GM Wants Parts Makers To Pull Supply Chains From China (businesstimes.com.sg) 98
schwit1 shares a report from the Business Times: General Motors (GM) has directed several thousand of its suppliers to scrub their supply chains of parts from China, four people familiar with the matter said, reflecting automakers' growing frustration over geopolitical disruptions to their operations. GM executives have been telling suppliers they should find alternatives to China for their raw materials and parts, with the goal of eventually moving their supply chains out of the country entirely, the people said. The automaker has set a 2027 deadline for some suppliers to dissolve their China sourcing ties, some of the sources said. GM approached some suppliers with the directive in late 2024, but the effort took on fresh urgency this past spring, during the early days of an escalating US-China trade battle, the sources said.
Is there any money left? (Score:2, Offtopic)
AI has already sucked up every speculator in USA. Maybe some nice Chinese investor will help out.
or else ... (Score:5, Funny)
"The automaker has set a 2027 deadline for some suppliers to dissolve their China sourcing ties"
or else they're going to try to source from china directly?
Reaping what the auto makers sow (Score:4, Insightful)
The automakers have been steadily increasing the number of parts, increasing the complexity of vehicles, and making them harder to repair for decades.
There are 4 fronts:
1. Automakers are relying on high-end cars and trucks to make their profits and less people are buying
2. Automakers have relied for decades on increasing the complexity, part count, and adding on nice to have, but not necessary features for decades as a way to squeeze an extra percent or two of profit out of a vehicle
3. Repairing vehicles is much more complicated given the increased part count, use of plastic and resin parts, and overly complex engineering (removing an engine in a truck can require removing the cab as well (Ford?)
4. Auto mechanics get paid OK but have to work lots of extra hours to make higher money at the cost of being physically damaged at age 40. It is driving mechanics out of the field when entry level pay is $20 or less per hour and high end pay is $35 per hour. The $100,000 per year is working 60 to 70+ hours per week further damaging your body.and long term exposure to toxic substances. Make OK money for 20 years then be crippled for 30 years?
For #4, you can get a basic certification in the medical field and make equivalent money without the long-term damage to your body
-
Ford CEO Jim Farley laments he can’t fill 5,000 mechanic jobs paying $120K per year: ‘We are in trouble in our country’
NY Post Nov 14, 2025 https://nypost.com/2025/11/14/... [nypost.com]
-
Auto parts company bankruptcy
First Brands failed and is in bankruptcy - https://finance.yahoo.com/news... [yahoo.com]
Some due to the business and some due to bad borrowing practices
--
Proliferation of parts causes parts industry problems
From https://www.aftermarketmatters... [aftermarketmatters.com]
Factor 3: Vehicle Technology
Vehicle complexity is increasing, with advancing technology affecting virtually all vehicle operating systems. Growing vehicle technology is adding significantly to the breadth of parts that manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and installers must carry to enable the timely repair of light vehicles.
The number of smart parts, vehicle components with special sensors and software, will have increased “dramatically” in aftermarket volume between 2020 and 2025. During those 5 years, vehicles with advanced driver-assistance systems (ADAS) will have climbed at more than three times the annual pace of the overall VIO.
Advancing vehicle technology will also increase the cost of DIFM aftermarket products and services.
Wage as auto mechanic (Score:3)
https://www.reddit.com/r/mecha... [reddit.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't help that repair shops/dealerships are insanely expensive now.
TLDR (Score:2)
You lost me at 'less people.'
Re: (Score:2)
Several THOUSAND (Score:2)
Exactly how many suppliers does it take to supply an indicator bulb???
Ok, one or two is too few, I know, but what is this, a joke, thousandS?
So chop them up so finely so you can dictate prices?
Maybe suppliers can form a union? Turn things around?
Re: Several THOUSAND (Score:1)
It's good practice to have second sources.
For most suppliers, GM isn't their only customer.
Indicator bulbs: cover glass or plastic, different types of plastic for housing, perhaps some fasteners, adhesives, copper wire, insulation, electrical connectors, incandescent light bulb or semiconductor LED, either of which is like 5 suppliers or more for subcomponents and tooling.
Yeah your indicator light supply chain probably sprouts tentacles in 10 or 15 directions.
Re: Several THOUSAND (Score:2)
I winder how they will make SKF not make bearings in china. Or Bosch source electronic componentry from California?
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly how many suppliers does it take to supply an indicator bulb???
That's a trick question.
Answer: None. In 2025, Everything's Computer.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think they use indicator bulbs anymore. Instead it is one piece, LED in a chunk of plastic. A burnt out light can now cost thousands to fix. How many sources they have for those one piece specialized lights is likely low, perhaps even only one.
Having standard parts that are easy to swap is not profitable. Same with parts that last.
Higher Costs (Score:5, Informative)
Would you rather pay a tariff's cost or pay more for products produced domestically? We will see how every company deals with this.
Tariffs are often presented as a shield for domestic industries, but economically they are counterintuitive: by limiting foreign competition, they reduce the pressure on local companies to innovate, improve efficiency, or lower costs. Without that competitive drive, businesses can stagnate, producing inferior goods and services while charging higher prices. The irony is that the domestic consumers tariffs are meant to protect end up paying more for worse products, while the broader economy loses out on the dynamism and progress that open competition usually sparks.
Suddenly reshaping supply chains to respond to tariffs carries significant risks that ripple across the economy. Companies may be forced to abandon established, efficient networks in favor of hastily arranged alternatives, which often means higher costs, logistical bottlenecks, and reduced reliability. These abrupt shifts can disrupt production schedules, strain relationships with long-term suppliers, and erode quality control. Worse, the uncertainty discourages investment in long-term innovation, as firms divert resources to short-term survival.
When unemployment is already low, suddenly finding enough workers to reconfigure supply chains in response to tariffs becomes nearly impossible without driving up labor costs. Firms must compete for scarce talent, often retraining or relocating employees, which adds further expense and delays. At the same time, the abrupt shift discards sunk costs. Prior investments in established supplier relationships, infrastructure, and logistics are thrown out before they would have been depreciated. These wasted resources are replaced by new costs for recruitment, training, and building fresh networks, all of which inevitably flow into higher prices for consumers. In effect, tariffs don’t just disrupt trade; they force companies to burn past investments while layering on new inefficiencies that must show up in the prices of goods.
Re:Higher Costs (Score:5, Insightful)
However, some things are more important than making the most money. Among them, national defense. In America, both parties [cnn.com] have decided they don't want to work with China anymore, for varying reasons of ideology, ethics, and self defense. And they have decided that is more important to them than economic efficiencies.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
These days, getting along with China is much easier than getting along with the US.
Re:Higher Costs (Score:5, Informative)
These days, getting along with China is much easier than getting along with the US.
It's not merely getting along with the US. The US is part of the unofficial "Status Quo Coalition" [acoup.blog]. China is bucking against the status quo and irritating *every* nation. So which is easier: getting along with a bully named China, or getting along with all the other wealthy and powerful nations? Most of the countries that accepted Belt-and-Road had an eye on betraying China in the long run, until they found out that China was proving tofu dreg construction. And with China economic woes, even weak nations are turning against China.
Getting along with the U.S. [Re:Higher Costs] (Score:5, Insightful)
China is bucking against the status quo and irritating *every* nation. So which is easier: getting along with a bully named China, or getting along with all the other wealthy and powerful nations?
Up until 2025, the answer was it's easier to get along with the U.S.
With the erratic policies and random tariffs of the U.S., however, it has become easier to get along with China, which, if nothing else, does not change their policies on a whim.
Things like, putting a tariff on Canada because the president didn't like a commercial from Ontario that (accurately [pbs.org]) quoted Ronald Reagan.
The long term result is that the other nations of the world are shifting to industrial policies that do not include the U.S.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. The US has stopped being reliable and if there is a "bully" these days in international trade, it is the US. An irrational, unsophisticated bully at that, neither suitable as a market nor as a supplier.
But always fascinating seeing that the MAGAs do not even understand the most simple things.
Re: (Score:3)
The Chinese government has been pushing that narrative for years. They are the stable partner. World's second largest economy with much higher growth than all the other big ones. They don't force their ideology on you either.
It sucks because they aren't wrong about those things, and the stuff we compete with (lucrative markets, less exploitative, democracy) are not quite so tangible, not such big concerns for countries trying to deal with big economic problems or lift millions out of poverty. We need to be
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Trump wants to be the king you pay tribute to in order to do business.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, it is not a narrative. They have worked pretty hard at making it a reality.
Re:Getting along with the U.S. [Re:Higher Costs] (Score:4, Interesting)
Up until 2025, the answer was it's easier to get along with the U.S.
With the erratic policies and random tariffs of the U.S., however, it has become easier to get along with China, which, if nothing else, does not change their policies on a whim.
This is so not true. China is anything but a reliable partner. In the latter part of the previous decade, the Chinese government cracked down on the rapidly rising Chinese FinTech industry because a small number of CEOs in the industry, including Jack Ma, said things they didn't like. You know how you basically don't hear anything from Jack Ma anymore and how he is retired from Alibaba? This is why. The government clapped down that industry hard. The companies involved have never really recovered from it, with their stock prices stagnating. It's because investors realized that at any time, the Chinese government can and will intervene in the stock market to make a point about how in charge they are. A few years ago the government had to say publicly that they are totally not going to interfere in businesses again, please come back noble investors. All I can say is a really smart man said last year that investing in communism is a bad idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad it no longer is.
Re: (Score:2)
Your evidence has no connection to your argument.
Re: (Score:2)
You know China has import tariffs, right? Especially on finished goods. If any company in China is making a similar product, you can expect an import duty in the range of 30%. Do you honestly think China is the lesser of two evils between the US and China? If so, you should stop drinking the Kool-Aid and read the Budapest Memorandum. The one where China signed security guarantees with Ukraine in exchange for disposing of their nuclear weapons. Oops.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be disconnected from reality. The problem are not tariffs. The problems are unpredictably changing tariffs.
Re: (Score:2)
Except China was not part of the Budapest Memorandum, which was signed by the UK, Russia, USA and Ukraine. France and China did sign separate agreements with the one China signed basically reaffirming the UN stand on hostilities between nations with no guarantees. https://web.archive.org/web/20... [archive.org] also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
It is funny how people tend to refer to things they haven't even read to supposedly support their arguments.
Re: (Score:2)
These days, getting along with China is much easier than getting along with the US.
--signed, none of china's neighbors (save for russia/north korea)
Re: (Score:2)
Tariffs are a bad thing from a pure economic perspective. They introduce inefficiencies, and make things more expensive. This is a basic concept of macroeconomics.
However, some things are more important than making the most money. Among them, national defense. In America, both parties [cnn.com] have decided they don't want to work with China anymore, for varying reasons of ideology, ethics, and self defense. And they have decided that is more important to them than economic efficiencies.
This particular issue is not about military security or even about corporate efficiencies and profits. It's about corporate survival. If one's supply chain is cut off and not just made more expensive, the consequences are losing massive sales, market share, and consumer mind share. The Nexperia and rare earth risks from China are real and are causing executives a lot of ulcers about bonuses and their individual futures.
Re: (Score:2)
Chinese can deliver finished electronic assemblies for less than we can buy the parts. It a combo of scale and funny money the west can’t compete with.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Even better:
Convict them on fabricated charges, imprison them, them force them to work for pennies on the dollar. This is how states bypass the 13th amendment to the US constitution:
"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
Re: (Score:2)
" work in a factory for $15 an hour"
wasn't so long ago that the GOP were talking about a $2/hr minimum wage
Re: (Score:2)
It's better to automate everything and have it done closer to the final consumer. This cuts down on GHG's, adds security to our supply chains and frees up people to do jobs that cannot yet be automated.
Is a Star Trekk future where money isn't a thing and we can all just have our needs met not interesting to you? The way you get there is greatly advancing our technology. Automation for enough stuff frees up a lot of human capital.
There may very well be some rough years as we transition but I'd much rather be
Re: (Score:2)
Free up the human capital to do what exactly? I like the Star Trek vision as much as anyone, but it's not like we can go explore the galaxy on star ships because we're freed from working in factories.
I think even Star Trek illustrates that work and even existential struggle is an essential part of our development as humans. Kirk had more than one soliloquy to that effect.
Perhaps we might get farther as a society and an economy if we value work and employees as assets rather than mere costs and liabilities
Re: (Score:2)
A robot is a mechanical slave that doesn't ever revolt.
Humans compete with robots by being cheaper than robots. This means degrading the workers until eventually conditions simply can't get any worse. If you demand a fair minimum treatment, you just raise the transition point for robots. Nothing will advance robots faster than forcing jobs to be in the USA and it'll also likely have a downward impact on job quality given how much undue power corporations have.
There is also no way profits going to the 1% wi
Re: (Score:3)
When the US was the sole supplier for pretty much everything in the US, like the period 1950-1980, it would appear that there was no lack of innovation, so I don't see that argument holding much water. The only exception was Detroit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sourcing parts from outside of China doesn't necessarily mean moving production back Stateside.
Best of luck with that (Score:2)
A politically noble move to be sure. The minor detail is the learning curve for the vendors and of course where they get components and materials. And given the instability of existing products one can only wonder about what the new fleet recalls will look like. Am grateful my 15 year old Ford does not get on the fly software updates to make life more exciting. Pity they were so thorough in eviscerating domestic producers.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, it's not politically noble, it's self protection. It's avoiding the change of political strife meaning they can't sell the cars they make.
Given what's been happening, it's probably a wise decision. I expect the stress between the US and China to get worse. I hope it stays at "economic warfare".
Re: (Score:2)
I hope it stays at "economic warfare".
If it doesn't? That should be on the minds of any American company that depends on China for its supply chain. Whether you believe the wave of anti-China propaganda or not, its clear the war departments in the United States and China are preparing for one. And history says when nations do that they usually don't let all that preparation go to waste.
That is going to be expensive... (Score:2)
But I guess the average US household is really rich and can easily afford much more expensive cars.
Re: (Score:3)
I've noticed that people are keeping older cars longer. You see a lot of cars with the top coat of paint peeling off here in San Diego, CA.
When cards cost more the $30K not to many people can afford them even with those ridiculous 7 year car loans, high auto insurance premiums, and high state registration due to the ridiculous sale price.
Something's going to give.
If this keeps up, more people are going to buy electric assisted pedal scooters with baskets and use them as grocery getters.
Re: (Score:2)
I've noticed the same and also live in San Diego. My car is 6 and half years old but I have no desire to replace it. A new car payment plus insurance plus registration is no joke. My 6 year old car's registration is STILL expensive.
In fact, my single 2019 Honda insight cost more to register in California then my parent's registration in Idaho for a 10 year old Ford Truck, an RV and a 2025 Trial Blazer together. It's those hidden cost that make California so expensive.
I plan to keep up on all repairs and mai
Re: (Score:2)
Living in the rust belt takes a toll on vehicles. It's rare to see anything from the 00s here anymore. You don't see 90s cars unless they were garage kept by grandma or bought out of state.
Re: (Score:2)
Americans are much poorer today is the reality that people haven't realized because food, clothing, electronics and have come down in relative price by many methods to mask the decline and wage theft by wall-street. If you even bring up the class war that has been raging for decades you get dismissed as a socialist or whatever slur the suckers buy into.
A car 75 years ago... but then we have much safer cars (seat belts for starters) that use much less gas... Cheap resources are not abundant anymore either.
Re: (Score:2)
If this keeps up, more people are going to buy electric assisted pedal scooters with baskets and use them as grocery getters.
Which is not the worst thing. Als much more in line to where the US is heading economically.
Re: (Score:2)
That really only works for cars at least maybe 10-15 years old. Newer cars are packed so full of electronics and other complex hardware that can't be repaired that they're simply not going to last very long; once the manufacturer stops selling those parts, the car will be scrap once one of them breaks.
Re: (Score:2)
If this keeps up, more people are going to buy electric assisted pedal scooters with baskets and use them as grocery getters.
People already are doing this. There's also someone who lives nearby who has done a street legal conversion to their UTV (basically an off-road gas powered golf cart), because I've seen it parked at the local Publix on several occasions.
In places with year-round warm climates it's fine. I'd imagine it would be pretty damn miserable though, driving through the snow on an e-scooter or any other vehicle where you're completely exposed to the elements. Yeah, I realize that people riding on horseback in ye ol
Re: (Score:2)
Why? India and Vietnam (and others) are happy to eat China's lunch.
Minds Explode... (Score:2, Insightful)
Trump successfully re-shoring American manufacturing would be the worst outcome possible, for China and rabid anti-Trumpers.
Re: Minds Explode... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
You think Democrats are going to run on an open "Send all your jobs to China!" platform?
Re: (Score:2)
Pay attention. These jobs are _already_ in China. This is about bringing them back. Which is a _lot_ more difficult.
Re: (Score:1)
Why would it be a worst-case scenario for people that recognize him as the tyrant he is? Being anti tyrant and pro distributed manufacturing aren't mutually exclusive.
How supposed American patriots are so willing to accept a dictator for 231 days, so far, is a wonder to behold.
Re:Minds Explode... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Awesome! Let me know when you're ready to work union free on the assembly lines in the widget factories. Or to pick produce. Or do you think you're somehow in the management class?
Re: (Score:3)
You’ll notice it’s GM telling suppliers and not GM choosing new suppliers. Because factories don’t spring up overnight and imagine the nightmare when GM buys a million connectors from a new supplier that fall apart in six months.
Re: (Score:3)
Because it's not so much an issue for the direct suppliers as it is for the rest of their supply chain. GM buys from Tier 1s who integrate components from Tier 2s - finding Tier 2s that are not Chinese is not too complicated, but the problem comes when you want to trace the entire supply chain from Tier 2 to Tier N (down to raw materials) and force the Tier 2s to diversify. IOW, it's not people like Amphenol/Molex/Rosenberger that are the issue, but their respective supply chains. In many cases the Tier 2s
Re: (Score:3)
Trump successfully
A broken clock that is right twice a day, is still a broken clock.
Chinese suppliers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It’s 2025 and food costs double or even triple what it did 5 years ago. People aren’t going to shell out extra cash just to say the copper wire in their $40k base model car is American sourced.
Re: (Score:3)
CANADA supplies a lot of parts already... but Trump is putting a stop to that...
Tesla Too. (Score:4, Informative)
Not only GM but now Tesla too.
Could it be they think war is coming?
Re: (Score:3)
Because passing tariff costs to consumers is admitting it was nothing more than a new tax enacted by the dementia patient.
Re: (Score:2)
War is coming. There is zero doubt about it. It is close. :(
The problem is complicated (Score:3)
The reason parts aren't made in the US is cost. Maybe you think "OK, tariffs and outright bans will mean they have to be made in the US".
The problem is, those foreign parts cost fewer American dollars to produce. The cost of the parts goes up and cost of living goes up, or American wages go down, and the relative cost of living goes up.
There is no solution to this where your cost of living relative to your wages remains similar. Standard of living goes down. No political slogan can overcome this.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason parts aren't made in the US is cost.
No more than the reason parts are made in the US is cost. The real problem is that China often has the manufacturing expertise and we don't any more.
I have wondered for a while where companies are going to get bolts. Because all the ones I see available are manufactured in China, not the United States. I am not sure where you would start if you decided to start manufacturing them here.
Re: (Score:2)
That, however is a temporary issue. Obviously a far longer term issue than the government cares to consider, but it is one that can be overcome.
The economic issue cannot.
Itâ(TM)s too late. (Score:1)
Getting dozens of vendors to start sourcing thousands of parts from the USA is going to take years. Because nobody in the USA makes most of these parts. Supply chains will have to be built to source the materials and factories will have to be built to do the manufacturing. And the whole thing will be an inefficient mess because the losers running GM don't understand that they need to vertically integrate to compete with the Chinese car companies that will inevitably open their awesome dark factories in the
Years [Re:Itâ(TM)s too late.] (Score:2)
Getting dozens of vendors to start sourcing thousands of parts from the USA is going to take years.
The summary says "The automaker has set a 2027 deadline for some suppliers to dissolve their China sourcing ties." So, yes, 2 1/4 years.
Re: (Score:1)
Just in time for completion of the Epstein Ballroom.
Re: (Score:2)
China was not fine. Bankrolling their economic expansion was a mistake.
Re: (Score:1)
But at least we have fewer Home Depot day laborers and restaurant prep cooks.
*sheds tear*
if it is hard to find local suppliers... (Score:3)
... how about designing simpler cars with less crap in them?
Do you really need 900 individual injection moulded plastic bits for each interior? Each unique to that model? Does the switchgear really need redesigning over and over again? Why so many variations of brake caliper/wheel/wiper blade/everything?
Standardise the components and maybe it will be worthwhile someone setting up a production line to supply them to you.
Taiwan (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
2027 is the year that they're supposedly going to invade Taiwan.
Mutual slow march to world war, 1930's-style (Score:2)