Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > A Reminder to All of Us........

A Reminder to All of Us........
Thread Tools
mac1896
Forum Regular
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2006, 07:58 PM
 
I've lurked here for quite some time now, and I feel that we ALL (both Conservatives and Liberals) need to be reminded about some common sense things:

Bill of No Rights

Gee, I hope they're friendly..........
     
Rumor
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the verge of insanity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2006, 08:02 PM
 
ARTICLE V
You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.
Sad but true.
I like my water with hops, malt, hops, yeast, and hops.
     
marden
Baninated
Join Date: Sep 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2006, 08:16 PM
 
I once heard a wealthy financier describe Ford Motor Company as an insurance company which also built cars.

The unions had so leveraged their power to shut down operations that the company's management had no alternative but to agree to the Union's demands which gave Ford employees one of the absolute best benefit packages any working person anywhere could possibly have gotten.

And more power to them because assembly line work is mind numbing and often dangerous work!

But what it did was to grow into such a huge burdensome thing that the benefits threaten the viability of the company itself.

It needs to restructure it's obligations and return the emphasis back to what made the company great in the first place. Building great cars that people want and that they can afford.

America is not in the welfare business. America did not become great because it was the leading welfare state on earth.
     
Ron Goodman
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Menands, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2006, 08:23 PM
 
Actually, one of the problems Ford and the other US automakers are having is needing to compete with companies in countries that have some type of national health care, so their competitors don't have to foot the entire bill for their employees. Somebody has to pay for health care--it's just a matter of choosing the best way to do it. My solution would be to enroll each baby born in Medicare at birth, and let the insurance companies find something else to do.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2006, 08:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Ron Goodman View Post
Actually, one of the problems Ford and the other US automakers are having is needing to compete with companies in countries that have some type of national health care, so their competitors don't have to foot the entire bill for their employees. Somebody has to pay for health care--it's just a matter of choosing the best way to do it. My solution would be to enroll each baby born in Medicare at birth, and let the insurance companies find something else to do.
That's an interesting angle. We should enact universal health care because our lack of it is hurting our ability to compete in the global economy.

A libertarian argument for social medicine?
     
mac1896  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2006, 08:41 PM
 
Indeed, Auto manufacturers pass off their employees (read as "Union") medical insurance expenses to the consumer.

If you disassemble a car you have probably $500 dollars of viable scrap metal.

Do you really think that a car can actually cost 12,000 to 40,00 or even 50,000 dollars?

This is the cost of Union wages, and the medical insurance for those union employees.

Not forgetting the profit margin either.

Sadly, all these things combined are taking their toll on the auto manufacturing industry:

Ford Problems

Here too

( Last edited by mac1896; Nov 17, 2006 at 08:53 PM. Reason: Added link)
Gee, I hope they're friendly..........
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2006, 09:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by marden View Post
I once heard a wealthy financier describe Ford Motor Company as an insurance company which also built cars.

The unions had so leveraged their power to shut down operations that the company's management had no alternative but to agree to the Union's demands which gave Ford employees one of the absolute best benefit packages any working person anywhere could possibly have gotten.

And more power to them because assembly line work is mind numbing and often dangerous work!

But what it did was to grow into such a huge burdensome thing that the benefits threaten the viability of the company itself.

It needs to restructure it's obligations and return the emphasis back to what made the company great in the first place. Building great cars that people want and that they can afford.

America is not in the welfare business. America did not become great because it was the leading welfare state on earth.
Yes, sir, that's the free market in action. You see, the system that is crippling Ford and GM was THEIR CHOICE. They actively moved to block collective benefits because they would have allowed workers to easily move between companies. So, the big 3 moved to prevent any sort of collectivization and ended up with this system.

Just desserts for greedy capitalists, but I suppose you'd ban the unions entirely and prevent them from having any sort of benefits...ever read The Jungle?
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2006, 10:02 PM
 
I'd be in favor of banning unions entirely. Since when does legalized extortion have a place in a free nation?
     
Rumor
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the verge of insanity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2006, 10:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy View Post
I'd be in favor of banning unions entirely. Since when does legalized extortion have a place in a free nation?
When they call themselves a Union.
I like my water with hops, malt, hops, yeast, and hops.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2006, 10:29 PM
 
You do not have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. We hate oppressive governments and won't lift a finger to stop you from going to fight if you'd like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat.
If you Americans can get on that one, the rest of the world would be very happy.
     
Atomic Rooster
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2006, 11:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy View Post
I'd be in favor of banning unions entirely. Since when does legalized extortion have a place in a free nation?
Since the government started it.
     
mac1896  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2006, 01:48 AM
 
ARTICLE II

You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.
In one thread, I've read that Christianity should be banned.

In another, that someone was offended by Jesus Christ, and by His birth.

Well, too bad for you (my opinion).

Satan also believes that Christianity should be banned, and does everything in his power to discredit it, including the use of so-called "Christians", and he is offended by Christ and His birth too (Biblical facts) !

Members of the religion of Secular Humanism (and yes, it is a religion) cannot say that any/all religions should be banned, because then Secular Humanism also gets banned.

FREEDOM of religion in this country is one of the many FREEDOMS that we have that many countries do not have.

So, go ahead, mock Christ and his people openly. You have that Right.

We Christians will continue to speak, and pray in the name of Jesus Christ. That is our right.

Are you now offended ?

Read Article II quoted above again.

Gee, I hope they're friendly..........
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2006, 10:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy View Post
I'd be in favor of banning unions entirely. Since when does legalized extortion have a place in a free nation?
Because in a free nation the people have the right to assemble and work together towards common goals. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to have corporations...

The easiest way to take the teeth out of a union is to refuse to hire union labor.
     
Nicko
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cairo
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2006, 10:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy View Post
I'd be in favor of banning unions entirely. Since when does legalized extortion have a place in a free nation?
     
Tuoder
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Here
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2006, 11:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy View Post
I'd be in favor of banning unions entirely. Since when does legalized extortion have a place in a free nation?
Originally Posted by Rumor View Post
When they call themselves a Union.
Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster View Post
Since the government started it.
Read a single chapter out of any American history book covering the time between the Industrial Revolution and the Second World War that has been sanitized for use in schools, then talk about extortion. My personal favorite is Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States".

Originally Posted by Zinn, quoting an american immigrant worker in 1906, describing conditions where she worked.
...dagerously broken stairways...windows few and so dirty....The wooden floors were swept once a year....Hardly any light but the gas jets burning by day and by night...the filthy malodorous lavatory in the dark hall, unused but for those who seemed to have needed it two hours ago. No fresh drinking water....mice and roaches....
During the winter months...how we suffered from the cold. In the summer we suffered from the heat....
In these disease-breeding holes we, the youngsters together with the men and women toiled from seventy and eighty hours a week! Saturdays and Sudays included!....A sign would go up on Saturday afternoon: "If you don't come in on Sunday, you need not come in on Monday." ...Children's dreams of a day off shattered. We wept, for after all, we were only children.
That is what happened without organized labor. That is what happened with all of the elections and democracy in the world.

Dollars>Democracy, and you ain't got enough.

People>Dollars, but not not taken one at a time, apparently.


That took forever to type.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2006, 11:17 AM
 
The foundation of minimum wage and union law is racist in nature.

The Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 (still on the books), a super minimum wage law, was enacted to protect unionized white construction workers from competition with black workers. The support ran along the lines of Alabama Rep. Clayton Allgood's testimony: "That contractor has cheap colored labor that he transports, and he puts them in cabins, and it is labor of that sort that is in competition with white labor throughout the country." (Congressional Record, 1931, page 6513).
     
Tuoder
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Here
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2006, 11:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
The foundation of minimum wage and union law is racist in nature.

The Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 (still on the books), a super minimum wage law, was enacted to protect unionized white construction workers from competition with black workers. The support ran along the lines of Alabama Rep. Clayton Allgood's testimony: "That contractor has cheap colored labor that he transports, and he puts them in cabins, and it is labor of that sort that is in competition with white labor throughout the country." (Congressional Record, 1931, page 6513).
This is a terrible feature of the labor movement of the time. The movement, like many left-wing movements continuing into today was heavily splintered. One of the lines it splintered on was race.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2006, 05:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
The foundation of minimum wage and union law is racist in nature.
I'm not "pro-union," but jeez, that comment was beyond retarded.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2006, 06:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
I'm not "pro-union," but jeez, that comment was beyond retarded.
Did you read the history? Go back and check again. Minimum wage and union laws exist because of their roots in Jim Crow.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2006, 06:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
Did you read the history? Go back and check again. Minimum wage and union laws exist because of their roots in Jim Crow.
That's a fascinating bit of make-believe history, given that such things began in Europe long before America decided to adopt them.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2006, 06:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
That's a fascinating bit of make-believe history, given that such things began in Europe long before America decided to adopt them.
American wage laws existed in Europe?
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2006, 07:11 PM
 
Don't let facts get in your way lpk.
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2006, 07:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
American wage laws existed in Europe?
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2006, 07:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
American wage laws existed in Europe?
I never claimed American wage laws existed in Europe. Since you and Railroader can't read:
Originally Posted by vmarks
The foundation of minimum wage and union law is racist in nature.
The actual source of minimum wage laws and union law in America was pre-existing laws (and movements) in Europe. Price regulations and trade guilds are age-old concepts.

The notion that minimum wage and union laws are based on racism is beyond idiotic.
     
Tuoder
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Here
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2006, 07:23 PM
 
I don't think that the idea of minimum wage is fundamentally racist, but many of the labor movements at the time were. I just wanted to make that clear, about my own belief, and what I have read.

I get a little irritated when people don't seem to realize what the labor movement has done for American society, good (mostly).
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2006, 07:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
I never claimed American wage laws existed in Europe. Since you and Railroader can't read:

The actual source of minimum wage laws and union law in America was pre-existing laws (and movements) in Europe. Price regulations and trade guilds are age-old concepts.

The notion that minimum wage and union laws are based on racism is beyond idiotic.
Since you can't read, vmarks actually cited a specific American legislation concerning minimum wage. Again, don't let facts get in your way of spouting your ignorance.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2006, 08:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
Since you can't read, vmarks actually cited a specific American legislation concerning minimum wage. Again, don't let facts get in your way of spouting your ignorance.
Tiresome nonsense.
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2006, 09:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Tiresome nonsense.
What a witty come back!
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2006, 09:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
What a witty come back!
I don't need a comeback. I've already refuted vmarks' absurd position. Arguing with you about it is a waste of time.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2006, 10:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
I never claimed American wage laws existed in Europe. Since you and Railroader can't read:

The actual source of minimum wage laws and union law in America was pre-existing laws (and movements) in Europe. Price regulations and trade guilds are age-old concepts.

The notion that minimum wage and union laws are based on racism is beyond idiotic.
We're not talking about the inspiration for those laws which, as you said, did originate in Europe. What we're talking about is the motivation behind implementing these laws in America and the agenda behind designing the actual implementation.

Yes, the idea of minimum wages is not inherently racist. Neither is the idea of dressing up in bed-sheets, burning crosses, and lynching people. But when those things are used toward racist ends that specific implementation is racist.
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2006, 01:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
I don't need a comeback. I've already refuted vmarks' absurd position. Arguing with you about it is a waste of time.
You. Are. Delusional.
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2006, 01:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
We're not talking about the inspiration for those laws which, as you said, did originate in Europe. What we're talking about is the motivation behind implementing these laws in America and the agenda behind designing the actual implementation.

Yes, the idea of minimum wages is not inherently racist. Neither is the idea of dressing up in bed-sheets, burning crosses, and lynching people. But when those things are used toward racist ends that specific implementation is racist.
no no no no... he's already refuted vmark's post. You're just wasting his time.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2006, 01:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
no no no no... he's already refuted vmark's post. You're just wasting his time.
But I like wasting his time!
     
Nicko
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cairo
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2006, 03:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
I never claimed American wage laws existed in Europe. Since you and Railroader can't read:

The actual source of minimum wage laws and union law in America was pre-existing laws (and movements) in Europe. Price regulations and trade guilds are age-old concepts.

The notion that minimum wage and union laws are based on racism is beyond idiotic.
Wiki is our friend.

--

The first national minimum wage law was enacted by the government of New Zealand in 1896, followed by Australia in 1894 and Great Britain in 1902. In the United States, statutory minimum wages were first introduced nationally in 1938[2], and in the United Kingdom in 1999[3]. In the European Union, 18 out of 25 member states currently have national minimum wages.[4] Many countries, such as Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Switzerland, Germany, Austria, Italy, and Cyprus have no minimum wage laws, but rely on employer groups and trade unions to set minimum earnings through collective bargaining and through the so called "invisible hand" of the market which adjusts the wage in function of demand and competition.

---
Minimum wage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United States labor law: Information from Answers.com



30 seconds of searching reveals vmarks doesn't know what he's talking about.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2006, 09:28 AM
 
I love it when people attempt to refute the US Congressional record.

Rep. John Cochran of Missouri said he had "received numerous complaints in recent months about Southern contractors employing low-paid colored mechanics getting work and bringing the employees from the South."

Alabama Rep. Clayton Allgood complained: "Reference has been made to a contractor from Alabama who went to New York with bootleg labor. This is a fact. That contractor has cheap colored labor that he transports, and he puts them in cabins, and it is labor of that sort that is in competition with white labor throughout the country."

Rep. William Upshaw complained of the "superabundance or large aggregation of negro labor," which is a real problem "you are confronted with in any community."

New York's Sen. Robert Bacon replied, "I just mentioned the fact because that was the fact in this particular case, but the same would be true if you should bring in a lot of Mexican laborers or if you brought in any non-union laborers from any other state."

Other congressmen expressed their support for the Davis-Bacon Act in ways that were more temperate in expressing their racially discriminatory agenda. They railed against "transient labor", "cheap labor" and "cheap imported labor." AFL president William Green made it clear what his union's interests were, "(C)olored labor is being sought to demoralize wage rates."
     
Dakar²
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Annals of MacNN History
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2006, 09:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
The foundation of minimum wage and union law is racist in nature.

The Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 (still on the books), a super minimum wage law, was enacted to protect unionized white construction workers from competition with black workers. The support ran along the lines of Alabama Rep. Clayton Allgood's testimony: "That contractor has cheap colored labor that he transports, and he puts them in cabins, and it is labor of that sort that is in competition with white labor throughout the country." (Congressional Record, 1931, page 6513).
A modern day equivalent would be if we could do something to protect ourselves from cheap labor sent overseas. I don't think that'll be happening, though.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2006, 09:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by Dakar² View Post
A modern day equivalent would be if we could do something to protect ourselves from cheap labor sent overseas. I don't think that'll be happening, though.
Read the post above yours. Robert Bacon (one of the sponsors the law was named for) brings this up. How prescient, in the 1930s.
     
Dakar²
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Annals of MacNN History
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2006, 09:38 AM
 
I did. I was thinking how interesting it would be to remove white and substitute American, colored/black with foreign.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2006, 09:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by mac1896 View Post
Indeed, Auto manufacturers pass off their employees (read as "Union") medical insurance expenses to the consumer.
...
This is the cost of Union wages, and the medical insurance for those union employees.
Not forgetting the profit margin either.
Sadly, all these things combined are taking their toll on the auto manufacturing industry
So how come Japanese and German car manufacturers are doing great? Both have union wages and mandatory medical insurance systems …
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Macrobat
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Raleigh, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2006, 11:53 AM
 
Work ethic?

See the ugly, flip side of Unionized labor here in the United States is the ridiculous wages and rights they have managed to extort from companies. For instance, the guy who sweeps the floor at a Ford plant has a mandatory, union-contracted salary in the $35 an hour range, and cannot be fired.

You simply CANNOT compare Japanese and German unionized auto plants with their American counterparts, as neither the Germans nor the Japanese have such a large population of people who seem to think they have some sort of entitlement, rather than simply being happy they are employed and accepting pay commensurate with their skill level and their actual job performance.
"That Others May Live"
On the ISG: "The nation's capital hasn't seen such concentrated wisdom in one place since Paris Hilton dined alone at the Hooters on Connecticut Avenue." - John Podhoretz
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2006, 12:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Macrobat View Post
You simply CANNOT compare Japanese and German unionized auto plants with their American counterparts, as neither the Germans nor the Japanese have such a large population of people who seem to think they have some sort of entitlement, rather than simply being happy they are employed and accepting pay commensurate with their skill level and their actual job performance.
Do you actually know how powerful unions in Germany are? Also, what do you mean by `large population', the number of workers in a plant or the total number of unionized workers in the automotive industry?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Macrobat
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Raleigh, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2006, 01:23 PM
 
Large population meaning the total number of people in the United States who seem to think they are owed something for nothing.

BTW, the fact that most German cars cost nearly twice as much as their American counterparts, plus the stringent internal import tariffs and quotas in Germany explain alot, as well.
"That Others May Live"
On the ISG: "The nation's capital hasn't seen such concentrated wisdom in one place since Paris Hilton dined alone at the Hooters on Connecticut Avenue." - John Podhoretz
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2006, 01:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Macrobat View Post
BTW, the fact that most German cars cost nearly twice as much as their American counterparts, plus the stringent internal import tariffs and quotas in Germany explain alot, as well.
Not really. German cars are seen as luxury items in the States, so many smaller engines aren't even available in the US.

Not so for Japanese cars. Japanese wages are even higher than German wages and yet, their cars are competitively priced. So the problems the US car manufacturers face are not connected to wages, but to lack of quality and a lack of competitive cars. For too long, Ford and GM have relied on gas guzzlers which were cheap to produce and easy to sell.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2006, 02:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Nicko View Post
30 seconds of searching reveals vmarks doesn't know what he's talking about.
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2006, 02:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Nicko View Post
30 seconds of searching reveals vmarks doesn't know what he's talking about.
Dude, before you start too look like the fool lpk made himself look like, you better reread what vmarks posted.
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2006, 02:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Delusional.
     
mac1896  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2006, 10:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by mac1896
Indeed, Auto manufacturers pass off their employees (read as "Union") medical insurance expenses to the consumer.
...
This is the cost of Union wages, and the medical insurance for those union employees.
Not forgetting the profit margin either.
Sadly, all these things combined are taking their toll on the auto manufacturing industry
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
So how come Japanese and German car manufacturers are doing great? Both have union wages and mandatory medical insurance systems …
The point that I was making in the above statement is that the Union wages and the healthcare cost along with a high profit margin being passed off to the consumer is what is now bringing the Big 3 (Ford specifically in the 2 links) to a crossroads.

My posted links should have been included in your reply/query.

From the "Here too" link:

DETROIT (MarketWatch) -- In its latest move to cut costs in its slumping North American operation, Ford Motor Co. (F) on Wednesday told U.S. employees it plans to further reduce salaried health-care benefits and eliminate merit-based pay increases for white-collar workers in 2007.

The changes, outlined by a letter to employees from Ford's Americas President Mark Fields that was obtained by Dow Jones Newswires, comes as the auto maker engages in a wider effort to restructure its North American operations via the Way Forward program. The company is cutting 44,000 jobs in the region and shuttering manufacturing plants in Canada and the U.S. over the rest of the decade.

"Overall we are working hard to ensure we continue to provide competitive total compensation to our work force, while attacking our uncompetitive cost structure, including employee health care costs," Fields said in the letter. "As you look at all of our Way Forward actions - from our accelerated product plans to our attack on costs - you can see that we are meeting our challenges head on."

44,000 more workers to lose their jobs over the next 4 years ("the rest of the decade"), so that Ford can maintain (barely) their profit margin.

What IS NOT STATED is that the CEO and the BigWigs at Ford are NOT losing their annual bonuses.

Laying off your workforce when you are losing money the way that they are, reminds me of the Three Stooges episode where one of them shoots a hole in the bottom of the boat, and the cure for that big leak was to shoot ANOTHER hole in the boat "to let the water back out".

Ridiculous, right ?

What I'm saying about this situation is that the Executive Bonuses (Upwards of ten-fifteen million dollars per BigWig) could be pumped back into the business, and retain the employees, and the productivity they bring (?), instead of losing employees, and productivity.

As an aside, The Big 3 aren't doing all that well BECAUSE Toyota, Hyundai, Volkswagen, Mitsubishi, et al ARE doing well.

Gee, I hope they're friendly..........
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2006, 10:21 PM
 
Let's clear up some misconceptions...

The Japanese automakers have agreed to a voluntary import quota with the US. That is what is preventing the US from imposing tarriffs on Japanese-made automobiles.

Something like 2/3rds of Japanese-branded automobiles sold in the USA, were built in the USA. Basically, the only Japanese-built automobiles sold in the USA by Toyota, Nissan, and Honda are their 'upmarket' marques - Lexus, Infinity, & Acura.

American labor builds the most popular Japanese models - and that labor is almost *never* union labor.

The 'big 3' American automakers use union labor exclusively for their assembly plants and are required by union contract to source the mechanical components from union-represented suppliers.

That, in a nutshell, is why American automakers are struggling.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:24 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,