| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
Whooopeee!!!!!
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:55:56 -0500, said: So what is your version of THE TRUTH, Not at All? What should be done about the Big Three? Throw taxpayer money at them so the UAW bosses can keep their jobs? Throwing money at them in thier present form will only prolong the agony. It won't help them one bit in climbing out of the hole they are in. I'm not at all sure that they CAN be saved. At least not all three of them. That's what Chapter 11 is for. If they can't be saved, they end up in Chapter 7, their assets are sold, and the creditors take the proceeds. And, 5+ million are out of work, out of money, no pension, no healthcare. Great. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
|
#2
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
|
Whooopeee!!!!!
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:54:13 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: I have a very hard time believing that any company would pay someone not to work. It certainly can't be significant, given the other huge benefit costs, which is the major contributor to the cost of their autos/trucks. You need to do some homework. Google up "jobs bank." What's the percentage? I'd be interested to know. As far as giving up part of their wages, it seems to me that if one has a choice between a job that pays a bit less vs. not having a job, it's a no-brainer. I think perhaps you should 'splain that to the UAW leadership. You need to try your own research suggestions. The additional cost is about $1600 per car. That's a lot. But, they sell crappy cars. The UAW is willing to put "all of the benefits" on the table, according to their pres. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
|
#3
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
|
Whooopeee!!!!!
wrote in message
... On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 09:47:30 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Dave" wrote in message . .. On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:54:13 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: I have a very hard time believing that any company would pay someone not to work. It certainly can't be significant, given the other huge benefit costs, which is the major contributor to the cost of their autos/trucks. You need to do some homework. Google up "jobs bank." What's the percentage? I'd be interested to know. As far as giving up part of their wages, it seems to me that if one has a choice between a job that pays a bit less vs. not having a job, it's a no-brainer. I think perhaps you should 'splain that to the UAW leadership. You need to try your own research suggestions. The additional cost is about $1600 per car. That's a lot. But, they sell crappy cars. The UAW is willing to put "all of the benefits" on the table, according to their pres. Dave is also overlooking (deliberately?) the fact that over the past 30 or more years, the UAW has often agreed to giveBACKS when things were tough. Unions in other industries have done the same. Mentioning that would be a problem for Dave. Actually, in the last few days.... -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
|
#4
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
|
Whooopeee!!!!!
wrote in message
... On 18 Nov 2008 12:37:02 -0600, Dave wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 09:47:30 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: The UAW is willing to put "all of the benefits" on the table, according to their pres. I'll be you believed "I did not have sex with that woman" too. I can easily believe you didn't have sex with any woman, Dave. Dave wins. He alluded to Clinton (pick the gender) as the resolution to the argument in his favor. I didn't even get a chance to mention KAR! LOL Sigh... -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
|
#6
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
|
Whooopeee!!!!!
On 18 Nov 2008 17:01:01 -0600, Dave wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:11:07 -0500, said: It had ZERO to do with whether the labor was union or non-union, or how much money they were paid. $1,000 an hour for everyone, right? Won't make any difference. The only people making $1000 an hour were in management. Once again you are avoiding the truth. The workers were not making $1000 an hour. If they had, it would have made a difference, but they DIDN'T. YOU have already pegged the difference in wages between Toyota and UAW workers at $30 an hour. Just another dead red herring to throw on the pile. Not a red herring at all. I was simply demonstrating how your claim that the amount paid labor has zero to do with a company's ability to compete is ludicrous. Except we are talking about a specific company, and you went off the deep end with a nonsensical Hail Mary about paying the assembly line workers $1000 an hour. Red Herring. A big stinking Red Herring being ridden hard and put away wet by a straw man. |
|
#7
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
|
Whooopeee!!!!!
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:12:45 -0500, said: Total, unmitigated baloney. If costs are the problem, why are Chevys so much cheaper to buy than Toyotas? Are they selling them for less than they cost to make? I suspect so in many cases. Thanks to the enviros, they are required to sell a bunch of cars the people don't want to buy in order to be able to sell enough of the larger cars that people do want. To get people to buy they have to drop the price on the ones no one wants to buy in order to get them sold. Huh?? Forced to sell cars that don't sell? Nonsense. They may be dumb but they're not stupid. LOL -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
|
#8
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
|
Whooopeee!!!!!
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:39:47 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: I suspect so in many cases. Thanks to the enviros, they are required to sell a bunch of cars the people don't want to buy in order to be able to sell enough of the larger cars that people do want. To get people to buy they have to drop the price on the ones no one wants to buy in order to get them sold. Huh?? Forced to sell cars that don't sell? Nonsense. They may be dumb but they're not stupid. The problem is not the big three's stupidity (well, it is in part, but that's another story). The problem is the guvmint's stupidity. All those Congress critters you elected. ??? Totally strange response. Toyota/Honda and others sell very enviro friendly cars, lots and lots of them, for more money. GM totally screwed up... for decades! I'd call that pretty stupid. How is the gov't suddenly preventing GM from selling cars?????? -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
|
#9
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
|
Whooopeee!!!!!
On 17 Nov 2008 15:08:02 -0600, Dave wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:12:45 -0500, said: Total, unmitigated baloney. If costs are the problem, why are Chevys so much cheaper to buy than Toyotas? Are they selling them for less than they cost to make? I suspect so in many cases. Thanks to the enviros, they are required to sell a bunch of cars the people don't want to buy in order to be able to sell enough of the larger cars that people do want. To get people to buy they have to drop the price on the ones no one wants to buy in order to get them sold. More baloney. Toyota is obviously making cars that people want, and they have to meet all the same standards as Chevy and everybody else. Toyota is selling more cars, despite charging substantially more for similarly sized and equipped models. Please explain how that is possible. They may be paying their labor less money, but they sure aren't competing on price, so labor costs are obviously not a factor. |
|
#10
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
|
Whooopeee!!!!!
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:50:56 -0500, wrote:
On 17 Nov 2008 15:08:02 -0600, Dave wrote: On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:12:45 -0500, said: Total, unmitigated baloney. If costs are the problem, why are Chevys so much cheaper to buy than Toyotas? Are they selling them for less than they cost to make? I suspect so in many cases. Thanks to the enviros, they are required to sell a bunch of cars the people don't want to buy in order to be able to sell enough of the larger cars that people do want. To get people to buy they have to drop the price on the ones no one wants to buy in order to get them sold. More baloney. Toyota is obviously making cars that people want, and they have to meet all the same standards as Chevy and everybody else. Toyota is selling more cars, despite charging substantially more for similarly sized and equipped models. Please explain how that is possible. They may be paying their labor less money, but they sure aren't competing on price, so labor costs are obviously not a factor. Psychological factors, especially "brand loyalty, play a large role in auto sales. For YTD sales of light vehicles through October, see below. GM by itself outsells Toyota when trucks are included. How many Silverado owners would maintain brand loyalty and switch to Impalas/Malibus/Cobalts because of high gas prices is anybody's guess, but Impala sales aren't too far behind Camry, and one could argue GM is hardly trying. I understand Impala sales were actually up 9% last month. High gas prices hit GM particularly hard, knocking their light truck sales down sharply. GM's main problem has been not concentrating on keeping brand loyalty in the auto sector by emphasizing quality and customer service. And longevity of models. Think about it. They have nothing with the continuous improving history of the Camry/Corolla/Accord/Civic. Instead of improving their competing models, they go to a new model every 10-12 years or so. Their management is very short-sighted. But labor/legacy costs must also be a big factor in their profitability. http://wardsauto.com/keydata/USSalesSummary0810.xls --Vic |
Hybrid Mode
