5 ms·

Everywhere is a terrible place to work because the companies don't give a shit. Its bullshit they want access to sell in our market, but aren't employing Americ

Everywhere is a terrible place to work because the companies don't give a shit. Its bullshit they want access to sell in our market, but aren't employing Americans, especially for being Deere.

ramesh31 2y ago
You can draw a straight line from NAFTA to MAGA. But nobody in charge cares, as it's been great for our 401ks. The pitchforks are coming, and it's not gonna be pretty. January 6th was just a taste.
- alephnerd 2y ago
  The alternative is allies like Canada and Mexico decide to switch allegiances without NAFTA - especially because they have FTAs with economies like China, ASEAN, and the EU. Also the economic ramifications on the US would be horrid. The answer is subsidizing the ability to commercialize R&D with PLIs aimed at keeping some production within the US (or allies). This is what the CHIPS Act and IRA are doing for Semiconductors and GreenTech respectively.
  - ramesh31 2y ago
    > The answer is subsidizing the ability to commercialize R&D with PLIs aimed at keeping some production within the US (or allies). This is what the CHIPS Act and IRA are doing for Semiconductors and GreenTech respectively. Yes that is indeed the correct take on this if you see our society as an optimization problem on a spreadsheet. But tell it to the 600 voters (and all of their family/friends) who just got laid off from jobs they've held for 30 years and staked their entire lives on. All of our previously purple states have turned into fascist hellholes due to this kind of attitude from those in power.
    - alephnerd 2y ago
      CAT's factories are barely 2 hours away from John Deere's and they haven't had a similar layoff in almost a decade. John Deere's leadership is just uniquely incompetent in the agtech industry.
alephnerd 2y ago
They ain't selling enough, with worldwide sales decreasing rapidly [0]. The tractor industry has become commoditized at the lower market segments with Kubota, Kioti, and Mahindra, and the upper market segments are too specialized for John Deere with competitors like CAT. Ik some friends in the drone and agtech industry in the 2010s, and John Deere was already far behind on the innovation front compared to Bayer-Monsanto, Corteva, CAT, Skydio, or DJI on applications like agricultural drones, autonomous farming, CV applications for soil analysis, etc. The answer is simple - innovate (or M&A) or die. [0] - https://www.deere.com/assets/pdfs/common/news/deere-2q24-earnings-release.pdf https://www.deere.com/assets/pdfs/common/news/deere-2q24-ear...
- kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
  Nice to see their anti-consumer business practices are blowing up in their face. Imagine how well their sales would be if they hadn't made an enemy out of their customer base.
  - alephnerd 2y ago
    Their harsh IP stance would have made sense if they were also constantly innovating. They just weren't. You were paying a premium and facing litigation for tinkering with a better branded Kubota. John Deere was also nowhere near as diversified as most competitors locally (CAT) and globally (Kubota), who invested in defense, construction, drones, EVs, chemicals, and other segments.
    - unregistereddev 2y ago
      I'd question a few of your claims. Deere has an entire construction division and it's huge. Deere has had its hands in the defense industry for decades - they sell military gators, guidance systems for predator drones, etc. They've had electric gators and lawn tractors for a few years now (admittedly they're late electrifying their larger equipment). I don't know where your information is from, but it seems patently incorrect.
dyauspitr 2y ago
High worker wages and cheap goods are incompatible. The companies can’t do anything especially since places with cheap labor can now put out mid to high quality tier goods themselves. For a while it seemed like Germany et al were able to maintain a moat with their high quality goods but Asia has caught up. The only hope for American manufacturing is fully automated facilities but that isn’t happening quickly enough. Alternatively we would have to have some sort of communist like top down profit sharing/UBI but I don’t see the US going down that path either.
- matrix87 2y ago
  > cheap goods john deere isn't known for being cheap
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - dyauspitr 2y ago
    Which is why their sales are falling. My point is it needs to be cheaper to be competitive and they can’t seem to do that while still manufacturing in the US.
    - toomuchtodo 2y ago
      They had $10B in 2023 profits. This is simply not true. They are maximizing profits at the cost of other business inputs, just like Boeing.
      - alephnerd 2y ago
        You can make a profit and still lose market share Here's John Deere's Q2FY25 earnings report [0] Sales have dropped 10-20% in just about every market they are in (they have hidden the Asia figures which are probably even worse due to intense competition by dozens of local and multinational competitors like Sinomach, Kubota, Mahindra, Daedong, etc). And overall Net Sales have fallen 20-25%. [0] - https://www.deere.com/assets/pdfs/common/news/deere-2q24-earnings-release.pdf https://www.deere.com/assets/pdfs/common/news/deere-2q24-ear...
threatofrain 2y ago
That's how most trade works, isn't it? If I buy clothing from the EU, does that mean they must make it in the US? Forcing domestic employees is normally for vital functions.
- colechristensen 2y ago
  Trade between equal-ish partners is fine and should be free and unencumbered except for a few things where you want to make sure you're also self-sufficient (like defense and ensuring your local food production can cover your population) Trade between unequal partners (or whatever you want to call companies offshoring manufacturing) needs friction. Some amount is good to equalize global economies, too much makes your local poor suffer for the benefits of your local wealthy. It is especially bad when offshored labor is being done to avoid local environmental restrictions, worker protections, etc. i.e. manufacturing which is only cheap by being irresponsible to your workers and the world.
  - alephnerd 2y ago
    The winners in this case are Japanese (Kubota), American (CAT, AGCO, New Holland/CNH), European (CNH, Kioti), and Indian (Mahindra) manufacturers - all diversified conglomerates from countries allied or aligned with the US.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  Trade works however we collectively, through policy, make it work. Neoliberals were telling everyone it’d be fine to offshore manufacturing, because there was plenty of other high value work to be done, and then surprise, that gets offshored too. Corporations would sell you for parts of it earned an extra penny per share. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHUGVEThmsg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHUGVEThmsg > The company [John Deere] brought in $2.37 billion in net income during the quarter, down from $2.86 billion in the same period last year. Worldwide net sales and revenue also decreased 12% quarterly. > In 2023 the company made more than $10 billion in profit.

Everywhere is a terrible place to work because the companies don't give a shit. Its bullshit they want access to sell in our market, but aren't employing Americans, especially for being Deere.

ramesh31 2y ago

You can draw a straight line from NAFTA to MAGA. But nobody in charge cares, as it's been great for our 401ks. The pitchforks are coming, and it's not gonna be pretty. January 6th was just a taste.

alephnerd 2y ago
The alternative is allies like Canada and Mexico decide to switch allegiances without NAFTA - especially because they have FTAs with economies like China, ASEAN, and the EU. Also the economic ramifications on the US would be horrid. The answer is subsidizing the ability to commercialize R&D with PLIs aimed at keeping some production within the US (or allies). This is what the CHIPS Act and IRA are doing for Semiconductors and GreenTech respectively.
- ramesh31 2y ago
  > The answer is subsidizing the ability to commercialize R&D with PLIs aimed at keeping some production within the US (or allies). This is what the CHIPS Act and IRA are doing for Semiconductors and GreenTech respectively. Yes that is indeed the correct take on this if you see our society as an optimization problem on a spreadsheet. But tell it to the 600 voters (and all of their family/friends) who just got laid off from jobs they've held for 30 years and staked their entire lives on. All of our previously purple states have turned into fascist hellholes due to this kind of attitude from those in power.
  - alephnerd 2y ago
    CAT's factories are barely 2 hours away from John Deere's and they haven't had a similar layoff in almost a decade. John Deere's leadership is just uniquely incompetent in the agtech industry.

alephnerd 2y ago

They ain't selling enough, with worldwide sales decreasing rapidly [0]. The tractor industry has become commoditized at the lower market segments with Kubota, Kioti, and Mahindra, and the upper market segments are too specialized for John Deere with competitors like CAT. Ik some friends in the drone and agtech industry in the 2010s, and John Deere was already far behind on the innovation front compared to Bayer-Monsanto, Corteva, CAT, Skydio, or DJI on applications like agricultural drones, autonomous farming, CV applications for soil analysis, etc. The answer is simple - innovate (or M&A) or die. [0] - https://www.deere.com/assets/pdfs/common/news/deere-2q24-earnings-release.pdf https://www.deere.com/assets/pdfs/common/news/deere-2q24-ear...

kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
Nice to see their anti-consumer business practices are blowing up in their face. Imagine how well their sales would be if they hadn't made an enemy out of their customer base.
- alephnerd 2y ago
  Their harsh IP stance would have made sense if they were also constantly innovating. They just weren't. You were paying a premium and facing litigation for tinkering with a better branded Kubota. John Deere was also nowhere near as diversified as most competitors locally (CAT) and globally (Kubota), who invested in defense, construction, drones, EVs, chemicals, and other segments.
  - unregistereddev 2y ago
    I'd question a few of your claims. Deere has an entire construction division and it's huge. Deere has had its hands in the defense industry for decades - they sell military gators, guidance systems for predator drones, etc. They've had electric gators and lawn tractors for a few years now (admittedly they're late electrifying their larger equipment). I don't know where your information is from, but it seems patently incorrect.

dyauspitr 2y ago

High worker wages and cheap goods are incompatible. The companies can’t do anything especially since places with cheap labor can now put out mid to high quality tier goods themselves. For a while it seemed like Germany et al were able to maintain a moat with their high quality goods but Asia has caught up. The only hope for American manufacturing is fully automated facilities but that isn’t happening quickly enough. Alternatively we would have to have some sort of communist like top down profit sharing/UBI but I don’t see the US going down that path either.

matrix87 2y ago
> cheap goods john deere isn't known for being cheap
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- dyauspitr 2y ago
  Which is why their sales are falling. My point is it needs to be cheaper to be competitive and they can’t seem to do that while still manufacturing in the US.
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    They had $10B in 2023 profits. This is simply not true. They are maximizing profits at the cost of other business inputs, just like Boeing.
    - alephnerd 2y ago
      You can make a profit and still lose market share Here's John Deere's Q2FY25 earnings report [0] Sales have dropped 10-20% in just about every market they are in (they have hidden the Asia figures which are probably even worse due to intense competition by dozens of local and multinational competitors like Sinomach, Kubota, Mahindra, Daedong, etc). And overall Net Sales have fallen 20-25%. [0] - https://www.deere.com/assets/pdfs/common/news/deere-2q24-earnings-release.pdf https://www.deere.com/assets/pdfs/common/news/deere-2q24-ear...

threatofrain 2y ago

That's how most trade works, isn't it? If I buy clothing from the EU, does that mean they must make it in the US? Forcing domestic employees is normally for vital functions.

colechristensen 2y ago
Trade between equal-ish partners is fine and should be free and unencumbered except for a few things where you want to make sure you're also self-sufficient (like defense and ensuring your local food production can cover your population) Trade between unequal partners (or whatever you want to call companies offshoring manufacturing) needs friction. Some amount is good to equalize global economies, too much makes your local poor suffer for the benefits of your local wealthy. It is especially bad when offshored labor is being done to avoid local environmental restrictions, worker protections, etc. i.e. manufacturing which is only cheap by being irresponsible to your workers and the world.
- alephnerd 2y ago
  The winners in this case are Japanese (Kubota), American (CAT, AGCO, New Holland/CNH), European (CNH, Kioti), and Indian (Mahindra) manufacturers - all diversified conglomerates from countries allied or aligned with the US.
toomuchtodo 2y ago
Trade works however we collectively, through policy, make it work. Neoliberals were telling everyone it’d be fine to offshore manufacturing, because there was plenty of other high value work to be done, and then surprise, that gets offshored too. Corporations would sell you for parts of it earned an extra penny per share. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHUGVEThmsg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHUGVEThmsg > The company [John Deere] brought in $2.37 billion in net income during the quarter, down from $2.86 billion in the same period last year. Worldwide net sales and revenue also decreased 12% quarterly. > In 2023 the company made more than $10 billion in profit.