Imprt = non member companies. Basically everyone besides: Honda, Yamaha, Suzuki, Polaris, Arctic Cat, Bombardier. I would think that Honda, Yamaha, Suzuki and Bomb combined make up more than 25% of the market. I think Polaris is the biggest with about 25% of the market.

So I wasn't the only one who saw it that way?

Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote

 

First off, I must preface this comment with the fact that I do NOT own a Polaris or Arctic Cat, and will not. However that being said, I applaud their comments and call for action.

A case can be made about their sincerity and motives.. however I do NOT feel it is about market share, cost etc. What everyone seems to be missing is the simple fact that the CPSC guidelines are there to protect the interests of the citizens of this country. We may not always like it.. but that is the simple fact. I think the CPSC has bent over backwards to find a way for ATV makers to remain in business by first making the rules mandatory, and now allowing them to continue under voluntary operations.

The issue is that these cheap secondary market machines are NOT following the safety standards.. they are NOT putting a dime back into the sport, or into safety education etc. They are taking their profits back home. Period. This has severely handicapped those major players who have a conscience and are working towards a safer sport by supporting the standards.. even though they are not legally bound to them.

I think it ironic that we Americans whine when the government acts in our best interest by creating a fair playing field requiring all manufacturers to comply with essentially amounts to the rules that the major brands have been complying with for years. And our only excuse for the complaint is that we worry about the price going up on the cheap brands?

Come on folks, there is no question that the secondary market has issues.. we all know that... This isnot to say they are not capable of giving acceptable service... but the problems with parts availability, service, and quality in materials used do exist...

I don't think it is unreasonable to think that yes the prices will probably go up. Some companies will fold too. But I can't say that we will be worse off for it. It would be a different story if the cheap companies were actively involved with making the sport a safer one, or actively working to solve the environmental issue caused by the machines themselves etc. No, they are the money grubbing profit hogs here... NOT Polaris and others that ARE actively invloved with sponsorship of many or the activities we attend all year long and conducting R&D efforts to improve the product.

Some big companies have even adopted major trail systems.. that is putting their money where their mouth is.. sure they expect a profit from it.. but their actions are making the sport better. Not so with the Chinese and Korean discount brands.

Look beyond the checkbook for once....

 

Perhaps I've seen too much special interest lobbying by US companies locked into the death cycle of high wages/ benefits and become jaded by their failed attempts to use isolationist legislation to meet competition in a global market. Have American consumers become so ignorant and lacking in common sense they need government legislation to tell them what products to buy? From the article:

~In Minnesota, 43 ATV deaths were reported between 2002 and 2004 and 178 since 1982.

It isn't known how many of those involved imports, and there is little information available on imports in general.~

It doesn't take a statistician to recognize the increase in deaths since 1982 is proportional with the increase in number of sales and ATV use. As to the safety aspect of brakes and lighting on only Chinese and Korean models, where's the independent testing showing those deficiencies in contrast to Canadian, Japanese and US machines? With the current level of corruption I'm seeing in US politicians I'm supposed to believe two senators from a state where Polaris is manufactured telling me their legislation is good for the entire US based on them backing up yet unfounded according to the article Polaris claims?

One would think Americans had learned their lesson about imports with the demise of Ford, GM and other major US manufacturers. It doesn't seem have sunk in that even if self-serving legislation is enacted at the whim of Polaris's owned politicians, all consumers gain is paying more for Polaris products for a few months until imports adjust their products to whatever standards are enacted, and past history has shown us those adjustments will include features surpassing domestic product quality at a lesser cost. What's next, a federal bail-out for Polaris or outrageous tariffs on their competitors products to perpetuate their (Polaris) inefficiency?

 

Do you however feel it is fair that the major manufacturers are faced with following the CPSC guidelines when the secondary market does not? Do you not feel there is a reason why these machines are cheaper? Certainly labor costs are significantly lower in third world countries and that plays a big part in the costs. They could elect not to follow the guidelines, but risk major lawsuits, which would probably put them out of business.

I am sorry but I'd have to lean towards the US makers and those that support the voluntary compliance with the guidelines on this one. They were forced into this situation.. and took teh lessor of two evils. I can see why they just want things to be equal for all concerned.

Now if they make the guidelines mandatory for all, then all bets are off. All sellers would have an equal playing field to operate on and I suspect the pricing would move closer than it is now... Whether that means the pricing goes up or down is hard to predict.

With the CPSC working on new regulations, the possibility that they become Law again looms on the horizon. It will be very interesting in the future... I don't think anyone can predict the outcome on this one....

 

US industry, with its burden of wages and benefits to maintain our artificial standard of living based on debt with subsequent GDP to retain consumer confidence, simply can't compete with developing nation manufacturing costs. While labor is a big issue in pricing, China spent the 1990s on infrastructure improvement and continues to do so to this day. Our (US) infrastructure is crumbling and our manufacturing facilities are outdated. Price parity for small ATVs may get closer with increased regulation, but it will be in the form of increased margin for imports, allowing them to produce a better product and make more money on it. At our level of conceit, few Americans can foresee the Chinese economy car being sold at Wal-Mart right next to the McDonald's franchise.

 

Let’s not forget that it is the US manufacturers that built this industry, and have supported the clubs and riders in getting places to ride as well attempted to make the sport as safe as possible. Our manufactures have far higher costs than the Chinese due to far better wages, working conditions, and health care plans, not to mention environmental regulations and taxes. None of us in here could ever hope to live the life style we enjoy with our leisure time, ATV’s, or computers if we were paid to same as workers in china.

 

We're in for some big-time shocks on those differences. All protectionist legislation will do is force the issue at an earlier date. Take a look at Delphi and GM for a glimpse of the future.

 

I'm wondering if high energy prices might level the playing field a bit. The Chinese have to buy a lot of their energy on the world market... and pay about the same as everyone else. Obviously, it takes a lot more of that expensive energy to ship Chinese goods to markets in the U.S. that it would take for goods produced here in the first place. Even today, it's hard to see how they can pay to ship an ATV all the way across the Pacific and still sell it for significantly less that a similar machine built here, even if their wages are a lot less.

 

Energy costs are the same for any country, China or the US. If you look at just labor, the average Chinese production worker earned about $120/mo (USD) in 2005, while the average engineer was paid $1200/mo. Oceanic shipping of anything is a nominal cost per unit when containerized because of the volume.

What you're thinking is correct, while they are a defined factor, it isn't just wages that allow China and other developing nations to undersell mature, developed nations. There other significant production advantages China and other nations have over other countries, but the primary issue is standard of living. What any country pays its work force is dependent on how high the standard of living is in that country.

The US dominated world trade from WW2 through the 1970s, primarily because that's how long it took for those countries where fighting actually took place to recover from total infrastructure devastation while the US immediately converted war production capability to civilian usage. When those devastated countries returned to industrial and subsequent financial health, their infrastructure was brand new and most of their citizens were ecstatic about the basics, food, shelter, clothing and limited entertainment. China and other third world countries took longer, and now they're the ones with brand new, efficient infrastructure and a population seeking a higher standard of living.

The US standard of living is in decline, with wages stagnant over the past 10-years, sharply so over the last five, and our abnormal debt has ravaged the dollar. Our quality of education and desire for education has also declined, with 2005 bringing the first drop in college enrollment since WW2 with an expanding population. That's really bad news as any nation's progress is based on quality of education, the youth. Why? We became fat and complacent. There aren't many US products I can think of, I'm trying to think of one, that still command the loyalty they enjoyed even 10-years ago. As our standard of living continues to decline, price of consumer goods becomes the sole focus to maintain our standard of living. Chinese and other goods have achieved quality levels equaling and surpassing that of US made goods, which leaves only price as a determining purchase factor for the US consumer's increasingly shrinking dollars.

The solution? The US standard of living has to decline as the Chinese standard of living increases until both are somewhat similar. Depending on whose numbers one likes, that's 15-20 years away. And when that does transpire, China will be the world economic power based on the size of their internal consumer markets.

 

Very interesting, but you may be overly pessimistic. U.S products dominate the medical field, which is growing to gigantic proportions. Farm machinery, I believe, is domintated by U.S. companies. We also have an edge in food production. China and most other third world countries can't feed their people without outside help.

Education is certainly a vital factor in the success of any society, but you have to wonder if a 1-year decline in college enrollment is the beginning of a trend, or just a blip. There doesn't seem any way to know for sure at this point. Except, if this is indeed what happened, it would be the first time in decades. This gives it more the appearance of an abnormality.

I haven't heard anything about education capabilities of China and other third world countries. They do seem to send a lot of people to the U.S. for graduate and post graduate college degrees. It could be that our social/political structure is more conducive to education excellence than the totalitarian, stratified societal structures in many third wold countries. Of course, it could also be that since their governments foot the bills, that is driving the cost of a college education to the point that it is driving down college enrollment among U.S. citizens who must pay their own way.

Reports published this week in the news said that employment and other segments of our economy are up for the first quarter of this year. Of course, that could be a blip too, but it has more the appearance of a trend, based on historical perspectives.