I read the following line in a story about one man's lament at having purchased a car that was not made in the USA or by union workers:
[ The shirt I'm wearing right now was made in the Philippines. My pants are from Bangladesh ... I would never even think of buying a Japanese car. For me it's a matter of principle ... as much as I can, I choose to spend my money on products made by union workers in America ... Not only was my new Fusion assembled at Ford's plant in Hermosillo, in the Mexican state of Sonora, where there is no UAW, and auto workers earn less than $5 an hour. What's worse, almost none of the parts that went into it were sourced in the U.S. or even Canada ... ]
You have to look closely to see (I'm guessing the author didn't even see it), but its a belief that is at the core of my problems with lots of the immigration and "outsourcing" complaints.
The author complains that none of the parts were sourced in the US
or even Canada. Think about that. Only a few short graphs earlier the author states he tries to buy American (read, U.S., unless Mexico isn't a part of the American continent, anymore), union-made cars. He has also complained about, lets see, his shirt from the Philippines, his Bangladesh-originated pants, and his Mexico-sourced car. And then he proceeds to say he wanted car parts sourced from "the US
or even Canada." [emphasis is mine]. So, parts from US, OK; parts from Canada, OK; car from Mexico, not OK.
He does note that wages are higher in Canada. But if higher/highest wages are the sole important factor, doesn't that make presumably even higher U.S. wages the best? Does the ranking for best vehicle to buy go by wages, and thus US, Canada, X, Y, Z? No, clearly from his earlier statements it isn't a wage thing, its a unionized, country-of-origin thing.
Mexico. Phillippines. Bangladesh. Let us take a trip to Seasame Street: What do these three have that the fourth, Canada, doesn't? Oh, right.