"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 15:19:52 +0000, NOYB wrote:


One of the major reasons GM's cars aren't selling, is gas mileage.
Perhaps, the lower CAFE standards for small trucks and SUVs, was a
little short sighted.

I have an Infiniti G35 that gets worse mileage than any GM car that I've
ever owned. If you look at GM's midsize and full-size cars, their fuel
economy is as good as or better than the imports. Same goes for their
trucks.

Not my point, I'm not talking individual models. I'm talking fleet. GM's
production line is heavily weighted to SUVs and light trucks, gas
guzzlers. It's the 1970s all over again, and GM didn't learn it's lesson.
Americans may like large cars, but with the uncertainties of gas prices,
they prefer fuel efficient cars. Don't believe me? Check out Hummer
sales.

GM's problems are many. It's not just gas prices, and it's certainly not
just labor costs.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...4747-2,00.html


Fuel economy isn't the reason. High labor costs is the reason.

Legacy costs, perhaps, not labor costs. Toyota's American operations have
similar labor costs.

Pension and health care costs are part of total "labor costs".

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 00:29:24 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 15:19:52 +0000, NOYB wrote:


One of the major reasons GM's cars aren't selling, is gas mileage.
Perhaps, the lower CAFE standards for small trucks and SUVs, was a
little short sighted.

I have an Infiniti G35 that gets worse mileage than any GM car that I've
ever owned. If you look at GM's midsize and full-size cars, their fuel
economy is as good as or better than the imports. Same goes for their
trucks.

Not my point, I'm not talking individual models. I'm talking fleet. GM's
production line is heavily weighted to SUVs and light trucks, gas
guzzlers. It's the 1970s all over again, and GM didn't learn it's lesson.
Americans may like large cars, but with the uncertainties of gas prices,
they prefer fuel efficient cars. Don't believe me? Check out Hummer
sales.

GM's problems are many. It's not just gas prices, and it's certainly not
just labor costs.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...4747-2,00.html


Fuel economy isn't the reason. High labor costs is the reason.

Legacy costs, perhaps, not labor costs. Toyota's American operations have
similar labor costs.

Pension and health care costs are part of total "labor costs".



From a link on the 'Time' site:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...134773,00.html

Why do overseas firms seem to thrive, building profitable cars with U.S.
workers, while Detroit languishes? For example, in the first quarter of 2005,
Nissan made $1,603 on every vehicle sold in North America, while GM lost $2,311,
according to Harbour Consulting. For starters, the transplants, generally with
reputations for higher quality than American brands, don't offer the deep
discounts that U.S. makers employ. **And foreign manufacturers don't carry the
legacy costs that drag U.S. companies down.** [Emphasis added] Workers at
foreign companies' nonunion shops make roughly the same in wages and benefits as
unionized employees in Detroit. But Asian and European firms, with younger
workforces in the U.S., aren't saddled with crippling pension and health-care
obligations. GM spends $1,525 per vehicle in the U.S. on health care, compared
with $300 per vehicle at Toyota.
--
John H

"It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!"
[A Self-obsessed Hypocrite]

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John H. wrote:

From a link on the 'Time' site:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...134773,00.html

Why do overseas firms seem to thrive, building profitable cars with U.S.
workers, while Detroit languishes? For example, in the first quarter of
2005,
Nissan made $1,603 on every vehicle sold in North America, while GM lost
$2,311,
according to Harbour Consulting. For starters, the transplants, generally
with
reputations for higher quality than American brands, don't offer the deep
discounts that U.S. makers employ. **And foreign manufacturers don't
carry the
legacy costs that drag U.S. companies down.** [Emphasis added] Workers
at
foreign companies' nonunion shops make roughly the same in wages and
benefits as
unionized employees in Detroit. But Asian and European firms, with
younger
workforces in the U.S., aren't saddled with crippling pension and
health-care
obligations. GM spends $1,525 per vehicle in the U.S. on health care,
compared
with $300 per vehicle at Toyota.


They have national health insurance, or variations on it. D'oh.

Even for their non-union workers working in American plants?

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 20:07:48 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H. wrote:

From a link on the 'Time' site:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...134773,00.html

Why do overseas firms seem to thrive, building profitable cars with U.S.
workers, while Detroit languishes? For example, in the first quarter of 2005,
Nissan made $1,603 on every vehicle sold in North America, while GM lost $2,311,
according to Harbour Consulting. For starters, the transplants, generally with
reputations for higher quality than American brands, don't offer the deep
discounts that U.S. makers employ. **And foreign manufacturers don't carry the
legacy costs that drag U.S. companies down.** [Emphasis added] Workers at
foreign companies' nonunion shops make roughly the same in wages and benefits as
unionized employees in Detroit. But Asian and European firms, with younger
workforces in the U.S., aren't saddled with crippling pension and health-care
obligations. GM spends $1,525 per vehicle in the U.S. on health care, compared
with $300 per vehicle at Toyota.


They have national health insurance, or variations on it. D'oh.

Not here in the US, where the comparison was taken. D'oh.

Harry,
Do the Employee's assembling the Toyotas in the US have national healthcare?

Duh.


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John H. wrote:

From a link on the 'Time' site:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...134773,00.html

Why do overseas firms seem to thrive, building profitable cars with U.S.
workers, while Detroit languishes? For example, in the first quarter of
2005,
Nissan made $1,603 on every vehicle sold in North America, while GM lost
$2,311,
according to Harbour Consulting. For starters, the transplants, generally
with
reputations for higher quality than American brands, don't offer the deep
discounts that U.S. makers employ. **And foreign manufacturers don't
carry the
legacy costs that drag U.S. companies down.** [Emphasis added] Workers
at
foreign companies' nonunion shops make roughly the same in wages and
benefits as
unionized employees in Detroit. But Asian and European firms, with
younger
workforces in the U.S., aren't saddled with crippling pension and
health-care
obligations. GM spends $1,525 per vehicle in the U.S. on health care,
compared
with $300 per vehicle at Toyota.


They have national health insurance, or variations on it. D'oh.

--
Annoy Conservatives: Share!

NYOB,

Can you believe Harry thinks the US Toyota employees have national
healthcare? I wonder if they have to go to Tokyo for a doctor visit?


"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John H. wrote:

From a link on the 'Time' site:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...134773,00.html

Why do overseas firms seem to thrive, building profitable cars with U.S.
workers, while Detroit languishes? For example, in the first quarter of
2005,
Nissan made $1,603 on every vehicle sold in North America, while GM lost
$2,311,
according to Harbour Consulting. For starters, the transplants,
generally with
reputations for higher quality than American brands, don't offer the
deep
discounts that U.S. makers employ. **And foreign manufacturers don't
carry the
legacy costs that drag U.S. companies down.** [Emphasis added] Workers
at
foreign companies' nonunion shops make roughly the same in wages and
benefits as
unionized employees in Detroit. But Asian and European firms, with
younger
workforces in the U.S., aren't saddled with crippling pension and
health-care
obligations. GM spends $1,525 per vehicle in the U.S. on health care,
compared
with $300 per vehicle at Toyota.


They have national health insurance, or variations on it. D'oh.

Even for their non-union workers working in American plants?

I think Harry is now looking for that rock that Kevin always climbs
under.............or at least he should be. ;-)



"Lord Reginald Smithers" Ask me about my driveway leading up to my manor.
wrote in message ...
NYOB,

Can you believe Harry thinks the US Toyota employees have national
healthcare? I wonder if they have to go to Tokyo for a doctor visit?


"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John H. wrote:

From a link on the 'Time' site:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...134773,00.html

Why do overseas firms seem to thrive, building profitable cars with
U.S.
workers, while Detroit languishes? For example, in the first quarter of
2005,
Nissan made $1,603 on every vehicle sold in North America, while GM
lost $2,311,
according to Harbour Consulting. For starters, the transplants,
generally with
reputations for higher quality than American brands, don't offer the
deep
discounts that U.S. makers employ. **And foreign manufacturers don't
carry the
legacy costs that drag U.S. companies down.** [Emphasis added] Workers
at
foreign companies' nonunion shops make roughly the same in wages and
benefits as
unionized employees in Detroit. But Asian and European firms, with
younger
workforces in the U.S., aren't saddled with crippling pension and
health-care
obligations. GM spends $1,525 per vehicle in the U.S. on health care,
compared
with $300 per vehicle at Toyota.


They have national health insurance, or variations on it. D'oh.

Even for their non-union workers working in American plants?

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 20:55:22 -0500, "Lord Reginald Smithers" Ask me about my
driveway leading up to my manor. wrote:

Harry,
Do the Employee's assembling the Toyotas in the US have national healthcare?

Duh.


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John H. wrote:

From a link on the 'Time' site:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...134773,00.html

Why do overseas firms seem to thrive, building profitable cars with U.S.
workers, while Detroit languishes? For example, in the first quarter of
2005,
Nissan made $1,603 on every vehicle sold in North America, while GM lost
$2,311,
according to Harbour Consulting. For starters, the transplants, generally
with
reputations for higher quality than American brands, don't offer the deep
discounts that U.S. makers employ. **And foreign manufacturers don't
carry the
legacy costs that drag U.S. companies down.** [Emphasis added] Workers
at
foreign companies' nonunion shops make roughly the same in wages and
benefits as
unionized employees in Detroit. But Asian and European firms, with
younger
workforces in the U.S., aren't saddled with crippling pension and
health-care
obligations. GM spends $1,525 per vehicle in the U.S. on health care,
compared
with $300 per vehicle at Toyota.


They have national health insurance, or variations on it. D'oh.

--
Annoy Conservatives: Share!


They have to first fly to Tokyo.
--
John H

"It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!"
[A Self-obsessed Hypocrite]

See my previous post.


On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 20:56:38 -0500, "Lord Reginald Smithers" Ask me about my
driveway leading up to my manor. wrote:

NYOB,

Can you believe Harry thinks the US Toyota employees have national
healthcare? I wonder if they have to go to Tokyo for a doctor visit?


"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John H. wrote:

From a link on the 'Time' site:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...134773,00.html

Why do overseas firms seem to thrive, building profitable cars with U.S.
workers, while Detroit languishes? For example, in the first quarter of
2005,
Nissan made $1,603 on every vehicle sold in North America, while GM lost
$2,311,
according to Harbour Consulting. For starters, the transplants,
generally with
reputations for higher quality than American brands, don't offer the
deep
discounts that U.S. makers employ. **And foreign manufacturers don't
carry the
legacy costs that drag U.S. companies down.** [Emphasis added] Workers
at
foreign companies' nonunion shops make roughly the same in wages and
benefits as
unionized employees in Detroit. But Asian and European firms, with
younger
workforces in the U.S., aren't saddled with crippling pension and
health-care
obligations. GM spends $1,525 per vehicle in the U.S. on health care,
compared
with $300 per vehicle at Toyota.


They have national health insurance, or variations on it. D'oh.

Even for their non-union workers working in American plants?



--
John H

"It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!"
[A Self-obsessed Hypocrite]

"Lord Reginald Smithers" Ask me about my driveway leading up to my manor.
wrote in message ...
NYOB,

Can you believe Harry thinks the US Toyota employees have national
healthcare? I wonder if they have to go to Tokyo for a doctor visit?

Did you see the movie "Gung-ho" with Michael Keaton? They have mandatory
fitness breaks. That's how they stay so damn healthy.