American Auto Industry and Unions
5/1/05, 05:06 PM
#1
Bullitt Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: September 28, 2004
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The big 3 are flailing (at best).
DCX is doing the best -- but at serious cost. They had to be bought out, and built their most successful cars on older Mercedes designs (platforms, I believe -- with some mods). But they have some brought back the balance of nostalgia, with modern advancements. I believe the buy-out by Daimler gave Chrysler a more fresh start to negotiate with the unions, as well as the fresh blood and capital, let them restructure, repair, and revision the brands. (And they are doing well).
Ford is of course next. They've done some good -- but they've fallen off plan as well. Positive models, with different levels of acceptance. They came out with neat halo products, and then repair issues (and dealer gouging) stained the goodwill they should have gained off them. They still have major union issues, capacity management issues, and so on.
Poor GM is getting pounded the worst. Looks like they're going to have to kill many factories if not brands. Their problems may run deep enough that they have enough leverage to re-negotiate with the unions -- but is that enough? And if it is, what about Ford -- which isn't doing quite bad enough to be able to do that?
DCX is doing the best -- but at serious cost. They had to be bought out, and built their most successful cars on older Mercedes designs (platforms, I believe -- with some mods). But they have some brought back the balance of nostalgia, with modern advancements. I believe the buy-out by Daimler gave Chrysler a more fresh start to negotiate with the unions, as well as the fresh blood and capital, let them restructure, repair, and revision the brands. (And they are doing well).
Ford is of course next. They've done some good -- but they've fallen off plan as well. Positive models, with different levels of acceptance. They came out with neat halo products, and then repair issues (and dealer gouging) stained the goodwill they should have gained off them. They still have major union issues, capacity management issues, and so on.
Poor GM is getting pounded the worst. Looks like they're going to have to kill many factories if not brands. Their problems may run deep enough that they have enough leverage to re-negotiate with the unions -- but is that enough? And if it is, what about Ford -- which isn't doing quite bad enough to be able to do that?
5/1/05, 05:13 PM
#2
Bullitt Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: September 28, 2004
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In another thread, I'd made the following comments. Unions aren't pure evil -- but nor are they pure good.
Henry was really unique early on -- he paid far more than minimum, not because he had to, but because he felt it would help quality and reduce turn-over (and because then his own people could afford his own cars). So arguing that only Unions helped workers is silly. Quite a few companies helped their workers. Quite a few more were horrible to their people. Things probably would have worked out in the long run, as companies that treat their people better, get/keep better people -- even without unions. But unions helped pressure companies to do good.
The flipside is that unions also harm companies by driving up their costs, or doing things that are in the union leaders SHORT TERM interests, at the costs of the long term health of the companies/workers. Or put another way:
Unions are a labor monopoly/trust. Companies that are too powerful are sort of an employment monopoly. Government is a justice monopoly. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Any can be bad, all have a place. Balance=good. Any one faction having too much power = bad.
When Companies are TOO bad, Unions can help. When Unions got too powerful, and used government, what was the counterbalance to bring things back? The answer was sadly, destroying industries/companies, where new Non-Union shops could thrive. European Unions got too much power, and their economies have suffered with FAR less growth than us. But then the quality of life is pretty good, and surprisingly while some of their companies are doing OK in spite of all the burdens put on them.
Unions help the worst, and harm the best. They are what they are; socialized labor. In horrible companies this is better. In well run companies, it holds them/people back. Try to give a teacher or other union worker a merit raise in a Union shop. Unions help some workers (short term), but harm companies/industries and workers (long term) -- all at gunpoint. (They get their cut either way). They force workers and companies to do things that are against both their interests. And they take their "protection" money, just like every other mafia/monopoly. But when the mafia was created, it did some good as well. So I don't see the Unions as ALL bad. But you have to be completely clueless of cause and effect to think they are all good, or that they single handedly helped the poor workers. They are a tool of power, that is sometimes abused. They have historically been as corrupt (or more) than the companies or government. If you think they're so good, try to do a job in many shops/industries without a Union card, and then tell me how this is freedom/tolerance/opportunity.
So what do you think about unions and problems in American Auto industry?
Henry was really unique early on -- he paid far more than minimum, not because he had to, but because he felt it would help quality and reduce turn-over (and because then his own people could afford his own cars). So arguing that only Unions helped workers is silly. Quite a few companies helped their workers. Quite a few more were horrible to their people. Things probably would have worked out in the long run, as companies that treat their people better, get/keep better people -- even without unions. But unions helped pressure companies to do good.
The flipside is that unions also harm companies by driving up their costs, or doing things that are in the union leaders SHORT TERM interests, at the costs of the long term health of the companies/workers. Or put another way:
Unions are a labor monopoly/trust. Companies that are too powerful are sort of an employment monopoly. Government is a justice monopoly. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Any can be bad, all have a place. Balance=good. Any one faction having too much power = bad.
When Companies are TOO bad, Unions can help. When Unions got too powerful, and used government, what was the counterbalance to bring things back? The answer was sadly, destroying industries/companies, where new Non-Union shops could thrive. European Unions got too much power, and their economies have suffered with FAR less growth than us. But then the quality of life is pretty good, and surprisingly while some of their companies are doing OK in spite of all the burdens put on them.
Unions help the worst, and harm the best. They are what they are; socialized labor. In horrible companies this is better. In well run companies, it holds them/people back. Try to give a teacher or other union worker a merit raise in a Union shop. Unions help some workers (short term), but harm companies/industries and workers (long term) -- all at gunpoint. (They get their cut either way). They force workers and companies to do things that are against both their interests. And they take their "protection" money, just like every other mafia/monopoly. But when the mafia was created, it did some good as well. So I don't see the Unions as ALL bad. But you have to be completely clueless of cause and effect to think they are all good, or that they single handedly helped the poor workers. They are a tool of power, that is sometimes abused. They have historically been as corrupt (or more) than the companies or government. If you think they're so good, try to do a job in many shops/industries without a Union card, and then tell me how this is freedom/tolerance/opportunity.
So what do you think about unions and problems in American Auto industry?
5/1/05, 05:49 PM
#3
Cobra Member
Join Date: August 4, 2004
Posts: 1,095
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unions have raised the standard of living for many non-union employees all across the workforce. Sad part is they lookout for themselfs at their brothers and sisters expense. Point being lower wage part time employees pay a faction less than old contract full time employees for dues. So, whos in bed with who here?
I have a much bigger beef with all million dollar and plus compensated people for whatever they do. I just do not see where they are worth it.
1.) The Goverment should have let Chrysler go backrupt instead of loaning them the 1.5B Nature needs to take its course.
2.) Too many People buying foreign vehicles, will kill the market for all three domestics. I don't like 90% of foreign vehicles anyway.
3.) Walmart to start with and the rest that choose to follow, for all the part time, low paying jobs. Those workers can't buy a new car along with all other living expenses.
4.) Our goverment for allowing good paying jobs to go out of the country. Sell those people our vehicles, not!
5.) Health care costs are getting way out of hand for the average worker. And nothing is done about it, because the rich are in charge.
6.) The cost of fuel. A lot of people live from payday to payday. They do not leave themselfs anyroom to absorb riseing costs.
7.) What did we need all these big SUV's and Pickups for anyway. Killed of a lot of car models.
8.) United States is much to easy on the world players. At the middle class expense.
9.) Record huge profits for the big oil companies. Bush is in oil, so nothing is done about it.
10.) And the buck stops here. GM needs to build some vehicles that people like.
I have a much bigger beef with all million dollar and plus compensated people for whatever they do. I just do not see where they are worth it.
1.) The Goverment should have let Chrysler go backrupt instead of loaning them the 1.5B Nature needs to take its course.
2.) Too many People buying foreign vehicles, will kill the market for all three domestics. I don't like 90% of foreign vehicles anyway.
3.) Walmart to start with and the rest that choose to follow, for all the part time, low paying jobs. Those workers can't buy a new car along with all other living expenses.
4.) Our goverment for allowing good paying jobs to go out of the country. Sell those people our vehicles, not!
5.) Health care costs are getting way out of hand for the average worker. And nothing is done about it, because the rich are in charge.
6.) The cost of fuel. A lot of people live from payday to payday. They do not leave themselfs anyroom to absorb riseing costs.
7.) What did we need all these big SUV's and Pickups for anyway. Killed of a lot of car models.
8.) United States is much to easy on the world players. At the middle class expense.
9.) Record huge profits for the big oil companies.
Bush is in oil, so nothing is done about it.10.) And the buck stops here. GM needs to build some vehicles that people like.
5/1/05, 06:14 PM
#4
I moved this topic to general vheicle discussion because I felt it is relevant.
First off, this is usually a very contentious issue, so I hope people do not resort to name calling and keep things professional and civil.
My take on the UAW/CAW
Unions have their place when a company is not treating workers well. A company my late father worked for was raking in 100+ million dollar profits, their workers at the time made $8 an hour to start. What the company did was essentially fire people when their pay reached a certain level. That company ended up becoming organised and deservingly so.
In terms of the automotive industry, I believe the unions are definitely handcuffing the domestics and the "foreign" companies have much better productivity while having similar pay/benefit packages.
The reason for this is simple, when a union employee has a job, he "owns" that position, no one else is allowed to do his job, and greveances are filled out left right and centre. In union factories the speed on the assembly line is monitored on a regular basis to ensure the production speed isn't ramped up. I was interviewed for an engineering position at a major "foreign" manufacterer. They told me that in the event the line goes down, when the line is back up, people from the offices come onto the shop floor to help production catch up.
In terms of legacy costs, I think that in about 25 years the foreign manufactuers in North America will have a similar burden as the domestics, just based on numbers.
The big problem is the contact signed with the UAW (GM in particular). When a plant is shut down for layoff, employees still receive 95% of their pay. So even with the lights off and the plant empty, the facility is sapping huge funds from the bottom line. That is the reason GM is forced to keep plants open and sell cars with huge incentives, just to keep the plants running.
I think that some of the fault rests with the companies themselves as well. If they design shoddy product, sales go down. In this industry more than any other PRODUCT IS KING. You can't build second rate product and expect to gain market share. Every product needs to be a home run, and there needs to be a sense of urgency in that.
First off, this is usually a very contentious issue, so I hope people do not resort to name calling and keep things professional and civil.
My take on the UAW/CAW
Unions have their place when a company is not treating workers well. A company my late father worked for was raking in 100+ million dollar profits, their workers at the time made $8 an hour to start. What the company did was essentially fire people when their pay reached a certain level. That company ended up becoming organised and deservingly so.
In terms of the automotive industry, I believe the unions are definitely handcuffing the domestics and the "foreign" companies have much better productivity while having similar pay/benefit packages.
The reason for this is simple, when a union employee has a job, he "owns" that position, no one else is allowed to do his job, and greveances are filled out left right and centre. In union factories the speed on the assembly line is monitored on a regular basis to ensure the production speed isn't ramped up. I was interviewed for an engineering position at a major "foreign" manufacterer. They told me that in the event the line goes down, when the line is back up, people from the offices come onto the shop floor to help production catch up.
In terms of legacy costs, I think that in about 25 years the foreign manufactuers in North America will have a similar burden as the domestics, just based on numbers.
The big problem is the contact signed with the UAW (GM in particular). When a plant is shut down for layoff, employees still receive 95% of their pay. So even with the lights off and the plant empty, the facility is sapping huge funds from the bottom line. That is the reason GM is forced to keep plants open and sell cars with huge incentives, just to keep the plants running.
I think that some of the fault rests with the companies themselves as well. If they design shoddy product, sales go down. In this industry more than any other PRODUCT IS KING. You can't build second rate product and expect to gain market share. Every product needs to be a home run, and there needs to be a sense of urgency in that.
5/1/05, 06:22 PM
#5
Bullitt Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: September 28, 2004
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Badsnake,
Unions raised the standard of living for some -- short term. And lowered it for many others. (Got them unemployed by making companies less competitive, and forcing them out of business, slowing growth, or causing layoffs later). So I see the problem as bigger than you do.
Million dollar executives don't bother me a bit. Why? One CEO that makes decisions that turn a company around saved thousands of jobs, or brings in BILLIONS of dollars. So they're getting fractions of a percent bonus. (And most of that is often in stock options, not in actual salary, but motivating them by tying their success to the success of the company). On the other hand, one bad union contract can cost the companies thousands of jobs and BILLIONS of dollars. The Union is often getting more money than that executive is -- why shouldn't you care about that? Not to mention that employees can't get merit raises because of unions, they can't get some promotions because of unions, bad people can't be fired, companies can compete, thrive, etc., all PARTLY because of Unions. So if you care about the business, follow the money -- and a lot more of it gets traced to unions.
1) I agree in philosophy. In practice, it helped a lot of Americans out -- more than all of our foreign aid combined (and 1:1,000th the cost). That's not to say we should stop foreign aid -- but I'm pragmatic on domestic aid as well. Government shouldn't do that. darn, I'm glad they did.
2) People buy foreign because of perceived better value. Some is false. Some is real. Some is traced to unions. Example I use; Ford has to pay workers whether they work. So they buy Hertz to dump excess capacity (cars) to them. Hertz has to dump older cars, which kills residuals. Ford is seen as lower quality because the glut of cheap used Fords, and better residuals on foreign, proves that foreign is better. (not completely true -- unless you're trying to sell your used Ford).
3) Part time jobs are partly because of over regulation and extremely high wages in the U.S. -- so companies won't commit to hiring. If you close the loophole, it will harm a lot and help a few. Is that a win?
4) We are a free nation. Protectionism helps short term, hurts long term. You're saying we should be like the Europeans -- less free, more protectionistic, so we can have growth rates and new opportunities a fraction of what we do today, and be more like them?
5) BZZT. WRONG! 100% Healthcare costs are out of hand because of many things. Over regulation. Desperate need of Tort Reform (which Democrats have blocked for 30 years). Liability. Liability. Liability. The FDA. Federal Government. Social Programs costing hospitals millions, which they cost shift to the rest of us, which drives up our costs. People that aren't criminally prosecuted for not having healthcare insurance. Etc., etc....
6) Cost of fuel is less now (adjusted for inflation) that in the late 70's / early 80's. And it may be on a short time spike. (We'll see in a few months or a year).
7) SUV's and big pig cars are backlash against the watermellons (Green on the outside, Red on the inside). They made wasteful cars a status symbol by trying to cram econo-boxes down everyone's throats. Society will swing back on it's own -- if we don't try to micromanage it.
8) Maybe.
9) Silliness. Seriously. Oil companies always profit -- but they also reinvest that profit, which helps as well. They're scared and many are diversifying, or doing new exploration, etc. Just looking at one side, from an uninformed view, then oversimplifying or spinning for propaganda or partisanism sake is disgusting when it is MoveOn or Michael Moore. I would try to distance myself from the New Goebbles, not parrot him.
10) They do. GM has many good vehicles. Maybe not enough -- but I think HUGE amounts of their problems can be traced to over-capacity, unions, pensions, healthcare, regulations, liability, as well as their own bad choices. (But I agree there are plenty of the latter as well).
Unions raised the standard of living for some -- short term. And lowered it for many others. (Got them unemployed by making companies less competitive, and forcing them out of business, slowing growth, or causing layoffs later). So I see the problem as bigger than you do.
Million dollar executives don't bother me a bit. Why? One CEO that makes decisions that turn a company around saved thousands of jobs, or brings in BILLIONS of dollars. So they're getting fractions of a percent bonus. (And most of that is often in stock options, not in actual salary, but motivating them by tying their success to the success of the company). On the other hand, one bad union contract can cost the companies thousands of jobs and BILLIONS of dollars. The Union is often getting more money than that executive is -- why shouldn't you care about that? Not to mention that employees can't get merit raises because of unions, they can't get some promotions because of unions, bad people can't be fired, companies can compete, thrive, etc., all PARTLY because of Unions. So if you care about the business, follow the money -- and a lot more of it gets traced to unions.
1) I agree in philosophy. In practice, it helped a lot of Americans out -- more than all of our foreign aid combined (and 1:1,000th the cost). That's not to say we should stop foreign aid -- but I'm pragmatic on domestic aid as well. Government shouldn't do that. darn, I'm glad they did.
2) People buy foreign because of perceived better value. Some is false. Some is real. Some is traced to unions. Example I use; Ford has to pay workers whether they work. So they buy Hertz to dump excess capacity (cars) to them. Hertz has to dump older cars, which kills residuals. Ford is seen as lower quality because the glut of cheap used Fords, and better residuals on foreign, proves that foreign is better. (not completely true -- unless you're trying to sell your used Ford).
3) Part time jobs are partly because of over regulation and extremely high wages in the U.S. -- so companies won't commit to hiring. If you close the loophole, it will harm a lot and help a few. Is that a win?
4) We are a free nation. Protectionism helps short term, hurts long term. You're saying we should be like the Europeans -- less free, more protectionistic, so we can have growth rates and new opportunities a fraction of what we do today, and be more like them?
5) BZZT. WRONG! 100% Healthcare costs are out of hand because of many things. Over regulation. Desperate need of Tort Reform (which Democrats have blocked for 30 years). Liability. Liability. Liability. The FDA. Federal Government. Social Programs costing hospitals millions, which they cost shift to the rest of us, which drives up our costs. People that aren't criminally prosecuted for not having healthcare insurance. Etc., etc....
6) Cost of fuel is less now (adjusted for inflation) that in the late 70's / early 80's. And it may be on a short time spike. (We'll see in a few months or a year).
7) SUV's and big pig cars are backlash against the watermellons (Green on the outside, Red on the inside). They made wasteful cars a status symbol by trying to cram econo-boxes down everyone's throats. Society will swing back on it's own -- if we don't try to micromanage it.
8) Maybe.
9) Silliness. Seriously. Oil companies always profit -- but they also reinvest that profit, which helps as well. They're scared and many are diversifying, or doing new exploration, etc. Just looking at one side, from an uninformed view, then oversimplifying or spinning for propaganda or partisanism sake is disgusting when it is MoveOn or Michael Moore. I would try to distance myself from the New Goebbles, not parrot him.
10) They do. GM has many good vehicles. Maybe not enough -- but I think HUGE amounts of their problems can be traced to over-capacity, unions, pensions, healthcare, regulations, liability, as well as their own bad choices. (But I agree there are plenty of the latter as well).
5/1/05, 06:32 PM
#6
Bullitt Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: September 28, 2004
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Galaxie -- excellent points (that I agreed with completely).
One thing, you mentioned GM -- but Ford is saddled with those same issues as well. (So this is definitely relevant to a Ford forum).
One thing that frustrates me is the following. Workers should be allowed to join a Union. Workers should be allowed NOT to, and not be driven out if they disagree with the Union. Unions should work for the workers -- which means making deals in the workers long term interests (not just short term). I still get spitting mad at clauses where Unions will fight against legitimate firings for cause -- they look at losing one union dues, instead of all their other Union members that gain by losing dead wood. Or that unions will fight against allowing merit pay, promotions based on performance (instead of just time in job), and so on.
Unions becoming lobyists, where they set the agenda, force the members to pay, and screw the nations interests in the process, is something the American people should not allow. We should force all anti-trust laws be applied equally to big business (companies) and bigger business (labor monopolies/unions). Labor unions should NOT be allowed to be lobbyists if they require membership. (if dues/membership is optional at a plant, then I'm more OK with it). Unions should have to live under the same business transparency/accounting laws as other corporations. All IMHO....
One thing, you mentioned GM -- but Ford is saddled with those same issues as well. (So this is definitely relevant to a Ford forum).
One thing that frustrates me is the following. Workers should be allowed to join a Union. Workers should be allowed NOT to, and not be driven out if they disagree with the Union. Unions should work for the workers -- which means making deals in the workers long term interests (not just short term). I still get spitting mad at clauses where Unions will fight against legitimate firings for cause -- they look at losing one union dues, instead of all their other Union members that gain by losing dead wood. Or that unions will fight against allowing merit pay, promotions based on performance (instead of just time in job), and so on.
Unions becoming lobyists, where they set the agenda, force the members to pay, and screw the nations interests in the process, is something the American people should not allow. We should force all anti-trust laws be applied equally to big business (companies) and bigger business (labor monopolies/unions). Labor unions should NOT be allowed to be lobbyists if they require membership. (if dues/membership is optional at a plant, then I'm more OK with it). Unions should have to live under the same business transparency/accounting laws as other corporations. All IMHO....
5/1/05, 07:18 PM
#7
GTR Member
David, my take on unions, is that their time has come and gone. Like Steve said, they were relevant at one time, but not any longer, especially for the Big 3. They do nothing to reward the hard working employee that does a good job.
Health care is another issue. Yes its an issue nationally, but demanding the 'cadillac' of coverage and not contributing a dime towards it, is ridiculous. Times change, an the unions are going to push themselves out of existence by asking for too much.
Just my $.02
Health care is another issue. Yes its an issue nationally, but demanding the 'cadillac' of coverage and not contributing a dime towards it, is ridiculous. Times change, an the unions are going to push themselves out of existence by asking for too much.
Just my $.02
5/1/05, 07:56 PM
#8
I've never been in the UAW, but I was a member of the Teamsters was a couple of years while going to school. I would have preferred not to be a member because I knew my stay at the company was short term. There was no need for my participation in the Teamsters, even though I had to live through strike for a week. (Nice learning experience, by the way.)
I've done a little reading, but not enough, regarding UAW voting at some auto manufacturers in the south (Saturn, Toyota, Mercedes, etc.) and if I'm not mistaken hasn't the UAW been voted down in all cases?
There are been a few articles regarding Ford dumping Hertz. Not sure how the production of the Five Hundred, and it's twins will be affected in terms of production and being thrown at the fleets. At this point Ford is not looking to dump the Chicago twins to fleet services. I know the Fusion is to be produced in Mexico, and Atlanta may switch to Lincoln production (a FWD Five Hundred based Lincoln), but I'm not 100% sure.
I also think the Government's lack of strong tariffs on import vehicles for a number of years hurt the Big 3, and helped the imports gain a foothold for the manufacturing plants they have in the United States today.
Also, and this is specifc to Ford, Nasser's attempts to turn Ford into an equivalent of GE, while in theory wasn't that bad of an idea (but an Auto company should stay an auto company), hurt Ford to end (I'm not soley talking about their purchases of other manufacturers). If Ford had invested it's huge sums of money into exisitng and new product lines, and pension plans instead of buying up the PAG their issues (as far as existing product) might not have been bad. Instead they have taken their lumps for a number of years, and are only know integrating their product lines to reap the benefits. Well . . .hopefully reaping the benfits in the coming years.
I've done a little reading, but not enough, regarding UAW voting at some auto manufacturers in the south (Saturn, Toyota, Mercedes, etc.) and if I'm not mistaken hasn't the UAW been voted down in all cases?
There are been a few articles regarding Ford dumping Hertz. Not sure how the production of the Five Hundred, and it's twins will be affected in terms of production and being thrown at the fleets. At this point Ford is not looking to dump the Chicago twins to fleet services. I know the Fusion is to be produced in Mexico, and Atlanta may switch to Lincoln production (a FWD Five Hundred based Lincoln), but I'm not 100% sure.
I also think the Government's lack of strong tariffs on import vehicles for a number of years hurt the Big 3, and helped the imports gain a foothold for the manufacturing plants they have in the United States today.
Also, and this is specifc to Ford, Nasser's attempts to turn Ford into an equivalent of GE, while in theory wasn't that bad of an idea (but an Auto company should stay an auto company), hurt Ford to end (I'm not soley talking about their purchases of other manufacturers). If Ford had invested it's huge sums of money into exisitng and new product lines, and pension plans instead of buying up the PAG their issues (as far as existing product) might not have been bad. Instead they have taken their lumps for a number of years, and are only know integrating their product lines to reap the benefits. Well . . .hopefully reaping the benfits in the coming years.
5/1/05, 10:05 PM
#9
Cobra Member
Join Date: August 4, 2004
Posts: 1,095
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
David,
Each generation sees the world differently. My children except costs that I see as a give back or total waste of funds.
Cost cutting is lowering the standard of living in the US and the quality of products. Plus if you do not earn the money you cannot buy the product you build. So then some workers (and customers) steal and that must absorbed in the price. What is the point?
The good worker retains his earnings and benefits. There are many rules to fire the substandard worker by. If a company does not have them in place that is their own fault.
The CEOs that ruin the company and walk away with millions. Movies stars, Sports figures. Not worth it. Their all just like me, they put their pants on one leg at time. But, give the wal-mart worker a buck more an hour instead. No way the US economy will pumbment.
1.) To be sold to the Germans. Good move.
2.) The foreign vehicle dealerships are owned by mostly by americans. My one time dealing with Lexus they stated how better was their residual and then wanted two hundred more a month then Caddilac and another fifty over Lincoln to lease their ES300. Yea right! No wonder Toyota has their high profits.
3.) Can't live and buy a new car on low part time wages.
4.) Opportunities for third world nations. Does not feed Americans. They are lowering our standard to satisfy the world.
5.) Like the Wal-Mart family each all get Billion per year and the worker has no health care or a very high co-pay. Only in America.
6.) Everything is on cost cutting. you can't just jump gasoline 100% in three years and not hurt something else (like the Automotive.)
7.) People bought them for comfort and safety, gasoline was $1.00
Swings back at a huge cost to all.
9.) I see the world in the numbers for which man has based everything on. The Big Four Oil Companies had 23 Billion in profits this quarter. All at the Auto makers expense. Gasoline and oil does not need to be that high. All the Saudi Arabs are millionares. At who expense? What union are they in? A National one!
10,) Over-capacity the reason againist Chrsyler Loan. We all need money to live on and health care.
Why single out Unions as a major problem? The billionare rich are running the country and its their greed that is ruining everything. Where is the common man welcome in big goverment? Not, their all muti-millionares.
Each generation sees the world differently. My children except costs that I see as a give back or total waste of funds.
Cost cutting is lowering the standard of living in the US and the quality of products. Plus if you do not earn the money you cannot buy the product you build. So then some workers (and customers) steal and that must absorbed in the price. What is the point?
The good worker retains his earnings and benefits. There are many rules to fire the substandard worker by. If a company does not have them in place that is their own fault.
The CEOs that ruin the company and walk away with millions. Movies stars, Sports figures. Not worth it. Their all just like me, they put their pants on one leg at time. But, give the wal-mart worker a buck more an hour instead. No way the US economy will pumbment.
1.) To be sold to the Germans. Good move.
2.) The foreign vehicle dealerships are owned by mostly by americans. My one time dealing with Lexus they stated how better was their residual and then wanted two hundred more a month then Caddilac and another fifty over Lincoln to lease their ES300. Yea right! No wonder Toyota has their high profits.
3.) Can't live and buy a new car on low part time wages.
4.) Opportunities for third world nations. Does not feed Americans. They are lowering our standard to satisfy the world.
5.) Like the Wal-Mart family each all get Billion per year and the worker has no health care or a very high co-pay. Only in America.
6.) Everything is on cost cutting. you can't just jump gasoline 100% in three years and not hurt something else (like the Automotive.)
7.) People bought them for comfort and safety, gasoline was $1.00
Swings back at a huge cost to all.
9.) I see the world in the numbers for which man has based everything on. The Big Four Oil Companies had 23 Billion in profits this quarter. All at the Auto makers expense. Gasoline and oil does not need to be that high. All the Saudi Arabs are millionares. At who expense? What union are they in? A National one!
10,) Over-capacity the reason againist Chrsyler Loan. We all need money to live on and health care.
Why single out Unions as a major problem? The billionare rich are running the country and its their greed that is ruining everything. Where is the common man welcome in big goverment? Not, their all muti-millionares.
5/1/05, 10:47 PM
#10
TMS Post # 1,000,000
Serbian Steamer
Serbian Steamer
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: Wisconsin / Serbia
Posts: 12,637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sticking with my story and that is bad quality. Let's take an average guy who wants an average 4-door family sedan. Two examples I'm gonna use are Taurus and Camry. Camry's engine will last a lot longer and in case buyer wants to sell his car in couple of years he knows he will get a lot more for Camry than for Taurus.
I would never buy an domestic sedan again. I gave Intrepid and Camry the same chance. Intrepid failed, Camry didn't. And I know a lot of people who had both domestic and imports and imports proved to be better. When I go car shopping, I'm not even looking at a Neon, Focus, Cavalier or Sunfire. And a lot of people are doing the same thing. That's why Big 3 are down, because people want's quality engines, not ton of interior and exterior options.
I would never buy an domestic sedan again. I gave Intrepid and Camry the same chance. Intrepid failed, Camry didn't. And I know a lot of people who had both domestic and imports and imports proved to be better. When I go car shopping, I'm not even looking at a Neon, Focus, Cavalier or Sunfire. And a lot of people are doing the same thing. That's why Big 3 are down, because people want's quality engines, not ton of interior and exterior options.
5/2/05, 03:18 AM
#11
Bullitt Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: September 28, 2004
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You do not have to steal to get by. For every person at just about any salary I know, there's someone earning less, and happier at it and living better. There's also someone earning more, and unhappy about it. The difference is perspective. Some people look at what they have, and know how to live below their means and save. (Smart). Others are at always looking at what others have, living beyond their means (living off of credit) and envious of "the rich", etc., and bankrupting themselves, and making excuses why they have to do immoral things.
Unions cater to the latter and emotions of hate, resentment, class envy. If they helped their people reach peace, it would weaken their power -- so they undermine their people and the country, because it brings them more power and wealth.
So people that "need to steal" reflects on their ethics, not usually the situation. We're happy not because "i'm rich". We're happy because we learned to live below our means, and are not envious of neighbors newer cars or things, etc., because we don't have their credit card debt, and so on. In the process we were able to save and invest, and could live for years off that savings if we had to. Now that's a certain peace based on an anti-union mentality. My Parents, on the other hand, earn far more than we do, and have far more things, and are far less happy about it. They are in far more debt. It is about attitude. (Not focusing on envy of others, focusing on being happy with what we have, etc.). You should try it. Everyone should.
If you had, then you wouldn't care that others earn more, or be caught up in "grass is always greener" syndrome.
Unions cater to the latter and emotions of hate, resentment, class envy. If they helped their people reach peace, it would weaken their power -- so they undermine their people and the country, because it brings them more power and wealth.
So people that "need to steal" reflects on their ethics, not usually the situation. We're happy not because "i'm rich". We're happy because we learned to live below our means, and are not envious of neighbors newer cars or things, etc., because we don't have their credit card debt, and so on. In the process we were able to save and invest, and could live for years off that savings if we had to. Now that's a certain peace based on an anti-union mentality. My Parents, on the other hand, earn far more than we do, and have far more things, and are far less happy about it. They are in far more debt. It is about attitude. (Not focusing on envy of others, focusing on being happy with what we have, etc.). You should try it. Everyone should.
If you had, then you wouldn't care that others earn more, or be caught up in "grass is always greener" syndrome.
5/2/05, 03:26 AM
#12
Bullitt Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: September 28, 2004
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are ways to fire bad workers -- but it is VERY VERY hard. It can take many months or even years. Unions also prevent rewarding good workers, going above and beyond the call of duty, and so on. And if you've ever been in a Union you know that they attack workers that see their job as helping the company.
One example: I was on a construction site. A guy goes into a porta-potty... (the "boss" grumbled something, and waited for the guy to come out), when the guy finished he comes out to an angry union man that is yelling at him, "you never poop on your time / lunch break -- you always do it on the man's time -- are you trying to make us all look bad. If you want to stay in the union, you'll never do that again".
I could give you dozens of examples like that of the "union" attitude that I've seen first hand. So don't give me this, "Unions are pure goodness" stuff.
The problem isn't what others make -- it is your hate or envy of them. Some CEO's or movie stars, athletes, etc., earn companies hundreds of millions of dollars, or billions. Let's do business/math.
If you're personally responsible for making a billion dollars for a company, and you get to keep .1%, that's $1m/year. For that, the top 5% of the earners pay over 50% the total income tax in this nation. (They also pay dozens of special taxes that none of us have to pay, like estate taxes).
On the other hand, if you're a floor person, and good margin for a company is 30%/person. That means for each $100K you make the company, you keep $70K of it. (Even if your take-home is only $35-40K, there's another $30-35K that the company has to pay for your healthcare, corporate taxes, unemployment, pensions, paperwork, etc.). So that rich CEO or moviestar/athlete, really deserves to earn $700M and a major tax break to be fair/equal (on the same scale) as what a floor person gets.
But you don't want to look at fair -- you want to look at things from a bigoted view. In your mind that "rich" guy doesn't deserve to be rewarded for the risks he takes, or the investment he made -- you want socialism, where you all earn the same, for different amounts of energy, and him having a much better work-ethic/philosophy. The difference is the "rich" guy is doing business -- chose careers better, probably did a lot more school, is in a higher stress situation, and doing a lot more good for the nation. He probably worked 70-80 hour weeks (without pay beyond base) for years or decades to get where he was, and a floor worker would suit or strike over that. Most of his money comes not in salary, but in equity (so is based on performance). Unions fought against performance pay. While I certain respect floor people, the reason they are easily displaced is often because their jobs are not rare, don't require as much skill or training, and there's a lot more competition, because a lot more people are qualified to do it. Supply and demand says that because a professional athlete is so rare, and their careers so short, they earn a lot more -- and factory workers/teachers/walmart workers/construction/etc., earn based on the rarity of their jobs as well. And they fought against companies being able to pay the good ones more than the bad ones.
One example: I was on a construction site. A guy goes into a porta-potty... (the "boss" grumbled something, and waited for the guy to come out), when the guy finished he comes out to an angry union man that is yelling at him, "you never poop on your time / lunch break -- you always do it on the man's time -- are you trying to make us all look bad. If you want to stay in the union, you'll never do that again".
I could give you dozens of examples like that of the "union" attitude that I've seen first hand. So don't give me this, "Unions are pure goodness" stuff.
The problem isn't what others make -- it is your hate or envy of them. Some CEO's or movie stars, athletes, etc., earn companies hundreds of millions of dollars, or billions. Let's do business/math.
If you're personally responsible for making a billion dollars for a company, and you get to keep .1%, that's $1m/year. For that, the top 5% of the earners pay over 50% the total income tax in this nation. (They also pay dozens of special taxes that none of us have to pay, like estate taxes).
On the other hand, if you're a floor person, and good margin for a company is 30%/person. That means for each $100K you make the company, you keep $70K of it. (Even if your take-home is only $35-40K, there's another $30-35K that the company has to pay for your healthcare, corporate taxes, unemployment, pensions, paperwork, etc.). So that rich CEO or moviestar/athlete, really deserves to earn $700M and a major tax break to be fair/equal (on the same scale) as what a floor person gets.
But you don't want to look at fair -- you want to look at things from a bigoted view. In your mind that "rich" guy doesn't deserve to be rewarded for the risks he takes, or the investment he made -- you want socialism, where you all earn the same, for different amounts of energy, and him having a much better work-ethic/philosophy. The difference is the "rich" guy is doing business -- chose careers better, probably did a lot more school, is in a higher stress situation, and doing a lot more good for the nation. He probably worked 70-80 hour weeks (without pay beyond base) for years or decades to get where he was, and a floor worker would suit or strike over that. Most of his money comes not in salary, but in equity (so is based on performance). Unions fought against performance pay. While I certain respect floor people, the reason they are easily displaced is often because their jobs are not rare, don't require as much skill or training, and there's a lot more competition, because a lot more people are qualified to do it. Supply and demand says that because a professional athlete is so rare, and their careers so short, they earn a lot more -- and factory workers/teachers/walmart workers/construction/etc., earn based on the rarity of their jobs as well. And they fought against companies being able to pay the good ones more than the bad ones.
5/2/05, 03:43 AM
#13
Bullitt Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: September 28, 2004
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1) Chrysler was bought by the Germans, and is running much better than it was. The results are more Americans employed, and those workers have a brighter/longer future now, than they would have. (You nationalism is blinding you to the outcome).
2) Yup. Americans own foreign dealerships. Thus for each Japanese/Euro car sold, we may lose a few factory floor jobs (that payed say $20/hour). But then again, created at least a few new jobs, like salesman and managers at the dealership, repair people, distributors, shippers (teamsters), and so on. And in fact, since many of those foreign cars are made here, we might actually be ahead in either body count, and/or salary.
The problem isn't what country owns what company, it is that you think you know more than anyone else how the world/businesses should be divided up -- and are unhappy about the way things are working out. And think that it would be better if it ran by your regulations/rules. But it doesn't. Deal with it.
It's like some Americans were mad when the Japanese were buying up American companies or property. A lot of that was just that they had to reinvest the trade deficit -- so they did so, by paying hugely inflated prices for things (and driving up our companies value). And they got some lousy returns on them. So we do things like sell them Rockefeller center for 4 times what it was worth, then invest that money in other things in America, and you're yelling, "those evil Japanese". And I'm thinking, "woo hoo, we won on that exchange". Sure in 20 years it is worth more than it was, but a fraction more than the money would have been worth if they hadn't paid inflated prices -- and is worth a lot less than what the others made off the money they got from selling Rockefeller center and companies/properties they invested in, etc. I call that a win for us -- but you're too focused on the other guy to see it.
3) So what? The rest of the world's poor can't afford shoes/food. Our "poor" have VCR's and cable TV, but you're whining because they can only buy good used cars instead of nice new ones?
Should you live off one part time job?!?! No way. Those jobs are transitory. But if you're at all competent, they will be. McDonnalds starts at minimum wage (a little over). But if you show a modicum of competence, everyone I know that worked there because shift manager, and could have opportunities to be trained by the company to be store manager, and so on. There are many that climbed up and made millions or at least good lifestyles working for McD's. There are others that felt that was beneath them, or resented the man, and are still on the noble government dole, because their own resentments got in their way. We choose our own paths in life.
I don't want to see someone struggling on a few part-time jobs. But most people that have them, have them for reasons. This country is the land of opportunities. I'm from So Cal, and used to work with the vietnamese community -- here's millions of people who came here with nothing, and because they weren't polluted with our unions socialists thinking (and that someone else owes them), they worked hard, and are examples of the American dream. I had a GF whose family came here with NOTHING, and they had to do seamstress work and yard-work, 30 years later, her dad is a Doctor, her mom doesn't need to work any more (does charity), her brother and sister became doctors, and she became a dentist. Because they didn't focus on hating others, but on improving themselves.
2) Yup. Americans own foreign dealerships. Thus for each Japanese/Euro car sold, we may lose a few factory floor jobs (that payed say $20/hour). But then again, created at least a few new jobs, like salesman and managers at the dealership, repair people, distributors, shippers (teamsters), and so on. And in fact, since many of those foreign cars are made here, we might actually be ahead in either body count, and/or salary.
The problem isn't what country owns what company, it is that you think you know more than anyone else how the world/businesses should be divided up -- and are unhappy about the way things are working out. And think that it would be better if it ran by your regulations/rules. But it doesn't. Deal with it.
It's like some Americans were mad when the Japanese were buying up American companies or property. A lot of that was just that they had to reinvest the trade deficit -- so they did so, by paying hugely inflated prices for things (and driving up our companies value). And they got some lousy returns on them. So we do things like sell them Rockefeller center for 4 times what it was worth, then invest that money in other things in America, and you're yelling, "those evil Japanese". And I'm thinking, "woo hoo, we won on that exchange". Sure in 20 years it is worth more than it was, but a fraction more than the money would have been worth if they hadn't paid inflated prices -- and is worth a lot less than what the others made off the money they got from selling Rockefeller center and companies/properties they invested in, etc. I call that a win for us -- but you're too focused on the other guy to see it.
3) So what? The rest of the world's poor can't afford shoes/food. Our "poor" have VCR's and cable TV, but you're whining because they can only buy good used cars instead of nice new ones?
Should you live off one part time job?!?! No way. Those jobs are transitory. But if you're at all competent, they will be. McDonnalds starts at minimum wage (a little over). But if you show a modicum of competence, everyone I know that worked there because shift manager, and could have opportunities to be trained by the company to be store manager, and so on. There are many that climbed up and made millions or at least good lifestyles working for McD's. There are others that felt that was beneath them, or resented the man, and are still on the noble government dole, because their own resentments got in their way. We choose our own paths in life.
I don't want to see someone struggling on a few part-time jobs. But most people that have them, have them for reasons. This country is the land of opportunities. I'm from So Cal, and used to work with the vietnamese community -- here's millions of people who came here with nothing, and because they weren't polluted with our unions socialists thinking (and that someone else owes them), they worked hard, and are examples of the American dream. I had a GF whose family came here with NOTHING, and they had to do seamstress work and yard-work, 30 years later, her dad is a Doctor, her mom doesn't need to work any more (does charity), her brother and sister became doctors, and she became a dentist. Because they didn't focus on hating others, but on improving themselves.
5/2/05, 04:11 AM
#14
Bullitt Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: September 28, 2004
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4) Yup. Globalization is allowing the rest of the world's industrial revolution to help them, just like it helped us. It stinks in transition, but made things better long term. We're outsourcing non-skilled (low-skilled) jobs to places where labor is cheaper. That helps them, and REDUCES our cost of goods. (Helps our economy as well). And for each job lost, we often create more jobs, and higher paying jobs.
Have you seen Michael More-on's Roger and Me? Go back and talk to those poor displaced workers in Flint. A ton of them moved somewhere else, and are doing much better. Many got better jobs, and earn more now. And American has created many more jobs, and has better cars, and so on. Change stinks -- but is sometimes for the better. You look at only the losses, in the short term -- and business stinks. You look at the gains as well, long term, and big picture, and things aren't as bleak.
5) Wlamart also created many jobs for many people, it also radically cut the cost of goods, and helped hundreds of millions make their dollar go further. You only look at one side of the equation, then get mad because it doesn't balance.
6) I don't get the point. Cost cutting is increasing efficiency. Gas is a commodity based on the resource, the refinement/distribution, and the speculation on the future. It was actually far cheaper than it was in the 70's/80's (probably too much), and America has some of the cheapest gas around (compare to Europe). So we had some increased risks (due to war), some refinery/distribution issues (thanks to watermellon greens preventing any new refineries going into the U.S. since the 70's, and them successfully stopping almost all other alternate fuels as well), and now we're paying for that. It will balance out in a few years, but you want to use short term fluctuations as an excuse for why socialism would be better. (or why some should grab control and make us into a goose stepping utopia like so many other socialist countries were?).
7) Cars used to be big -- then gas prices went up. Greens pushed for small econo cars, and got regulation,etc....cars went smaller for a while (the 80s), then society backlashed. We'd pushed too far, too fast, so big cars and SUV's became a status symbol -- and we lashed back in the 90s. So what? Do you really think you're better at micromanaging the system than the people themselves?
We actually have MORE choices today. You can buy 55mpg Prius if you want. But most people don't want. You want what? To be able to force them to buy what you think they should buy? I drive a car that gets about 24 mpg, my wife about 28 mpg. I live with that. My next car may be a gas hogging sports car (see Cobra) -- and I'll pay the price. I don't see how a 14 mpg small sports car is somehow better than a 28 mpg SUV (like the Escape Hybrid) -- but I do think people should be free to choose. (It is funny -- in Europe there's this cultural backlash against American-like SUV's. So they drive big Mercedes sedans that get worse milage).
8) Things swing around. Markets adjust. Right now the middle class is getting squeezed. But a lot of it is of their own making, and not taking advantage of things when they were better. But point fingers at "the man" and not at individuals....
9) Don't get your point. Gas prices went up. How much did auto-makers re-invest in R&D, etc? (You look at profits, but not what it did). Saudi's are making billions off of oil revenue -- and they have another generation or two to build a country and whole alternate economy, or the place is going to crumble after that. Why are you worrying about them, and not worrying about yourself? The reason oil is king right now is because it is cheaper than the alternate fuels. When that changes, the economy will change as well. Hopefully, it will be slow and not quick. (So we adapt). But right now, we try to make alternatives like cleaner coal, nuclear, LNG, etc., and the greens throw fits, and the morons listen to them, so the crisis hasn't gotten big enough to warrant change.
10) Huh? Over-capacity was a global problem -- not a local one (with just chrysler). You were against the loan that saved tens or hundreds of thousands of jobs? When the euro's and everyone else would have done the same?
That money wasn't lost. Chrysler paid it back directly, with interest. Then those people they employed paid it in taxes (local, state and fed). So if you had taken that money and put it into heathcare or as tax cuts, it would have done far less than it did where it was. So I don't understand the point.
And if you want to look at the problems in healthcare, look at the Democrats and our system. I already said that -- liability, tort reform, FDA, etc., are huge contributors to our problems. Our healthcare is over regulated and micromanaged, and it causes lots of problems. Some people's solution is more regulation instead of making it run more efficient like more businesses.....
11) Why single out Unions as a major problem? Because they are one. A few millionaires do nothing bad for the economy compared to a union.
Some people are clueless. They rail against "big business". Um, what is a Union again? In my book they are a huge business -- but one that isn't based on business principles, like efficiency, return on investment, helping people, offering choice and so on. But one that is based on force. It is a labor mafia offering "protection" -- but if you look closely, the people sometimes need more protection from the mafia itself than the supposed outside threats.
Have you seen Michael More-on's Roger and Me? Go back and talk to those poor displaced workers in Flint. A ton of them moved somewhere else, and are doing much better. Many got better jobs, and earn more now. And American has created many more jobs, and has better cars, and so on. Change stinks -- but is sometimes for the better. You look at only the losses, in the short term -- and business stinks. You look at the gains as well, long term, and big picture, and things aren't as bleak.
5) Wlamart also created many jobs for many people, it also radically cut the cost of goods, and helped hundreds of millions make their dollar go further. You only look at one side of the equation, then get mad because it doesn't balance.
6) I don't get the point. Cost cutting is increasing efficiency. Gas is a commodity based on the resource, the refinement/distribution, and the speculation on the future. It was actually far cheaper than it was in the 70's/80's (probably too much), and America has some of the cheapest gas around (compare to Europe). So we had some increased risks (due to war), some refinery/distribution issues (thanks to watermellon greens preventing any new refineries going into the U.S. since the 70's, and them successfully stopping almost all other alternate fuels as well), and now we're paying for that. It will balance out in a few years, but you want to use short term fluctuations as an excuse for why socialism would be better. (or why some should grab control and make us into a goose stepping utopia like so many other socialist countries were?).
7) Cars used to be big -- then gas prices went up. Greens pushed for small econo cars, and got regulation,etc....cars went smaller for a while (the 80s), then society backlashed. We'd pushed too far, too fast, so big cars and SUV's became a status symbol -- and we lashed back in the 90s. So what? Do you really think you're better at micromanaging the system than the people themselves?
We actually have MORE choices today. You can buy 55mpg Prius if you want. But most people don't want. You want what? To be able to force them to buy what you think they should buy? I drive a car that gets about 24 mpg, my wife about 28 mpg. I live with that. My next car may be a gas hogging sports car (see Cobra) -- and I'll pay the price. I don't see how a 14 mpg small sports car is somehow better than a 28 mpg SUV (like the Escape Hybrid) -- but I do think people should be free to choose. (It is funny -- in Europe there's this cultural backlash against American-like SUV's. So they drive big Mercedes sedans that get worse milage).
8) Things swing around. Markets adjust. Right now the middle class is getting squeezed. But a lot of it is of their own making, and not taking advantage of things when they were better. But point fingers at "the man" and not at individuals....
9) Don't get your point. Gas prices went up. How much did auto-makers re-invest in R&D, etc? (You look at profits, but not what it did). Saudi's are making billions off of oil revenue -- and they have another generation or two to build a country and whole alternate economy, or the place is going to crumble after that. Why are you worrying about them, and not worrying about yourself? The reason oil is king right now is because it is cheaper than the alternate fuels. When that changes, the economy will change as well. Hopefully, it will be slow and not quick. (So we adapt). But right now, we try to make alternatives like cleaner coal, nuclear, LNG, etc., and the greens throw fits, and the morons listen to them, so the crisis hasn't gotten big enough to warrant change.
10) Huh? Over-capacity was a global problem -- not a local one (with just chrysler). You were against the loan that saved tens or hundreds of thousands of jobs? When the euro's and everyone else would have done the same?
That money wasn't lost. Chrysler paid it back directly, with interest. Then those people they employed paid it in taxes (local, state and fed). So if you had taken that money and put it into heathcare or as tax cuts, it would have done far less than it did where it was. So I don't understand the point.
And if you want to look at the problems in healthcare, look at the Democrats and our system. I already said that -- liability, tort reform, FDA, etc., are huge contributors to our problems. Our healthcare is over regulated and micromanaged, and it causes lots of problems. Some people's solution is more regulation instead of making it run more efficient like more businesses.....
11) Why single out Unions as a major problem? Because they are one. A few millionaires do nothing bad for the economy compared to a union.
Some people are clueless. They rail against "big business". Um, what is a Union again? In my book they are a huge business -- but one that isn't based on business principles, like efficiency, return on investment, helping people, offering choice and so on. But one that is based on force. It is a labor mafia offering "protection" -- but if you look closely, the people sometimes need more protection from the mafia itself than the supposed outside threats.
5/2/05, 04:19 AM
#15
Bullitt Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: September 28, 2004
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So let's say America protects it's markets more. What happens? Our cost of goods go up. This helps a few American workers a little and delays the inevitable. It hurts the majority of Americans a lot more. It makes our economy weaker. It also means the rest of the world can buy the same good we can, for less. (it is exactly like what we do with our drugs and the FDA).
Eventually, Americans are going to realize things like we could buy better foreign cars for cheaper, and open the flood gates. That will cause a huge wave of layoffs in auto-factories/companies. You can't stop the falling or rising tide -- you can delay it at best. So you helped in the short term, and created a long term imbalance that will be much worse when the correction comes.
American companies are infecting the world right now. But it isn't all bad. As we outsource jobs and prop-up economies (or help create them), we are increasing the market for our goods and services, as well as their own. If we are competent enough to compete (and we should be), that will pay off. If it doesn't, it kind of says something about what has happened to the American spirit of competition, fairness, and spirit. Too many were infected with the socialist dogmas of the Unions and the "you owe me attitude", thus the empire deserves to crumble under the weight of its own greed/stupidity/arrogance. I hope not, and believe more will wake up to the opportunities, and get back to taking advantage of world class education and opportunities we have. But the Unions/Democrats/etc., are working against that as hard as they can.
Eventually, Americans are going to realize things like we could buy better foreign cars for cheaper, and open the flood gates. That will cause a huge wave of layoffs in auto-factories/companies. You can't stop the falling or rising tide -- you can delay it at best. So you helped in the short term, and created a long term imbalance that will be much worse when the correction comes.
American companies are infecting the world right now. But it isn't all bad. As we outsource jobs and prop-up economies (or help create them), we are increasing the market for our goods and services, as well as their own. If we are competent enough to compete (and we should be), that will pay off. If it doesn't, it kind of says something about what has happened to the American spirit of competition, fairness, and spirit. Too many were infected with the socialist dogmas of the Unions and the "you owe me attitude", thus the empire deserves to crumble under the weight of its own greed/stupidity/arrogance. I hope not, and believe more will wake up to the opportunities, and get back to taking advantage of world class education and opportunities we have. But the Unions/Democrats/etc., are working against that as hard as they can.
5/2/05, 04:20 AM
#16
Bullitt Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: September 28, 2004
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P.S. Redstar, I agree.... make a better product, market it well, and they will come. If you can't, either figure out why not, and fix it, or get into a better business. Life is cruel. Lead, follow, or get out of the way.
5/2/05, 10:30 AM
#17
GT Member
Join Date: April 25, 2004
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Red Star+May 1, 2005, 10:50 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Red Star @ May 1, 2005, 10:50 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>I'm sticking with my story and that is bad quality. Let's take an average guy who wants an average 4-door family sedan. Two examples I'm gonna use are Taurus and Camry. Camry's engine will last a lot longer
[/b]
[/b]
How do you know that the engine will last a lot longer in a Taurus than a Camry? Do you have any factual proof? I'm not trying to start a flame war, I just don't accept anything that anybody tells me without facts to back up the statement.
Originally posted by Red Star@May 1, 2005, 10:50 PM
and in case buyer wants to sell his car in couple of years he knows he will get a lot more for Camry than for Taurus.
I would never buy an domestic sedan again. I gave Intrepid and Camry the same chance. Intrepid failed, Camry didn't.
and in case buyer wants to sell his car in couple of years he knows he will get a lot more for Camry than for Taurus.
I would never buy an domestic sedan again. I gave Intrepid and Camry the same chance. Intrepid failed, Camry didn't.
<!--QuoteBegin-Red Star@May 1, 2005, 10:50 PM
And I know a lot of people who had both domestic and imports and imports proved to be better. When I go car shopping, I'm not even looking at a Neon, Focus, Cavalier or Sunfire. And a lot of people are doing the same thing. That's why Big 3 are down, because people want's quality engines, not ton of interior and exterior options.
[/quote]
There's a lot of people like me who have had both domestics and imports and can say just the opposite. Another factor that has had a lot of effect on the the domestics is the "cool factor". Driving a domestic is just not "cool" anymore. "Everybody" wants to be like their import driving friends and not hear from them, "Eww, you drive a Ford? They are pieces of junk, unlike my super cool quality-built <insert Japanese or European Make and model here>! "
5/2/05, 11:20 AM
#18
GT Member
Join Date: April 25, 2004
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by dke@May 2, 2005, 3:46 AM
1) Chrysler was bought by the Germans, and is running much better than it was. The results are more Americans employed, and those workers have a brighter/longer future now, than they would have. (You nationalism is blinding you to the outcome).
1) Chrysler was bought by the Germans, and is running much better than it was. The results are more Americans employed, and those workers have a brighter/longer future now, than they would have. (You nationalism is blinding you to the outcome).
Read the book Taken For a Ride. Basically what happened was that Bob Eaton was overwhelmed by Scherempp and sold the company out to make a fast buck for himself. Daimler wanted the Jeep brand the most, since it is recognized world wide. They also wanted the design studio that had created the Viper, the "Cab Forward" design motif, the minivan, etc.
At the time of the merger, Daimler and Chrysler were about the same size and had the same amount of assets. Chrysler was doing quite well and didn't need Daimler to save them. It was touted as "merger of equals" and that Chrysler management would stay after the merger, to calm Chrylser stockholders and create good PR. But a few months after, Chrysler was pretty much gutted and German management came in. If Kerkorian had succeeded in getting controlling interest in Chrysler, they would be an American company and still doing just as well.
People also have this image of Mercedes building "quality" cars, but heck, their cars have always had electrical system reliability problems. Mercedes quality ranking on some of its cars is on a par with Mitsubishi... In J.D. Power and Associates' 2004 Vehicle Dependability Study, which surveyed consumers after three years of ownership, Mercedes tied with Mitsubishi in 28th place
And why is it wrong for Americans to be nationalistic? Germans and Japanese are extremely nationalistic, but its okay for them? Why can't we Americans have some pride in our country?
5/2/05, 12:02 PM
#19
Bullitt Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: September 28, 2004
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nationalism makes sense to a point, and is silly to a point. Imagine if I said only Detroitians (Michigonians) could make cars. You'd think that was silly. Especially if you realized that Ohio used to be the motor capital. So why by nation is it better?
As for Chrysler and Mercedes. I understand your points. (Chrysler was having problems, but got better. However, since the merger their products have gotten better still -- in some ways you could argue that Chrysler is saving Mercedes). But what difference does any of it make? Ford builds cars in Europe/Sweden/etc.... Mercedes/BMW builds cars over here. They all get parts from everywhere. It is about how good a product they are making, how many people they are employing, and other objective metrics, rather than the nationality of the people making them.
As for Chrysler and Mercedes. I understand your points. (Chrysler was having problems, but got better. However, since the merger their products have gotten better still -- in some ways you could argue that Chrysler is saving Mercedes). But what difference does any of it make? Ford builds cars in Europe/Sweden/etc.... Mercedes/BMW builds cars over here. They all get parts from everywhere. It is about how good a product they are making, how many people they are employing, and other objective metrics, rather than the nationality of the people making them.
5/2/05, 12:04 PM
#20
TMS Post # 1,000,000
Serbian Steamer
Serbian Steamer
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: Wisconsin / Serbia
Posts: 12,637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Vermillion98+May 2, 2005, 10:33 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Vermillion98 @ May 2, 2005, 10:33 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>
How do you know that the engine will last a lot longer in a Taurus than a Camry? Do you have any factual proof? I'm not trying to start a flame war, I just don't accept anything that anybody tells me without facts to back up the statement.
How did the Intrepid "fail"? Did the engine seize? Is it not drivable at all? If it's just suffering from small problems like electrical glitches, I wouldn't call that a "failure".
<!--QuoteBegin-Red Star@May 1, 2005, 10:50 PM
And I know a lot of people who had both domestic and imports and imports proved to be better. When I go car shopping, I'm not even looking at a Neon, Focus, Cavalier or Sunfire. And a lot of people are doing the same thing. That's why Big 3 are down, because people want's quality engines, not ton of interior and exterior options.
Originally posted by Red Star@May 1, 2005, 10:50 PM
I'm sticking with my story and that is bad quality. Let's take an average guy who wants an average 4-door family sedan. Two examples I'm gonna use are Taurus and Camry. Camry's engine will last a lot longer
I'm sticking with my story and that is bad quality. Let's take an average guy who wants an average 4-door family sedan. Two examples I'm gonna use are Taurus and Camry. Camry's engine will last a lot longer
Originally posted by Red Star@May 1, 2005, 10:50 PM
and in case buyer wants to sell his car in couple of years he knows he will get a lot more for Camry than for Taurus.
I would never buy an domestic sedan again. I gave Intrepid and Camry the same chance. Intrepid failed, Camry didn't.
and in case buyer wants to sell his car in couple of years he knows he will get a lot more for Camry than for Taurus.
I would never buy an domestic sedan again. I gave Intrepid and Camry the same chance. Intrepid failed, Camry didn't.
<!--QuoteBegin-Red Star@May 1, 2005, 10:50 PM
And I know a lot of people who had both domestic and imports and imports proved to be better. When I go car shopping, I'm not even looking at a Neon, Focus, Cavalier or Sunfire. And a lot of people are doing the same thing. That's why Big 3 are down, because people want's quality engines, not ton of interior and exterior options.
[/b][/quote]
Yeah, I did had a 1991 Taurus for some time, with almost same mileage as my 1994 Camry (Taurus 130,000 miles sold last summer for $50 at junk yard; Camry 120,000 miles still driving). I don't even know where to start with problems with Taurus. For one, there was rust everywhere. I could only open 1 door, nothing "power" in the car was working, I had to add oil every month or so (it was burning oil), I lost muffler somewhere on the freeway (it just fell off), there was no lights inside the car so during the night I had to have flashlight so I would know how fast I was going and many more. It would be perfect car for Pimp My Ride.
Intrepid had many smaller problems and few big onec (like water pump that died on 50,000 miles on the car). Intrepid almost got me killed last winter. I was driving 55 mph on the freeway during the snowstorm and windshield vipers stopped working. I was just lucky there was no one in front or behind me.
I disagree that driving domestic car is not cool factor. How do people react when you tell them that you're driving a Mustang or Camaro or Firebird? How do people react when you tell them you're driving Civic?
Hey, if people had better experience with domestic cars, Taurus, Five Hundred, Impala, Grand Prix and Magnum would be best sellers, not Camry, Accord, Corrolla and Civic.