You obviosly have NO CLUE about these "US automakers"! We have had "Labor Pools" for MANY years, where everone in a pool of say half a dozen people, knows ALL of the other jobs INTIMATELY, and lets each one fill the job they are most efficient at and that usually means the job they like most! And we have pools that replace workers that are absent which know with exactness over 20 jobs each! We've always practiced "continuous improvement" on a personal level, it makes our life easier as it makes a job executed better. We modify and customize our tools and procedures almost on a week to week basis, looking for a more efficient way to do our job. The problem comes when the company tries to maximize quantities, adding more work on a person who is more efficient. When you do, not only is it a pay CUT, and a penalty for efficiency, it is hard to replace individuals who are absent and also quality suffers from fatigue and stress.

The BIG reason for a LOW HOUR/vehicle production at the *** factories you also mentioned, is the fact they FARM OUT many components that are "Sub-Assembled" somewhere else and then they have fewer, larger pieces to assemble, most "subbed" out of the US or by a small buisness paying barely above minimum wage with nearly non-existent benefits...

 

NOPE. Didn't give it a second thought actually.
I would have been tickled to take their job (had they offered me a good one) and take their money too, and go buy a Ford or Chevy with it.

But just for the record, I'm not "mad" at the Japanese industry - We Americans taught them everything they know. Read about Demming after WWII for elaboration.

I'm mad at the American public that has been buying the import brands with blind fervor and loyalty for the last 30 years - thats who I'm mad at.
So it goes for German cars, Korean cars, Vietnamese cars, and soon-to-be Chinese cars too.

To me (and yes, this is personal opinion), the ultimate in hypocracy is the Toyota Camry, the Hyundai Alantra or the Kia Rio on the road with an American Flag magnet or a "Support our Troops" magnet on the trunklid.
If you have to ask me why I think this is hypocritical, it won't do me any good to explain it.

Thanks for your comment though redzed - at least you read my post!

 

Yeah - What he said!

I think *** cars are of generally high quality and craftsmanship, and they should sell well in Asia, maybe even Europe.
But today, the cars from GM and Ford are of high quality as well, and should be the cars of choice in the American market. If GM and Ford would listen to their markets, design what is asked for, and sell it at fair prices, I still think they could run the others out of business here, but the relentless persuit of maximum profit (as opposed to a fair and reasonable profit) keeps allowing the imports an "open door" to beat the domestics with either pricing or design advantage - hence the US companies are still losing market share on our own turf.

 

Good point, but I think I'm going to turn it in a way that you didn't intend. I read your post and think "why should the American consumer be forced through this red herring of patriotic consumerism to buy domestic even if the product is not up to par?" If he thinks he can get a better value in a foreign brand built here or even a 100% import, that is his choice.

It is up to GM and Ford to build the cars Americans will chose over imports. What some here are asking is that we reward the big two by buying their products even if/when they are inferior to the competition.

I like seeing American brands do well. In general I would buy domestics before imports, because I'm just that way. But, its just so retarded to suggest everyone should buy domestic all the time just because there's a car in the class they are shopping for. Well, it might not be as good a car as the import in a given class. Until it gets as good or better, why should Joe Blow have to buy a car that is less-good for him? How does that help the US economy, the Big Two, or Joe Blow himself? Joe will be stuck with a crappy product while the car company continues to build it, thinking that's what consumers want.

Or, even more dangerous, the big two will figure out there is a certain bottom floor of market share they will ALWAYS have no matter how poor their product is because a certain portion of the population will ONLY buy domestic. They can therefore let quality and content go to the dogs and squeeze every last penny out of each car sold.

If you buy domestic you should buy it because its the better car in your opinion. Whether that be the styling, the HP, the powertrain.....whatever. If you are buying SOLELY based on the import v. domestic basis then you are probably shortchanging yourself and the domestic auto industry.

 

My god you are a pompus jerk aren't you?

Your confidence is not a substitute for correctness.

All I see is a whole lot of chest thumping and opinion based on a few cherry picked anecdotal examples and topped off with a refusal to provide facts and a substition of an attempt to bully me with the "I know 229 years of American history" BS.

Yeah, I KNOW HOW THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD WORKS dude.

The reality is I do not have to prove anything to you...period. Is it not obvious to you that real standard of living continues to grow the more integrated we get into the global economy? Rules of debate......that's great and all but only when it works in your favor? The unspoken rule of debate is to not answer the question and instead turn it around on the other guy, which you did pretty well.

You're pulling things up from the 1880s? You do realize that we've completely transitioned from an agrarian economy to a post-industrial age now, right? There was no global economy to speak of back then in the same sense we have now, so I find any analogy drawn upon that example specious at best.

So you pull up a couple of court cases that show the downsides to globalization. Gee, I am really shocked and suprised that anything in this world is not 100% peaches and cream. Of course there are ugly aspects to globalization, but it beats the hell out of double digit unemployment, stagflation, reduced real standard of living, etc. that would result from a closed borders protectionist viewpoint.

Your argument against globalization is predicated on examples of other nations not fully embracing globalization. This is pretty crappy logic IMO. The principles of globalization are still valid, we just need to continue to pressure China to play by the rules, and we have to be prepared to play a little hardball to get that done.

Here's a reality check on job creation and job "outsourcing" for you.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/w...20050126.shtml

A taste from the article:

"Of the 2.7 million jobs lost over the past three years, only 300,000 have resulted from outsourcing."
" We could probably think of hundreds of jobs that either don't exist or exist in far fewer numbers than in the past -- jobs such as elevator operator, TV repairman and coal deliveryman. "Creative destruction" is a discovery process where we find ways to produce goods and services more cheaply. That in turn makes us all richer."

FWIW this is a pretty conclusive article in support of free trade, specifically reason #1 in the article. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Tra...Aid/bg1761.cfm

Now, n all your bloviating above, you failed to address my main point, which is that no one here has effectively explained how buying a domestic car is better for the US economy than buying a domestically built, foreign branded car. That's not even remotely in the same league as imported windshields. We are talking US Labor, mostly US suppliers and mostly US-built sub assemblies.

Your hot-air about the scientific method is supposed to intimidate me into trying to prove my point, and your logic is false here again. You and everyone else are asking us to ASSUME that it is automatically better for the economy to buy domestic. Based on what? Arbitrary evidence like where the HQ is located? No no no my friend, you have to demonstrate through some source of fact that the net result is better vs. a domestically build foreign brand car. If you can't do that then that means WE DON'T KNOW if it is or not, which means you could be wrong. How is this any different from assuming the world is flat before actually sailing it?

I refuse basically every tenant of your position as I find no real substance behind any of it. Your "case" is far from closed. Try again.

If I put a lot of these in my closing and follow it up with some hot-air statement about how great I am at arguing on the internet, does that make my argument more convincing? Does it make my argument more patriotic? Does it make me more correct? Well, it certainly didn't work for you.

 

That may or may not be true; especially if you factor in the thousands of dollars GM, Ford and Chrysler are giving up in incentives (cash back, low or zero interest rates, etc) but price is rarely the sole issue of concern when a person buys a new vehicle.


I like the interiors of both the new F150 and the Chevrolet/GMC half-tons but I wouldn’t say that either was significantly “better” than my Titan (although the Titan is definitely not as “luxurious” as the top of the line Ford/Chevy/GMC.

There is no question that all the domestics have made significant improvements in quality over the past 30 years but they still lag behind their foreign counterparts - if you look at individual models some domestics exceed their foreign competition but if you look at the nameplate in general, foreign nameplates still have the edge per the only independent agency that publishes such reports (JD Power).

Also keep in mind, the improvements very likely would not have been made without foreign competition forcing the issue.


Do you really think that styling is unimportant to someone unless they are buying a “sports car”? That’s really a very myopic view.

There are many, many thousands of design engineers and marketing people who would strongly disagree…manufacturers spend a huge part of their R&D budget on trying to figure out what their markets want in terms of style; even if the manufacturer doesn’t make a “sports car”


You seem to keep implying a guilty conscious where none exists…I don’t personally feel the need to justify my purchasing decision and I suspect there are few other “foreign nameplate” buyers that feel any need to do so either.

Here is a link to a great article from triple-A that gives some more food for thought

http://www.aaaworld.com/pages/articles.asp?id=177

 

When Americans or American-educated folks work for Toyota, the intellectual property created by these engineers and technicians becomes the property of Toyota. As we still turn out the greatest minds in the world (8 of the top 10 universities in the world are in the US, according to the SJTU list ) here, we are selling the one thing we still have left--our intellectual property--and we are selling it cheap.

Life is really about power, and power is about control. If you control the flow of goods and services; if you control the flow of capital; if you control state- of-the-art intellectual property; if you control production; then you run the world. Since we live better here than people do anywhere else--by far--we have no where to go but down as we lose such control. We are about 3.5% of the world's population and use aobut 33% if its energy each year, and I'd like to keep it that way, personally.

Today, we have huge trade deficits that send beaucoup capital overseas, which comes back as ownership stakes in our domestic companies, our assets and our real estate; our current account deficit is funded by foreign capital which can be cut off at any time; our Fed govt budget deficit is funded by foreign dollars buying government bonds; and except for military equipment, we seem to have lost our intellectual property edge in most areas. We make almost nothing here, so are losing our skill in production technology, at least in consumer goods. In short, we are slipping badly.

If our government and big companies were really working to keep power and control in the USA (big "if", I know), I'd buy American no matter what. Since our big companies (and many small ones) and our govt seem to be selling out for the quick dollar as fast as we can, I am not sure this does any good. Still, I've never owned a foreign-brand car, naive as that may be.

I just wish some of our movers-and-shakers were listening. I do not want to live as equals in the world. I want to live better than the rest of the world....

 

Actually, the most "ANTI - union people I know are those that used to work for Ford or GM and were UAW members...that's part of the reason the UAW has not come close to getting into Nissan; the best showing the UAW has ever had at organizing the Nissan facilities was a 2-1 loss (and most recently, a 3-1 loss)

 

I agree, but I could just be confused by reality? Seriously though, Anyone who's served/serving, in ANY of the armed forces I Thank You for your service, because it is you who have been the operators of the serious defense equiptment that are in the US arsenal (hopefully supplied buy American Company). In the spirit of honoring that service, and the freedom it provides. I believe that does not require me to agree with someone who has served/ is serving. Oh let me clarify some stuff, as my previous posts were made in haste... this is a hot topic obviously. I was not talkin about seein some cars donated, my point was that it was so quick like they didn't even think about it. My point was it is more personal with the American companies than just business. It was all as it was unfolding they just sent truckloads of stuff. Same with sunami tragedy we gave right away? Even though some of these areas are clearly against us and hate us. We always give the most so when people say America Anything Sucks It Burns My ***! We Do Not, This is the greatest country in the world. So if a car who's parent company is based in a country that is actively working against us and has never been a friend of America's ( those countries who's people make a sport of mocking us) rides buy me with an American flag in the window I will still laugh. But when I then see the USMC sticker in the back of the said nissan/bmw? I certainly respect that person's service, at the same time wonder why he bought a product from one of our.. Oh...Um... enemies (entirely all in my head, wait I think I'm confused again)? The 80's are over the cars are way better now, why? The only thing I can come up with is there is a huge amount of grey area in life ,its not all black & white and who knows why one makes any kind of purchase, but isn't it great to be somewhere we have the freedom to do, buy, and think whatever we want. God Bless The US baby ya gotta love it! I do agree with a great deal of what proudpony has to say, I am for trade with other countries, but certainly even freedom ain't free the odds do need to be a little more stacked in Americas favor especially with those countries that are clearly not our allies! Which at this time I think the Japanese are! Above all else though we must look out for #1 cuz if we don't who will?... Well who? No one that's who! We should all agree to diagree!

 

http://search.hp.netscape.com/hp/boo...2Fcontent.html


http://search.hp.netscape.com/hp/boo...bbs.tonight%2F

look under "List of companies exporting jobs".


http://search.hp.netscape.com/hp/boo...utsource_x.htm



"
(...More Corporate brainwashing Propoganda....we AIN'T BUYIN' IT!....)

 

I don't see what your point is with your links, 90rocz, is it that the trend toward "outsourcing" strengthens your position that we should only "buy American" or just that outsourcing is "bad" for the US in general? Or is it both?

There is no question that outsourcing is bad for any US worker who is displaced by it just as any lay-off, downsizing, right-sizing, being replaced by a robot, etc…but no company, “American” or “foreign” do those things to hurt its employee, it does those things so that it can 1) make a bigger profit for its shareholders and 2) cut costs which is necessary to compete.

 

It's a "catch 22" Robert, they need to do these things only b/c they have Outsourced their consumer base's income. My point was in response to an article that "only 300k of the 2.7Mil jobs lost were from "Outsourcing", it's just BS....I have been in manufacturing for more than 15 years, I know too many people in too many local corporations who have been displaced for a "Quick Profit"(ie:return on investment). Most if not all of them had their job moved to Mexico, or Texas where they can still utilize cheap Mexican labor in outsourced companies. Or they have switched from an "In-House" supplier, to one from China or Mexico etc.
We have lost so much money from this "Lean Manufacturing" and "Just In Time" inventory, that it has further caused them to seek to be "Leaner" and make more cuts, usually in labor, where they claim their largest expense lies, which is a lie.
Outsourcing is ultimately BAD for the company as well as the employee, the long term has and will continue to prove it, we and they MUST READ BETWEEN THE LINES and see the underlying causes for this "Lean" trend.

 

In all sincerity, I do appreciate your position and your opinion.
No harm, no foul, and no hard feelings on my side.

 

Robert, I can only say that IMO corporations do not take their employees interest at heart any more so than is absolutely necessary. I have seen too many loyal workers (union or not) work 30+ years in a plant, only to be let go when times permit. I had a machine builder working for me that had 32 years of service, not only with the same company, but in the same plant and tha same department! He missed the early retirement package by 6 weeks (birthday), and they laid him off 2 weeks later. I actually heard the conversation - the managers were told to cut 30% out of engineering and the decision on who was up to the dept manager. Tommy was cut because of his salary (to help the engineering dept budget). $22/hour was saved. Nevermind that he was the most experienced guy there, built most of the machines in the plant, could fix anything, was punctual, always there, and prided himself in his work. We kept the new kid making $14 and didn't know squat yet. Everybody else became less efficient because we were pulled off our jobs to help the new kid "train" and see things get fixed.

Bottom line for me, the decision-makers could care less about the individual employee (unless it is a family business of 10 or so). In todays environment, the only thing they care about is MONEY, period.
In the name of shareholders no less... who are the shareholders but the employees themselves? I just don't like the greediness of this generation running big indusrty right now. I long for the days of the Can-Do Generation that made us strong on morals and ethical performance.

 

-----------------------------
As one who has been laid-off (or "right-sized" as my former company like to call it) at the age of 42 and after 11 years with the same company, I at least have an inkling of what your friend Tommy had to go through (and I hope he immediately sued for age discrimination and won a couple of million$). However, I don't see how your story negates what I said above.

First of all, any manager who would make such a decision is an a** hole and secondly, based on your story, not making a good business decision for the company either. However, you can't extrapolate that situation into saying all companies/all management acts that way and any company that does routinely act that way will likely not stay in business for the long term.

It’s been my observation that the majority of the “nicest” and most ethical/moral people I know and have known are the leaders of our society…that was true during my 8 years in the Navy with the captains and admirals and it’s been true in all the years since in my business life…the people I’ve know don’t generally set out to hurt the people who work for them and they understand that even the best product in the world won’t help them if they don’t have good employees to actually make things happen.

That said (and whether it’s a “foreign” or “domestic” company), it’s simply not realistic to expect a “company” to act like a person or to ascribe human morality and emotions to it…a company is an inanimate organization that will always seek to do what’s best for the company because that’s the only way it will continue to exist. Usually what is best for the company is also what’s best for its employees but when those two outcomes can’t be achieved, it isn’t reasonable to expect the company to choose to do what’s best for an individual or group of employees if that decision is ultimately bad for the company.

We all tend to think of prior generations as more moral or less greedy, etc. but I think history has taught us otherwise…The writings of Dickens’ in A Christmas Carol” and other works, although fiction, were based on his observations in the England of his day (early-mid 1800s)…likewise, the robber-barons in our country of the late 1800’s and early 1900’s were as greedy as they come and precisely what precipitated the rise of unions…history has taught us that we need to regulate companies to ensure workers safety and equal/fair treatment but history has also taught us that we need to withhold regulation when not needed so that the free market can operate. We should not abandon one in favor of the other or we’ll have neither and we’ll all be moving to Mexico and India to look for work.