business, but I'll use a Cessna worker here as an example.

Cessna hires Joe for $20/hr (round numbers, please). Joe goes to work and makes his $40,000/year. Joe pays his bills, pays his taxes and has some money left over. Joe now has a disposable income. Joe says, "hey family, why don't we go on a vacation? We'll go to Disney World!".

Joe buys 4 airline tickets on ABC airways, 5 nights in DEF hotel, 4 Disney tickets, food, etc. The airline has to have someone working to check him in at the ticket counter. Because Joe is giving the Airline his disposable income, they can afford to do that. Now that money gets taxed again (it was taxed already when Joe earned it and now it's being taxed when Susan the airline ticket girl gets her share...and the company pays taxes on it before that, so it gets taxed twice actually...of course Cessna and Joe already paid tax on the money to begin with). Someone has to load the bags. Because Joe's disposable income is coming in as revenue, the airline hires a baggage handler. That money also gets taxed again (read above). Then the airline needs FA's, pilots, mx, etc. Because the airline is getting revenue, they can afford those things. That income is taxed again.

Then Joe gets to Florida and rents a car. The car rental place has to have someone working the desk, someone working the lot, someone to maintain the cars, etc. They can afford it because someone is giving them money. ...and the money gets taxed again.

Then Joe gets to the hotel. The hotel needs front desk, housekeeping, someone to set up the breakfast, etc. They can afford that because Joe's giving them some of his money. That money gets taxed again.

Then, Joe goes to Disney World to see the Mouse. He buys tickets and food and the Goofy hat with the long ears and a picture of his kids with Donald Duck, who oddly enough never seems to be wearing pants, then he buys them a shirt, etc, etc.

You have to have someone at the ticket window, at the gate, security, someone to play inside the Mouse and Duck and Goofy costumes, someone to sell the merchandise, someone to take the pictures, someone to prepare the food, someone to sell the food, someone to clean the park, ride operators, actors (or "cast members" as Disney Employees are called), band members, supervisors, etc.

Disney can afford all of that because....well, because they're Disney...but maybe they hired another guard because Joe's revenue came in and they could afford to do that while not decreasing bonuses to Bob Iger. That money all got taxed again...but instead of the business paying 25% (round numbers), they're paying 15% because of others in the workforce (like Joe and the extra guard and the cook and the janitor and the cast members and the ticket girl and security, etc.) that are also paying taxes.

The government's pockets stay full. Joe can afford his family. Someone out there can afford a 2-seat trainer. It's a circle. You put in the quarter and get on the horse...you go up and down...and around. Circular like a circle.

The point is...
We have to produce something here in this country if we're going to survive. That's the only way to solve these problems. If we're not making cars and airplanes and computers and clothes and books and widgets to sell not only to each other, but to the rest of the world...we're not producing revenue. Revenue to do things like pay our bills and pay our taxes so we can have things like schools and roads and a strong military, yadda yadda.

Instead, we'll let companies produce products in other countries and sell them here for a fraction of what it cost to purchase an American made product. But who's going to buy it? The guy on Unemployment that got laid off from the GM factory? The furloughed pilots? The guy with a graphic design degree that has started his new career....flipping burgers at McDonald's because no one's hiring his position because they aren't making any money?

Where does the money come from to purchase these products?

What could possibly go wrong with a plan like that? :rolleyes:

-mini

A few key points you are overlooking:

The Skycatcher, if produced in the United States, would probably be well over its price point now, which is pretty high. I am sure Cessna has a price point in mind that they think they can sell a Skycatcher for, and the only way to produce the airplane would be to outsource it.

If Cessna was forced to build the Skycatcher in the United States, they would have scrapped it a long time ago. Joe would still be out on the street. The other side of the coin would be Cessna selling a few for 200k+ and it sinking the company. What kind of impact would that have?

The main problem with your scenario, as Joe Gremlin pointed out, is that consumers have a certain price they want to pay for a good. If the price is over what they are willing to pay, they either buy something else (substitute good), buy the same thing cheaper, or they save their money.

With that said, there are companies making LSAs for less than 115k in the United States, so Cessna is doing something wrong.
 
Back
Top