More Real Job Loss
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Merck to cut 7,000 jobs

GM to cut 30,000 jobs

Ford to cut 4000 jobs

Yup it was Bush causing GM and Ford to build crappy vehicles that no one
wants. And to arrange for stupid "go for broke" union contracts.

Should we give credit to Bush for Toyota's success? They are constantly
growing, selling more cars and trucks.

Yup.

Hey its snowing. Lets blame Bush.

More Real Job Loss
 

"Dan J.S." wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Merck to cut 7,000 jobs

GM to cut 30,000 jobs

Ford to cut 4000 jobs

Yup it was Bush causing GM and Ford to build crappy vehicles that no one
wants. And to arrange for stupid "go for broke" union contracts.

Should we give credit to Bush for Toyota's success? They are constantly
growing, selling more cars and trucks.

But how can this be? Toyota builds a lot of its cars in the US.

Oh, never mind. Their US manufacturing plants are non-union.









Backseat Driver
Norma Rae Doesn't Live Here Anymore
Jerry Flint, 03.12.03, 1:20 PM ET

Once upon a time, the American auto industry was a union shop. Not any more.
Nonunion vehicle assembly is expanding fast. The nonunion production comes
from the foreign manufacturers that have built plants in North America. And
they are building more. It's a serious disadvantage for the unionized
Detroit companies--Ford Motor, General Motors and DaimlerChrysler--but
there's nothing the union can do about it.

The United Automobile Workers (UAW) union has dominated the domestic
manufacturers for more than half a century. The union cuts the same basic
deal with all manufacturers. What one manufacturer agrees to, the others
must agree to, no matter what the condition of the individual company.

Such inflexibility by the union made it tough on the little automakers,
which is one of the reasons there aren't independent automakers like
Studebaker anymore. There was no break for being small or poor. The UAW rule
is that labor is not to be a competitive factor.

What did the union want all these years? In the words of Samuel Gompers,
"More."

And the UAW always got it. More pay, more benefits, more paid time off, more
pensions and profit sharing.

Times are a changing. In 1986, the Canadian branch of the UAW split off and
became independent; it's not averse to undercutting the American UAW to win
jobs up north. Then there is the growth of the nonunion plants.


http://www.forbes.com/columnists/200...0311flint.html

More Real Job Loss
 

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 20:27:08 +0000, NOYB wrote:


But how can this be? Toyota builds a lot of its cars in the US.

Oh, never mind. Their US manufacturing plants are non-union.

That may be, but their labor costs are comparable. There are several
reasons Toyota is eating GM's lunch, but unions aren't one of them. I've
said this before, when health care costs are 15% GDP, there is an
international competitive disadvantage, and Toyota has a younger workforce.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/01/09/pf/a...toshow_walkup/

http://www.madeinusamag.com/Article8.html

More Real Job Loss
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 20:27:08 +0000, NOYB wrote:
That may be, but their labor costs are comparable. There are several
reasons Toyota is eating GM's lunch, but unions aren't one of them. I've
said this before, when health care costs are 15% GDP, there is an
international competitive disadvantage, and Toyota has a younger
workforce.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/01/09/pf/a...toshow_walkup/

http://www.madeinusamag.com/Article8.html

Another reason that Toyota is ahead of GM is that the per vehicle unit cost
is less. Toyota also does not pay it's workers to sit around and do
nothing. Toyota also builds what the people want in a vehicle. The
quality of a Toyota is far superior to that of any GM car or truck.

I now own an GM made Chevy TrailBlazer and it will be my last GM product
that I buy. A Toyota Manufacturing Plant is located only 15 kilometers
from my home. Toyota is now in the process of building two more plants
within 60 kilometers of here.

I will buy what my neighbors build.

Jim C.

More Real Job Loss
 

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 14:10:37 -0600, Dan J.S. wrote:


Yup it was Bush causing GM and Ford to build crappy vehicles that no one
wants. And to arrange for stupid "go for broke" union contracts.

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.


Should we give credit to Bush for Toyota's success? They are constantly
growing, selling more cars and trucks.

Yup.

Yup, smaller more fuel efficient cars and trucks.

Hey its snowing. Lets blame Bush.

More Real Job Loss
 

Thunder,
Do you think companies should only manufacturer cars based upon government
mandates (ie CAFE standards)? Why did Toyota decide to try to do better
than the CAFE standards?


"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 14:10:37 -0600, Dan J.S. wrote:


Yup it was Bush causing GM and Ford to build crappy vehicles that no one
wants. And to arrange for stupid "go for broke" union contracts.

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.


Should we give credit to Bush for Toyota's success? They are constantly
growing, selling more cars and trucks.

Yup.

Yup, smaller more fuel efficient cars and trucks.

Hey its snowing. Lets blame Bush.

More Real Job Loss
 

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 08:01:56 -0500, Sir Rodney Smithers wrote:

Thunder,
Do you think companies should only manufacturer cars based upon government
mandates (ie CAFE standards)? Why did Toyota decide to try to do better
than the CAFE standards?

I would argue that some things have to be regulated. The fact is, car
mileage has increased from 12 mpg to 27 mpg because of CAFE standards.
American car manufacturers were screaming that is couldn't be done. Well,
it was done, and because of government regulation. How about seat belts?
They weren't even an option until government required them. How about the
environment? When was the last time a river caught fire? Not all
government regulation is good, but some.

More Real Job Loss
 

Thunder,
That wasn't the question, the question is should car manufacturers ONLY
build cars to a government mandate, or should they use initiative to do
better than the mandate, if they think it is something the consumer will
buy?


"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 08:01:56 -0500, Sir Rodney Smithers wrote:

Thunder,
Do you think companies should only manufacturer cars based upon
government
mandates (ie CAFE standards)? Why did Toyota decide to try to do better
than the CAFE standards?

I would argue that some things have to be regulated. The fact is, car
mileage has increased from 12 mpg to 27 mpg because of CAFE standards.
American car manufacturers were screaming that is couldn't be done. Well,
it was done, and because of government regulation. How about seat belts?
They weren't even an option until government required them. How about the
environment? When was the last time a river caught fire? Not all
government regulation is good, but some.

More Real Job Loss
 

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 08:30:14 -0500, Sir Rodney Smithers wrote:

Thunder,
That wasn't the question, the question is should car manufacturers ONLY
build cars to a government mandate, or should they use initiative to do
better than the mandate, if they think it is something the consumer will
buy?

Well, as Toyota is eating GM's lunch, I would say they should use
initiative to do better, as Toyota did. However, I will also say car
manufacturing has to be a tough business. Predicting the market 5-10
years out, borders on needing a crystal ball.

More Real Job Loss
 

Besides the fact that increasing cafe standards has costs thousands of lives
and millions of dollars........but that doesn't matter to the liebrals.

"Sir Rodney Smithers" Ask me about my knighthood. wrote in message
. ..
Thunder,
That wasn't the question, the question is should car manufacturers ONLY
build cars to a government mandate, or should they use initiative to do
better than the mandate, if they think it is something the consumer will
buy?


"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 08:01:56 -0500, Sir Rodney Smithers wrote:

Thunder,
Do you think companies should only manufacturer cars based upon
government
mandates (ie CAFE standards)? Why did Toyota decide to try to do
better
than the CAFE standards?

I would argue that some things have to be regulated. The fact is, car
mileage has increased from 12 mpg to 27 mpg because of CAFE standards.
American car manufacturers were screaming that is couldn't be done.
Well,
it was done, and because of government regulation. How about seat
belts?
They weren't even an option until government required them. How about
the
environment? When was the last time a river caught fire? Not all
government regulation is good, but some.

More Real Job Loss
 

Thunder,
Most manufacture industries are a tough business, which requires a crystal
ball to be able to look into the future. That is why we don't want to put
the government in charge of making decisions. It can result in US companies
being non competitive in a global marketplace. Over the years, the
marketplace has proven to be the best method of allocating limited
resources.

In reality, US automakers should be able to predict rising oil prices and
offer cars and trucks offering high fuel efficiency and those offering high
power and torque.



"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 08:30:14 -0500, Sir Rodney Smithers wrote:

Thunder,
That wasn't the question, the question is should car manufacturers ONLY
build cars to a government mandate, or should they use initiative to do
better than the mandate, if they think it is something the consumer will
buy?

Well, as Toyota is eating GM's lunch, I would say they should use
initiative to do better, as Toyota did. However, I will also say car
manufacturing has to be a tough business. Predicting the market 5-10
years out, borders on needing a crystal ball.

More Real Job Loss
 

If I recall correctly, Toyota can build a care with less man hours per car
than GM, and the hourly cost is lower, so they naturally can offer more car
per dollar than GM. The GM bureaucracy means it taks years to get a car
from concept to production. I remember in the mid 80's when I was doing
work at the BOC engineering facility in Flint, they were mocking up 96-98
cars. The problem is obvious.

Not to mention the onerous union problems



"Sir Rodney Smithers" Ask me about my knighthood. wrote in message
...
Thunder,
Most manufacture industries are a tough business, which requires a crystal
ball to be able to look into the future. That is why we don't want to
put
the government in charge of making decisions. It can result in US
companies
being non competitive in a global marketplace. Over the years, the
marketplace has proven to be the best method of allocating limited
resources.

In reality, US automakers should be able to predict rising oil prices and
offer cars and trucks offering high fuel efficiency and those offering
high
power and torque.



"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 08:30:14 -0500, Sir Rodney Smithers wrote:

Thunder,
That wasn't the question, the question is should car manufacturers ONLY
build cars to a government mandate, or should they use initiative to do
better than the mandate, if they think it is something the consumer
will
buy?

Well, as Toyota is eating GM's lunch, I would say they should use
initiative to do better, as Toyota did. However, I will also say car
manufacturing has to be a tough business. Predicting the market 5-10
years out, borders on needing a crystal ball.

More Real Job Loss
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 20:27:08 +0000, NOYB wrote:


But how can this be? Toyota builds a lot of its cars in the US.

Oh, never mind. Their US manufacturing plants are non-union.

That may be, but their labor costs are comparable.

No they're not. Labor costs *include* health care costs and retiree
benefits costs...two areas where GM, Ford, and Chrysler have a huge
comparative disadvantage.

GM's health insurance is second to none. Their dental insurance pays for
things that no other companies pay for. Their pension plans and
post-retirement health insurance is also among the top in any industry.
That's a good thing if you're an employee...right up until the company
begins to go broke because they can't afford the benefit packages any
longer.

A similar thing happened to the steel mills in northern Indiana. The unions
fought tooth and nail to prevent any cuts in benefit packages, always
threatening to strike if management tried to implement any cost-cutting
measures. The result? Management shut the plants down, declared
bankruptcy, and folks were left with nothing. Sometimes half a loaf is
better than no loaf at all.

More Real Job Loss
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 14:10:37 -0600, Dan J.S. wrote:


Yup it was Bush causing GM and Ford to build crappy vehicles that no one
wants. And to arrange for stupid "go for broke" union contracts.

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.

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

More Real Job Loss
 

"Sir Rodney Smithers" Ask me about my knighthood. wrote in message
...
Thunder,
Do you think companies should only manufacturer cars based upon government
mandates (ie CAFE standards)? Why did Toyota decide to try to do better
than the CAFE standards?

Perhaps some car buyers are smart enough to understand that if you can get
where you need to go by using less gas, it would be a great thing even if
gasoline cost absolutely nothing. You know - don't waste things no matter
what they are? I learned that from my parents, who lived through the
Depression with THEIR parents. It's still a good idea.

More Real Job Loss
 

Jim Carter wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 20:27:08 +0000, NOYB wrote:
That may be, but their labor costs are comparable. There are several
reasons Toyota is eating GM's lunch, but unions aren't one of them. I've
said this before, when health care costs are 15% GDP, there is an
international competitive disadvantage, and Toyota has a younger

workforce.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/01/09/pf/a...toshow_walkup/

http://www.madeinusamag.com/Article8.html


Another reason that Toyota is ahead of GM is that the per vehicle unit cost
is less. Toyota also does not pay it's workers to sit around and do
nothing. Toyota also builds what the people want in a vehicle. The
quality of a Toyota is far superior to that of any GM car or truck.

I now own an GM made Chevy TrailBlazer and it will be my last GM product
that I buy. A Toyota Manufacturing Plant is located only 15 kilometers
from my home. Toyota is now in the process of building two more plants
within 60 kilometers of here.

I will buy what my neighbors build.

Jim C.


What models will be built in your area Jim? (pickups, SUVs autos?)

More Real Job Loss
 

"Don White" wrote in message
...
.. What models will be built in your area Jim? (pickups, SUVs autos?)

The Toyota Motors Canada plant in Cambridge makes approx. 300,000 per year
of the Corolla, Matrix and the Lexus RX330. The engine plant makes approx.
150,000 4 cyl. engines per year.
The two new plants, which will be in Woodstock, will make the Rav 4 and the
Hino Trucks.

Jim C.

More Real Job Loss
 

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...
Besides the fact that increasing cafe standards has costs thousands of
lives
and millions of dollars........but that doesn't matter to the liebrals.

Cost lives? How's that?

More Real Job Loss
 

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.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/01/09/pf/a...toshow_walkup/

More Real Job Loss
 

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:54:55 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...
Besides the fact that increasing cafe standards has costs thousands of
lives
and millions of dollars........but that doesn't matter to the liebrals.

Cost lives? How's that?

The theory is that small fuel efficient cars are not as safe as land
sleds. I've read an estimate that CAFE standards might have added 2000
additional traffic fatalities since the 70s.

More Real Job Loss
 

"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".

More Real Job Loss
 

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]

More Real Job Loss
 

"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?

More Real Job Loss
 

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.

More Real Job Loss
 

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!

More Real Job Loss
 

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?

More Real Job Loss
 

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?

More Real Job Loss
 

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]

More Real Job Loss
 

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]

More Real Job Loss
 

"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.

More Real Job Loss
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:54:55 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...
Besides the fact that increasing cafe standards has costs thousands of
lives
and millions of dollars........but that doesn't matter to the liebrals.

Cost lives? How's that?

The theory is that small fuel efficient cars are not as safe as land
sleds. I've read an estimate that CAFE standards might have added 2000
additional traffic fatalities since the 70s.


Oh well.

More Real Job Loss
 

Is it just me, or does Harry seem like he might have suffered some minor
strokes over the holidays?


"Jack Goff" wrote in message
...
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.

More Real Job Loss
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"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.





This is fascinating. You simpies believe there is no relationship between
Toyota's prices and profits on what it assembles here and
its manufacturing costs in Japan, which are subsidized in many ways by the
government there?

Toyota's workers here are covered by insurance Toyota provides here, but
that doesn't mean its profitability on what it "builds" here is not
impacted by its operations in Japan.

That's just plain dumb. My neighbor Delmar sez compnes in other countrys
aint sposed ta trade spit wit their branches here. It's like a rule or
sumthin.

More Real Job Loss
 

Harry,
Since the big 3 and their subsidiaries manufacture cars in Mexico, Canada,
Europe and Asia isn't your statement true for American Auto Makers.

Is it possible you have no idea what you are talking about?



"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"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.





This is fascinating. You simpies believe there is no relationship between
Toyota's prices and profits on what it assembles here and
its manufacturing costs in Japan, which are subsidized in many ways by the
government there?

Toyota's workers here are covered by insurance Toyota provides here, but
that doesn't mean its profitability on what it "builds" here is not
impacted by its operations in Japan.


--
You were right, it's all abut character. Impeach Bush Now.

More Real Job Loss
 

Doug,

Since the big 3 and their subsidiaries manufacture cars in Mexico, Canada,
Europe and Asia isn't your statement true for American Auto Makers.

Do you honestly believe the solution to the higher cost for auto makers is
national health care? National Health Care might be a very viable solution
for Americans, but transferring the payments for health care from one pocket
to another pocket, will not make the cars cost any less.


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"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.





This is fascinating. You simpies believe there is no relationship between
Toyota's prices and profits on what it assembles here and
its manufacturing costs in Japan, which are subsidized in many ways by
the government there?

Toyota's workers here are covered by insurance Toyota provides here, but
that doesn't mean its profitability on what it "builds" here is not
impacted by its operations in Japan.

That's just plain dumb. My neighbor Delmar sez compnes in other countrys
aint sposed ta trade spit wit their branches here. It's like a rule or
sumthin.

More Real Job Loss
 

I'm gawn go aks Delmar.

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

Since the big 3 and their subsidiaries manufacture cars in Mexico, Canada,
Europe and Asia isn't your statement true for American Auto Makers.

Do you honestly believe the solution to the higher cost for auto makers is
national health care? National Health Care might be a very viable
solution for Americans, but transferring the payments for health care from
one pocket to another pocket, will not make the cars cost any less.


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"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.





This is fascinating. You simpies believe there is no relationship
between Toyota's prices and profits on what it assembles here and
its manufacturing costs in Japan, which are subsidized in many ways by
the government there?

Toyota's workers here are covered by insurance Toyota provides here, but
that doesn't mean its profitability on what it "builds" here is not
impacted by its operations in Japan.

That's just plain dumb. My neighbor Delmar sez compnes in other countrys
aint sposed ta trade spit wit their branches here. It's like a rule or
sumthin.

More Real Job Loss
 

Doug,
Good idea.


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
I'm gawn go aks Delmar.

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

Since the big 3 and their subsidiaries manufacture cars in Mexico,
Canada, Europe and Asia isn't your statement true for American Auto
Makers.

Do you honestly believe the solution to the higher cost for auto makers
is national health care? National Health Care might be a very viable
solution for Americans, but transferring the payments for health care
from one pocket to another pocket, will not make the cars cost any less.


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"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.





This is fascinating. You simpies believe there is no relationship
between Toyota's prices and profits on what it assembles here and
its manufacturing costs in Japan, which are subsidized in many ways by
the government there?

Toyota's workers here are covered by insurance Toyota provides here,
but that doesn't mean its profitability on what it "builds" here is not
impacted by its operations in Japan.

That's just plain dumb. My neighbor Delmar sez compnes in other countrys
aint sposed ta trade spit wit their branches here. It's like a rule or
sumthin.

More Real Job Loss
 

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

Since the big 3 and their subsidiaries manufacture cars in Mexico, Canada,
Europe and Asia isn't your statement true for American Auto Makers.

the silence is deafening

More Real Job Loss
 

Delmar dint say nuthin' about health care. He jest sez it's dumb ta think
the momma company dont share no spare change with their fasilties hear.

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

Since the big 3 and their subsidiaries manufacture cars in Mexico, Canada,
Europe and Asia isn't your statement true for American Auto Makers.

Do you honestly believe the solution to the higher cost for auto makers is
national health care? National Health Care might be a very viable
solution for Americans, but transferring the payments for health care from
one pocket to another pocket, will not make the cars cost any less.


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"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.





This is fascinating. You simpies believe there is no relationship
between Toyota's prices and profits on what it assembles here and
its manufacturing costs in Japan, which are subsidized in many ways by
the government there?

Toyota's workers here are covered by insurance Toyota provides here, but
that doesn't mean its profitability on what it "builds" here is not
impacted by its operations in Japan.

That's just plain dumb. My neighbor Delmar sez compnes in other countrys
aint sposed ta trade spit wit their branches here. It's like a rule or
sumthin.

More Real Job Loss
 

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 08:46:12 -0500, Lord Reginald Smithers wrote:


Do you honestly believe the solution to the higher cost for auto makers is
national health care? National Health Care might be a very viable
solution for Americans, but transferring the payments for health care from
one pocket to another pocket, will not make the cars cost any less.

Perhaps not national health care, but clearly our health costs put us at a
disadvantage. Our health care costs are 15% GDP. IIRC, no other nation
has costs over 10% GDP. There is no denying, those costs affect our
competitiveness internationally.