Dave wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 19:33:19 -0500, Marty said:

"Dave, you clearly feel that it would be better for us all if we still
had 12 year olds working six and half days a week, eighty hours for
barely enough compensation to pay for their own food.... "

It is a statement of what I believe to be your sentiments, not a
reflection of current employment practices of Toyota.

In other words, it was intended as a gratuitous insult only remotely related
to the topic under discussion, which was whether the taxpayers should bail
out the auto makers and their UAW workers rather than let the auto makers
file Chapter 11. Got it.


Again, you have a penchant for reading things between the lines that
aren't there. But I will take the liberty of doing the same and assume
from your response that you have no problem with the factual gist of my
statement.

Cheers
Martin

Dave wrote:


In that case, let me set you straight. I do not believe it would be a good
idea if we still had 12 year olds working six and half days a week, eighty
hours. Even if they were generously paid for their work.

Nor do I beat my wife.


Good, on both counts.

For the record, for the second time, I don't think your government, nor
ours should be bailing these companies out, either through low interest
loans or grants. I remember GM getting just such a bail out 20 or so
years ago; it did no good, plants were still closed people lost their
jobs and now they're in even worse shape. None of the Detroit three
have done much to keep up with the times.

At a recent international auto show the Europeans and Japanese rolled
out a bunch of small fuel efficient cars and trucks, (Volkswagen won
some kind of award for a 4 cylinder diesel Jetta); what did Detroit show?


BIG fuel guzzling expensive cars and SUVs, let 'em die I say, but don't
blame labour.

Cheers
Martin

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 20:16:36 -0500, Marty wrote this
crap:

BIG fuel guzzling expensive cars and SUVs, let 'em die I say, but don't
blame labour.

Detroit sells what people buy. SUVs are very popular.




I'm Horvath and I approve of this post.

"Dave" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 20:16:36 -0500, Marty said:

BIG fuel guzzling expensive cars and SUVs, let 'em die I say, but don't
blame labour.

Perhaps we can agree that management was in substantial part culpable for
caving in to labor demands which, in the long run, they would be unable to
meet?

It isn't as if unfunded liabilities was a new concept. In fact
conceptually
the so-called "jobs bank" was very much like the unfunded pensions before
the Studebaker failure. And it wasn't any news that the health benefits
they
were promising exceeded those borne by competitors.


Holy crap! It's a consensus! LOL

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

Dave wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 20:16:36 -0500, Marty said:

BIG fuel guzzling expensive cars and SUVs, let 'em die I say, but don't
blame labour.

Perhaps we can agree that management was in substantial part culpable for
caving in to labor demands which, in the long run, they would be unable to
meet?

It isn't as if unfunded liabilities was a new concept. In fact conceptually
the so-called "jobs bank" was very much like the unfunded pensions before
the Studebaker failure. And it wasn't any news that the health benefits they
were promising exceeded those borne by competitors.

Perhaps,


The only part I'd take much exception is the health care issue. Toyota
and Honda have been able to provide a very competitive health care
package for their employees, (isn't that pretty much a legal
requirement?); however they have taken perhaps more creative and
aggressive control of that care to allow them to provide it at about 1/3
the cost that the big three incur . Again, this is something management
has screwed up in Detroit. Further, it doesn't explain why they have
the same problems in Canada, the health care issue is *exactly* the same
for every employer, yet we see the same problems.

Would you agree that the design visionaries in Detroit haven't been to
good at keeping up with consumer desires?

Cheers
Martin

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 21:33:38 -0500, Marty said:

Toyota
and Honda have been able to provide a very competitive health care
package for their employees, (isn't that pretty much a legal
requirement?)

Nope. An employer can provide no health benefits at all if he so chooses.
The system of linking health benefits to employment is an outgrowth of
wage
an price controls of WWII. Most do offer them to be competitive in
hiring.


"Most" - yes... down from 69% to 60%.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...UG8OENLE61.DTL

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

Dave wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 21:33:38 -0500, Marty said:

Toyota
and Honda have been able to provide a very competitive health care
package for their employees, (isn't that pretty much a legal
requirement?)

Nope. An employer can provide no health benefits at all if he so chooses.
The system of linking health benefits to employment is an outgrowth of wage
an price controls of WWII. Most do offer them to be competitive in hiring.


Ah, so Toyota has no health care plan for its' workers?

Cheers
Martin

Dave wrote:
On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 23:58:25 -0500, Marty said:

Nope. An employer can provide no health benefits at all if he so chooses.
The system of linking health benefits to employment is an outgrowth of wage
an price controls of WWII. Most do offer them to be competitive in hiring.

Ah, so Toyota has no health care plan for its' workers?

What is your basis for that conclusion?


The four letter word "Nope" that opens your previous post.

Cheers
Martin

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 07:55:15 -0500, Martin Baxter said:

Nope. An employer can provide no health benefits at all if he so
chooses.
The system of linking health benefits to employment is an outgrowth of
wage
an price controls of WWII. Most do offer them to be competitive in
hiring.

Ah, so Toyota has no health care plan for its' workers?

What is your basis for that conclusion?


The four letter word "Nope" that opens your previous post.

Most interesting and quite revealing. It suggests you believe businesses
answer only to government requirements--that market forces such as the
need
to compete with other potential employers in setting wages and benefits,
and
the need to compete with other sellers in product pricing, has no
influence
in those businesses' decisions. That assumption may be true in a command
economy. Maybe that's why command economies fail.


It's one of the answers. Certainly, the "free market" (which isn't free of
course) has a role also. However, left to only the free market, healthcare
costs would go up. This has already happened, so it's not really in dispute.
Private companies have little incentive to lower costs. They're in it for
the shareholders.


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

It's one of the answers. Certainly, the "free market" (which isn't free of
course) has a role also. However, left to only the free market, healthcare
costs would go up. This has already happened, so it's not really in
dispute.

Note the faulty liberal logic, a deceptive trick:

If A then B {A = healthcare left to free market, B = prices will go up}

We have B, so then A is true ===FALLACY

If Gaynz let syphillis go to his brain, he will become crazy. Gaynz is
crazy, so he has syphillis. No dispute!




Private companies have little incentive to lower costs. They're in it for
the shareholders.


Look at the cost of computers. The computer industry is a virtually
unregulated free market and over the years the costs have soared.

Healthcare costs have gone up by extraordinary measure! 50 years ago an MRI
costs $0.00. Today it costs about $1500. 1550/0 = infinite! There's the
free market at work!



Private companies have little incentive to lower costs. They're in it for
the shareholders.


Yet the Fed acts to head off deflation - falling prices!

Why can't these evil private companies take it upon themselves to shore up
prices to keep their greedy shareholders fat and happy?