• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

SX - you Americans are lucky

#61
seems like SX is like the little girl with the curl in her hair...when they're good, they're very good. when they're bad, they're horrid. but it's like that with any other manufacturer, no? give me a Gibson off the rack, and chances are i'll hand it right back to you, because it's not well made. i can't count the times i've walked into the store, got my hands on a $2000 Gibby, and realized within seconds that it was just not a good instrument. so i think the whole "SX's are lousy" thing doesn't hold much water in the grand scheme.

FWIW, i gave my SX Jazz to a new buddy/luthier for a tune-up. he was blown away by the quality of it. in his opinion, it was greater than a MIM Fender, and that he wanted to order several for himself.

as for the imports/US jobs thing when talking about SX: then boycott Fender over the Squier Classic Vibes, which are almost sickeningly comparable to some of the US made stuff. i can't fault the Chinese for figuring out how to build solid instruments. good on them. besides, some of the best affordable instruments have been coming from the Far East for the last 30+ years. it's why Fender usurped some of the "copy" factories to make Japanese Fenders back in the 80's. ain't nothing new.
 
#64
jasper383 said:
You blame "those at the top", whoever that is.
Click to expand...

The CEO's, BOD's, and top executives of any corporation that markets themselves to an American consumer, while producing their products in other countries. Not because they couldn't make a decent profit making stuff here, but because they want to make a killing on what they sell, rather than a decent profit. The top executives at companies like Nike, Whirlpool, Mattel...there are so many, it's hard to know where to begin. If you want to know exactly who they are, look it up.

What about the consumer? If you can get a good pair of socks for $3/pair, why would you buy a similar pair for $8?

There are still a few sock makers in the US, but they make high-end specialty or fashion socks, because US labor has become too expensive to compete in the regular sock market.

Does the US want to be the country that makes socks, while the rest of the world is making high tech computers, medical devices, etc?
Click to expand...

You got a thing for socks or something? The clothing industry is a case-in-point, but is one of many. Including computers, medical devices, electronics, auto parts, and so, so many more. The whole subject is something that should have been addressed/dealt with decades ago, before it reached the point it is now. Problem is, the whole process of sticking it to American workers is so commonplace now, it's viewed as "business as usual". That is, until your job is the latest to fall...then, there "ought to be a law". Only now, it's too late. Elvis has left the building, and all the lemmings accept it as "just business". Just business: that lines the pockets of a few...at the expense of many. Bad for the many...and bad for our country, down the line. You may choose to view it differently, your perogative. But time will tell who is right. And the difficulty this country is having in pulling out of this latest recession is a direct result of the loss of the types of jobs I'm describing. You want people off the unemployment & welfare roles? To "pull their weight", as it were, instead of relying on government hand-outs? Fix the problem I'm describing. Put Americans to work, making the products we consume, and the problem will fix itself. You might have to step on a few fat-cat's toes to do it, but better for the many, than the priveleged few. Problem is, no politician has the balls to stand up to big business. So the BS continues.

Rant over...(not really)
 
#72
Elena Kagan? Hardly...

BTW, Kagan has never litigated a single case to verdict or trial in her entire career. Whereas my SX's have solidly delivered gig after gig, many times over. ;)

Dropped a new bridge on last night:

103_1940-2.jpg

103_1939.jpg

103_1947.jpg

103_1945.jpg
 
#73
bassplayer8953 said:
True, but many more things USED to be manufactured in the US. And could still be, but for the greed of those at the top. And more manufactured items join the ranks every day. Much more visible than lunchboxes & pants (guitars/basses, btw, are still MIA. Maybe not as many as in years past, but still available, if you look, and are willing to $pend. At least we players have a choice...unlike products in other categories) Things like appliances, furniture...the exodus continues...

...and the trade deficit continues to rise. Not good for the long term, regardless of what those defending the move to Asian/MIM manufacturing say about it...
Click to expand...

By the far the biggest chunk of our trade deficit is oil imports, not imported manufactures. That said, we have lost lots of consumer product manufacturing jobs.

But, we need to protect critical businesses, like autos, aerospace, chemicals, computers. Why? You cannot be a big player today without these, and I am never going to be ready to be a member of the United States of the World.

I want my economy, my political jurisdiction and culture to be symmertical. It is very hard to enforce intellectual property laws in China....

Finally, if we think like consumers first, rather than like producers first, we'll buy those $3.00 socks and put our own factory out of business. If you think like a worker/producer first, and a consumer second, your nation will do better in the long-haul. Put your money in the bank, and darn your old socks....and when you do buy, support your own.
 
#74
bobwhite said:
Finally, if we think like consumers first, rather than like producers first, we'll buy those $3.00 socks and put our own factory out of business. If you think like a worker/producer first, and a consumer second, your nation will do better in the long-haul. Put your money in the bank, and darn your old socks....and when you do buy, support your own.
Click to expand...

Sorry. I don't agree. Protectionism like monopoly really is self-defeating because in the end it's not fair and doesn't let the market determine value. The problem is not SX making Fender clones in China that are copies of some design that has been around for 50 years. And the "answer" is not protectionism. I remember the old days. How about paying $400-$500 for an SX? That's the way the music business used to be. There was a manufacturer making some cheap instrument. Then there was some distributor doubling (or at minimum half again) the price. And finally some retail store that again doubled the price. So a $100 bass became multiplied up to a $400 bass. All to "support the mom and pop businesses" as the saying went. Discounting was not only unheard of, but in many cases actually illegal!

So one might whine about "lost jobs" but the fact is that $100 SX basses mean that a LOT more kids can try to play bass. It's a major plus for music. And the thing about American Jobs is that should not be a question of some 50 year old design that Leo invented, it should be that we are still cool enough to be inventing NOW what will be the "classic" instrument 50 years from now. You can't stop the world. You can only help it go forward!
 
#75
bassbenj said:
Sorry. I don't agree. Protectionism like monopoly really is self-defeating because in the end it's not fair and doesn't let the market determine value. The problem is not SX making Fender clones in China that are copies of some design that has been around for 50 years. And the "answer" is not protectionism. I remember the old days. How about paying $400-$500 for an SX? That's the way the music business used to be. There was a manufacturer making some cheap instrument. Then there was some distributor doubling (or at minimum half again) the price. And finally some retail store that again doubled the price. So a $100 bass became multiplied up to a $400 bass. All to "support the mom and pop businesses" as the saying went. Discounting was not only unheard of, but in many cases actually illegal!

So one might whine about "lost jobs" but the fact is that $100 SX basses mean that a LOT more kids can try to play bass. It's a major plus for music. And the thing about American Jobs is that should not be a question of some 50 year old design that Leo invented, it should be that we are still cool enough to be inventing NOW what will be the "classic" instrument 50 years from now. You can't stop the world. You can only help it go forward!
Click to expand...

Assuming the "world is flat", as Tom Friedman argues, you have to assume that technology moves around the world quickly. As a result, one would assume that China will have CNC machines as good as ours--indeed they may buy ones made in Illinois--so they have the technology to make the same quality manufactures we do.

If this is true, then we can only compete on cost. Since very few people in America are willing to work at the equivalent of 1.85 per hour, which seems to be about what Chinese skilled workers are getting these days, then our jobs are gone. If we are willing to match their wage and benefit scale, bring 'em on. Are you willing to work at that wage scale? I am not.

If as a result we can all buy 100.00 SX basses, then the few bassists that do work will starve because there will hundreds more coming along just as good who'll work for less to get started. We have just ruined the instrument manufacturing business and the music recording/touring business at the same time. ;)

As an American, I frankly look at everything as King Ozymandias did. How can I prepare for ill, not for good? "Ill", at the global level, is war. I want to be positioned to win any war. To do that, first and foremost, you need to have (i) a strong, technologically advanced, skilled manufacturing sector and (ii) a strong, rich economy.

Following the traditional economic theory on trade restraint/protectionism works fine if you look at it using the academic economic theory of "comparative advantage"; heck, this theory even argues you will be rich as a result. You'll do what you do best and can buy from others at the lowest price because they will be doing what they do best.

What this theory does NOT say is will you, at the end of the day, have that mix of manufacturing skills and depth so you can build what you need to succeed in a major war? For example, using free trade and comparative advantage we may export all of our manfacturing and become a nation of pizza makers, investment bankers and sound engineers. All good, but none are much help when you fight that big war. Sure would be nice to still have Boeing, wouldn't it?

I think economic theory must be viewed in light of a "realpolitik" political viewpoint. Even though building basses may not be a wartime skill, having lots of people who know what to do with modern tooling in a modern factory surely does....
 
#76
bobwhite said:
By the far the biggest chunk of our trade deficit is oil imports, not imported manufactures. That said, we have lost lots of consumer product manufacturing jobs.
Click to expand...

True, oil is a major contributor. But oil is a natural resource, & we cannot control where is is available. Unfortunately, some of the lowest-cost oil comes from areas of the world where most of us would rather not send our $$$. Oil is available from other places, but at much higher cost, & with higher consequences for a mis-step. Our situation in the Gulf of Mexico illustrates that. But we can control other things...such as where we manufacture consumer products. Doing so would make great strides in making the deficit more manageable.

But, we need to protect critical businesses, like autos, aerospace, chemicals, computers. Why? You cannot be a big player today without these, and I am never going to be ready to be a member of the United States of the World.

I want my economy, my political jurisdiction and culture to be symmertical. It is very hard to enforce intellectual property laws in China....
Click to expand...

A country that produces the goods it consumes is in charge of its own destiny. Personally, I'd prefer to be in charge of my own destiny, rather than have it determined by someone in a country 1/2 a world away. And your point about intellectual property is a good one. American companies, in order to manufacture cheaply overseas, must turn over their latest technology to the people who run the plants that actually do the manufacturing. In the case of the Chinese, that information then falls into the hands of those who create their own "bastardized" versions...sometimes with dire results. Read the articles about the issues with Chinese drywall used in New Orleans & Florida for real world documentation of how this happens, and the consequences.



Finally, if we think like consumers first, rather than like producers first, we'll buy those $3.00 socks and put our own factory out of business. If you think like a worker/producer first, and a consumer second, your nation will do better in the long-haul. Put your money in the bank, and darn your old socks....and when you do buy, support your own.
Click to expand...

Everybody likes a "deal" a low price for stuff we buy. But for most of us, $300 computers, $120 SX basses, & $3 socks are not "needed" (unless, of course, you work at WalMart making $8 an hour, then you can't afford anything better) Nice to have, but not necessary. What's "needed" is decent paying jobs for blue collar workers, so that they can contribute their share, pay their taxes, & stay off the unemployment & welfare roles. For this to happen, we have to be more "US-centric" again.
 
#77
bassbenj said:
Sorry. I don't agree. Protectionism like monopoly really is self-defeating because in the end it's not fair and doesn't let the market determine value.
Click to expand...

Not fair? What's not fair is requiring American workers to attempt to compete with a country that allows its workers to be paid virtually nothing, pollutes the environment, and produces products that is some cases are dangerous or downright deadly. (Lead-based paint on childrens toys, for example) If everything we consumed was MIA, governed by US labor & environmental laws,we would have a level playing field, and products would compete based on being the best, instead of which company could screw its workers harder than the next.

The problem is not SX making Fender clones in China that are copies of some design that has been around for 50 years. And the "answer" is not protectionism. I remember the old days. How about paying $400-$500 for an SX? That's the way the music business used to be. There was a manufacturer making some cheap instrument. Then there was some distributor doubling (or at minimum half again) the price. And finally some retail store that again doubled the price. So a $100 bass became multiplied up to a $400 bass. All to "support the mom and pop businesses" as the saying went. Discounting was not only unheard of, but in many cases actually illegal!
Click to expand...
So what would happen if an SX cost more? Less instruments would wind up in dumpsters, as people would have more invested. Some people would have 1 instead of 2, or 3 instead of 5 or 6. That's a small price to pay to keep Americans on the payroll, IMO... And there's a big difference between the issue of manufacturing and cut-throat price competition among retailers. Whether you're Guitar Center or Ma' & Pa' Music, you have your overhead, and have to make XX amount in order to survive. Nobody controls that XX amount, at least not in this day & age. Price too low, you don't make enough to stay open. Price too high, nobody buys, and you don't make enough to stay open either. Same as what we have today...albiet with a level playing field at the manufacturing end.

So one might whine about "lost jobs" but the fact is that $100 SX basses mean that a LOT more kids can try to play bass. It's a major plus for music. And the thing about American Jobs is that should not be a question of some 50 year old design that Leo invented, it should be that we are still cool enough to be inventing NOW what will be the "classic" instrument 50 years from now. You can't stop the world. You can only help it go forward!
Click to expand...

Whine? Sounds like you're "whining" about someone threatening your right to buy a $120 bass. The issue of American manufacturing & jobs vs overseas is much larger than affording some cheap consumer goods. Try broadening your perspective...
 
#79
bassplayer8953 said:
Whine? Sounds like you're "whining" about someone threatening your right to buy a $120 bass. The issue of American manufacturing & jobs vs overseas is much larger than affording some cheap consumer goods. Try broadening your perspective...
Click to expand...

Who needs to export jobs overseas? We've got millions upon millions of illegal (as the media likes to call them) "immigrants" willing to build basses for $1.85 and hour. Does that worry you? Obviously what you want is the old days when a union worker's "job" was to turn the machine on in the morning and turn it off at night and read the paper all day. Why not just say you want pay without coming to "work" at all?

Let's DO try to keep this discussion bass-related. At least bass-economics and still probably belongs in another forum.

So I guess your idea is to slap a $500 import duty on every SX bass going to Rondo to "protect" American jobs. So should every Fender Squire have a tax to make it cost the same as a MIA Fender? Same thing for MIM basses? Is this really going to help the "broad perspective" of the economy or just the paycheck of a few bass builders? What about the paycheck of the more numerous bass players?
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back