"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.

"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

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

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.