Geely plant churns out cars on the cheap

March 18, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

NINGBO, China—Tour the bustling Geely Automobile plant in this port city, and it’s easy to feel a tinge of unease about the future of the American autoworker.

It may not be entirely justified, since the privately owned, China-based Geely isn’t exactly a titan of the global auto industry. For now at least, Chinese consumers have a far greater allegiance to General Motors, which employs 35,000 in China and now sells more cars in this vast nation than it does in the United States.Geely Automotive car, China

But it’s striking how little workers at this Geely factory earn, by U.S. standards at least. Our tour guide said it’s 3,000 to 4,000 yuan a month. In U.S. dollars, that works out to roughly $5,500 to $7,300 a year.

That's not bad for China, and it’s also true that the cost of living is lower here than in the United States. Still, the gap between what U.S. workers earn and what these workers receive is enormous.

Consider the GM stamping plant just west of downtown Indianapolis that once employed 5,000 but is set to close by the end of June. Last fall, a United Auto Workers local soundly rejected a proposal from Illinois-based JD Norman Industries to keep the factory open but reduce wages. Unskilled workers would have taken a 50-percent cut to $15.50 per hour, or $32,200 a year.

Geely’s Nimbo plant employs 3,000, most in their 20s. They work eight hours a day, six days a week producing low-end cars. The cheapest Geely sells for the equivalent of about $7,600.

But don’t expect Geely to become a force in the U.S. market anytime soon, said Ben Shobert, an Indianapolis consultant who helps Chinese companies crack the U.S. market.

Shobert said Geely has little in common with the Japanese automakers that began building plants in the United States in the 1980s, reshaping the American auto market in the process. Those firms needed to export to grow. Geely, in contrast, can get plenty of mileage out of China’s fast-developing economy, which is bringing hundreds of millions of Chinese into the middle class.
 
“Geely doesn’t need to be in the United States to be successful,” said Shobert, who is part of our group of IU professors, Hoosier business people and journalists. “There is just not a compelling business reason to be there. America already has a lot of choices, even on the low end.”

Indeed, automakers in China have plenty of reason to be excited about the domestic market. Just 5 percent of the population owns cars, and 80 percent of buyers are purchasing their first vehicle, said David Chen, vice president of public policy and government relation for GM China.

Our group also toured one of two GM Shanghai plants, which together produce about 1 million vehicles a year—many of them Buicks, a brand that has faded in the United States but thrives here. GM’s Shanghai workers earn slightly more than the Geely employees but still only a fraction of their American counterparts.

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Nothing new
    Nothing new here. This is the reason so much of US manufacturing has gone overseas. US workers were once far better educated and productive than those elsewhere; but, as the rest of the world caught up in education and capital investment, the difference in wages for workers started to catch up with us. Add in the lack of benefits, or benefits being paid by national governments; and, inequities trade barriers and environmental costs; and, the problem gets worse.
    At one time, it was the Japanese who were the source of cheap labor; but, now the cost gap (US vs Japan) has diminished, and they too are facing this issue. Perhaps the best hope is that Chinese (India, Pakistani, etc) workers will, like the Japanese did, start to want more of everything, and this gap will diminish worldwide.
  • Retool Our Factories
    U. S. Factories will not get new machines to manufacture parts because it is so cheap to set up shop in another country with new technology and cheap labor

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. The $104K to CRC would go toward debts service on $486M of existing debt they already have from other things outside this project. Keystone buys the bonds for 3.8M from CRC, and CRC in turn pays for the parking and site work, and some time later CRC buys them back (with interest) from the projected annual property tax revenue from the entire TIF district (est. $415K / yr. from just this property, plus more from all the other property in the TIF district), which in theory would be about a 10-year term, give-or-take. CRC is basically betting on the future, that property values will increase, driving up the tax revenue to the limit of the annual increase cap on commercial property (I think that's 3%). It should be noted that Keystone can't print money (unlike the Federal Treasury) so commercial property tax can only come from consumers, in this case the apartment renters and consumers of the goods and services offered by the ground floor retailers, and employees in the form of lower non-mandatory compensation items, such as bonuses, benefits, 401K match, etc.

  2. $3B would hurt Lilly's bottom line if there were no insurance or Indemnity Agreement, but there is no way that large an award will be upheld on appeal. What's surprising is that the trial judge refused to reduce it. She must have thought there was evidence of a flagrant, unconscionable coverup and wanted to send a message.

  3. As a self-employed individual, I always saw outrageous price increases every year in a health insurance plan with preexisting condition costs -- something most employed groups never had to worry about. With spouse, I saw ALL Indiana "free market answer" plans' premiums raise 25%-45% each year.

  4. It's not who you chose to build it's how they build it. Architects and engineers decide how and what to use to build. builders just do the work. Architects & engineers still think the tarp over the escalators out at airport will hold for third time when it snows, ice storms.

  5. http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/duke-energy-customers-angry-about-money-for-nothing

ADVERTISEMENT