Charles Momsen wrote:
"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Dave" wrote in message
...
troll sh*t removed

And now Harry and Nancy want to use it to bail out the UAW.

Do you believe that we should allow the Big Three to fail? I'm kinda on
the fence about this... on the one hand, I think we should, because they
got themselves into this mess. On the other hand, this would displace
millions of people.... not exactly the best thing to do in the current
economy.



Going into bankruptcy and receivership is not necessarily failure.


Yeah right. Would you buy a vehicle from a company that had filed for
Chapter 11? If so I think you'd be in the minority.


Cheers
Martin

"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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:24:38 -0600, Vic Smith
said:

But labor/legacy costs must also be a big factor in their
profitability.

Of course. And with their labor/legacy cost disadvantage they have to sell
more of the heavier vehicles carrying a higher margin in order to make a
profit. But the guvmint won't let them do that unless they also sell a
bunch
of econo boxes, and if they were to price those econo boxes to take
account
of their higher costs, nobody would buy them.

No doubt their basic strategy is flawed, but it's flawed in substantial
part
because current management's hands are tied by all the past gimmes given
to
their unions. Wages for people not to work! Sound a bit like income tax
cuts
for people who don't pay income taxes?


HUH?? Toyota sells high end hybrids with a nice margin. What's preventing GM
from selling decent cars??

Gimmes to unions?? These were NEGOTIATED contracts, which the unions are
willing to talk about going forward.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 20:22:38 -0500, said:

Labor is not even
remotely at the core of GM's problems.

Perhaps you could take you suggestions for how to make money when you're
paying your workers $30 an hour more than the competition to management's
attention. I'm sure they'd be all ears.


Sell better cars.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"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

Dave wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:30:39 -0500, said:

I'm just fatigued from all your evasive running
around the truth,

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?

Dave, you do realize that unions *negotiate* with companies? Both sides
*agree* to a contract and sign it. If the company negotiates a
contract that kills the company who's fault is that?

Cheers
Martin

wrote:
On 18 Nov 2008 13:54:02 -0600, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:42:49 -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.


Thirty bucks an hour! Less, much less. Toyota and Honda pay quite
well. (shhh, don't tell Dave)

Cheers
Martin

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 09:44:47 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

Gimmes to unions?? These were NEGOTIATED contracts, which the unions are
willing to talk about going forward.

You just keep telling yourself that, Jon.

Unions exempt from anti-trust laws.

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.

On 18 Nov 2008 17:27:02 -0600, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 16:23:50 -0500, Marty 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?

Dave, you do realize that unions *negotiate* with companies? Both sides
*agree* to a contract and sign it. If the company negotiates a
contract that kills the company who's fault is that?

Certainly not the taxpayers' fault, is it? Should the taxpayers expect to
absorb the cost of the foolishness of the auto company management and the
UAW workers who followed their short-sighted leaders? I don't think so.

I think you should come up with some scratch and by yourself a new
Chevy to help make it work the way it was supposed to work.

Buying that cheap used Buick was pretty darned unpatriotic of you. No
wonder they are struggling!