OT: why American businesses are in trouble

dpb wrote:

> Jimbo wrote:
> ...
>
>> Ford has spent the last 30 years moving all its factories out of the
>> US, claiming they can't make money paying American wages. Toyota has
>> spent the last 30 years building more than a dozen plants inside the
>> US.
> ...
>
> You might want to look at _where_ in the US those plants are located and
> see if that is, perhaps, enlightening...
>
> --

Certainly might be, but not for the reasons you are thinking.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Hank wrote:
> Jimbo <[email protected]> wrote in news:874b4ec0-d3f4-4f73-837b-
> [email protected]:
>
>> The last quarter's results:
>>
>> Toyota makes $4 billion in profits, while Ford racked up $9 billion
>> in losses. Ford folks are still scratching their heads.
>>
>> IF THIS WASN'T SO SAD IT MIGHT BE FUNNY.
>
> They don't have the baggage the American big three must carry.

I believe I've read that the Big three have a labor/benefit cost of nearly
$75.00 per hr where-as Toyota has one of $45.00...not a insignificant
difference.....Good medical and retirement packages do not come
cheap.....Rod

"Jeff" wrote:

> Personally, I
> wish Detroit designed cars I wanted to buy. Sadly, they don't.

If you want an argument, change the subject.

The US auto industry is simply reaping the rewards of their arrogance of the
last 50+ years of building a poor product and thinking their customers would
continue to buy that poor product offering indefinitely.

Bring back those big tailfins and the chrome rings on the Buicks of the mid
50s used to distinguish a new model year.

NOT

Lew

dpb wrote:

> Jeff wrote:
> ...
>> So how do you propose to fix things, with crappy medical and
>> retirement packages? Or do you want the .gov to deliver those plans?
> ...
> The latter is the Japanese way which is a major part of the cost
> differential. Secondly, they don't have the other 50 years of
> operations prior to WWII to add that legacy overhead of facilities, etc.
>

I don't get that comment regarding "legacy overhead of facilities ...".
The fact is, that if the infrastructure in facilities is that old, it has
been paid in full for a number of years compared with the real cost and
overhead of having to build new infrastructure in a place you've never done
business before. *That* should be an advantage for the US automakers, not
a detriment.

> As for the solution, I don't have a great "magic bullet", but definitely
> isn't level field at present...
>
> --

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Rod & Betty Jo wrote:

> Hank wrote:
>> Jimbo <[email protected]> wrote in news:874b4ec0-d3f4-4f73-837b-
>> [email protected]:
>>
>>> The last quarter's results:
>>>
>>> Toyota makes $4 billion in profits, while Ford racked up $9 billion
>>> in losses. Ford folks are still scratching their heads.
>>>
>>> IF THIS WASN'T SO SAD IT MIGHT BE FUNNY.
>>
>> They don't have the baggage the American big three must carry.
>
> I believe I've read that the Big three have a labor/benefit cost of nearly
> $75.00 per hr where-as Toyota has one of $45.00...not a insignificant
> difference.....Good medical and retirement packages do not come
> cheap.....Rod

My understanding is that the companies like Toyota offer competitive
medical and retirement packages as everyone else. What they don't do is
offer to make those medical benefits free for life, even after retirement.
*That* is what is killing the big 3. They made promised back during the
heyday of unions and strikes that is now coming back to haunt them. Read a
while ago that for each car GM ships, something on the order of $1200 (may
be more, but I don't want to exaggerate a number I read several years ago)
of that car goes to pay for retiree benefits.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

> Japanese company (Toyota) and an American company (General
> Motors) decided to have a canoe race on the Missouri River . Both
> teams practiced long and hard to reach their peak performance before
> the race.
>
> On the big day, the Japanese won by a mile.
> {snip}
>
> IF THIS WASN'T SO SAD IT MIGHT BE FUNNY.

Yes, it is funny.

Humor aside, that has not been my experience.

In the war between style and substance, it is a complete rout by the forces
of style. No one can envision any rally by the forces of substance to form a
rear guard defense.

It matters less, in my experience, the numbers of managers but the quality,
and competence of the managers. Many of the managers and supervisors I have
worked for could have only been chosen for their "style" and golf game.

In so many instances, it is the marketing plan, and the pretty, and oh-so
stylish veneer than matters. What exist under the veneer, is of less
importance. Even when dealing with subordinates, the how you say it matters
more than what you say. Seriously, go into many automotive supplier around
Detroit, each workstation has the mandatory QA book for that station. But
don't ask if the workers at that station can read, or understand, standard
English language.

Look less to how many, instead look to the corporate culture on how the
managers are selected, and promoted. And by whom!

Sorry for the rant.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

>
> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> I don't get that comment regarding "legacy overhead of facilities ...".
>> The fact is, that if the infrastructure in facilities is that old, it has
>> been paid in full for a number of years compared with the real cost and
>> overhead of having to build new infrastructure in a place you've never
>> done
>> business before. *That* should be an advantage for the US automakers,
>> not a detriment.
>
> That paid for building of 60 years ago may be very inefficient for today's
> production. Sometimes it is best to bring in the bulldozer and start
> fresh.

Agreed. Even in that case, the land is paid for, so I still don't see why
having land / buildings one owns can be considered a detriment relative to
someone coming in new who has to buy both land and put buildings and deal
with new regulations regarding where and how they can build. At worst, I'd
say it's a wash, at best a slight advantage to the companies already in
place.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Jeff" wrote:
>
>> Personally, I
>> wish Detroit designed cars I wanted to buy. Sadly, they don't.
>
> If you want an argument, change the subject.
>
> The US auto industry is simply reaping the rewards of their arrogance of the
> last 50+ years of building a poor product and thinking their customers would
> continue to buy that poor product offering indefinitely.
>
> Bring back those big tailfins and the chrome rings on the Buicks of the mid
> 50s used to distinguish a new model year.
>
> NOT
>
> Lew
>
>
Much has to do with the management attitude that its customers are not
the consumers but rather the stockholders. Build a car that is reliable
and efficient (see Toyota, Honda) and I will buy it.
gloom,
jo4hn

Robatoy wrote:

> On Jan 26, 3:31 pm, jo4hn <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> > "Jeff" wrote:
>>
>> >> Personally, I
>> >> wish Detroit designed cars I wanted to buy. Sadly, they don't.
>>
>> > If you want an argument, change the subject.
>>
>> > The US auto industry is simply reaping the rewards of their arrogance
>> > of the last 50+ years of building a poor product and thinking their
>> > customers would continue to buy that poor product offering
>> > indefinitely.
... snip

>
> Another factor, and I'll mention a local example of this, is service.
> A local dealer of a pretty good car is a rip-off artist. He doesn't
> get many sales "because you gotta be nuts to own that car in this
> town."

Yep, same here where we are. There are two Toyota dealers, after
mistakenly stopping at one of them to compare to the first dealer we
visited, I can emphatically state that I will never darken their door with
my presence again. I thought that style of "what's it gonna take to get
you to drive out of here with this today?" high-pressure sales tactics had
gone by the wayside in the 70's. Sadly not so. OTOH, the dealership we
did buy our Toyota (good sales staff, no pressure, etc) from appears to
have put all their weasels in the service department.


This has been the case forever and in more than just cars. Years ago, you
could drive around the country and tell which tractor dealerships had the
best sales and service by looking at the predominance of a specific brand.

> Today's car buyer wants everything for nothing. They all promise you
> the moon, but the wars are won in the service departments. As
> consumers we are very vulnerable in service related matters.
>
> likes to go fast
>
> r

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

dpb wrote:

> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>> Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>>
> ...
>
>>> That paid for building of 60 years ago may be very inefficient for
>>> today's
>>> production. Sometimes it is best to bring in the bulldozer and start
>>> fresh.
>>
>> Agreed. Even in that case, the land is paid for, so I still don't see
>> why
>> having land / buildings one owns can be considered a detriment relative
>> to someone coming in new who has to buy both land and put buildings and
>> deal
>> with new regulations regarding where and how they can build. At worst,
>> I'd say it's a wash, at best a slight advantage to the companies already
>> in place.
>
> So, they have land now that has their _CURRENT_ production facilities on
> it and you expect them to raze that and build new facilities on the same
> site? What are they going to do about production (revenue) while that
> is going on?

What is the company that is coming to a new area, getting land use
permits, going through environmental impact studies, and then building
their facilities doing about production while all of that is going on? I
still don't see the disadvantage.

> Meanwhile, there's no market for the existing
> facilities--so they couldn't come close to recouping their investment
> were they to try to sell...that's not even breaking even, what more
> being an advantage.
>
> And, of course, in the US, the EPA and other regs apply to rebuilding as
> well as the new, so you would have to add in the restoration/recovery
> costs which would undoubtedly be astronomical in some instances.
>

But at least the land that they are rebuilding on has already been used
for the same purpose, so they aren't having to deal with the people who
come out of the woodwork trying to save some endangered bacteria or wooly
caterpillar when someone tries to build somewhere new.

> All in all, they're not in an enviable position and not all the grief by
> far is terminal stupidity as most try to make it to be...
>

I will agree that they are hobbled by the labor mindset in the areas in
which they are situated -- that can be a huge disadvantage.



--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Leon wrote:

>
> "Tanus" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>
>> The Pony was a POS for sure, but I also remember the early Toyotas from
>> the late 60s, early 70s that rusted even in Sarnia, where not as much
>> salt is used.
>>
>> I don't know about the durability of the current Hyundais, but there are
>> a hell of a lot of them on the road, so I'm assuming that at least some
>> of the owners are pleased with them.
>>
>> Toyota seems to have corrected their initial foray into North America.
>>
>> The Yugo. 'Nuff said there.
>
> It seems that if the Japanese are controlling their products they do well.
> But, do you remember the British built Sterling? It was an Acura in
> disguised but built by the British. It did not last very long. I don't
> know if it was POS, or if it was a marketing nightmare, or too little
> selection. IIRC there was only 1 model in the US.

I owned one of those. Lots of power, zippy, fun to drive, had all the
amenities. Great luxury touring car. Biggest piece of crap I've ever
owned. I think I drove the dealership courtesy car as much as I was
driving the Sterling during its warranty period. Good news was it was a
3/36 warranty, so the first several years were reasonably low-cost although
they did figure out ways to extort several hundred $ here, several hundred
$ there, under the "that's normal wear and tear" mantra. I literally had a
2 inch thick stack of service orders during the service life of that car.

The Acura parts of the car performed well, engine and power train gave few
problems. The carriage work was a nightmare; parts worked loose inside and
outside the car. Should have known that this was going to be a problem
auto just from the fact that the hood release was still on the right side
of the car -- that just speaks to sloppy engineering at Austin Rover not
catching that and actually putting it into production that way.

In addition to the shoddy workmanship, there were other just plain stupid
design flaws. The windshield washer pipes were attached to the hood, so
that every time the hood was opened and closed, there was a bending stress
on the hoses -- yep, they failed at about 3 years. The radio was an
absolute piece of crap -- we lived in Dallas at the time (not exactly a
backwater market), yet the search function could only find 2 or 3 of the
area radio stations. The dashboard went out 2 or 3 times (I lost count).

Didn't matter what I did, there was always at least one thing broken on
that car. After getting it fixed, within a couple of weeks it was either
something else or one of the old failures that came back.

Yeah, it was a POS and there is a good reason it didn't last long in the
US market. Given the price of the car, I also took a bath trading it in
when it was only 5 years old, but at that point I didn't care and I
certainly wasn't going to try selling it to somebody.

One thing for certain, it's going to be a very cold day in Tucson before I
ever even think about another British vehicle.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Mark & Juanita wrote:
[snip]
>
> One thing for certain, it's going to be a very cold day in Tucson before I
> ever even think about another British vehicle.
>
>
I once bought a brand new 1963 MGB. A good friend (an Austin owner)
told me that I must torque/tighten every bolt and screw on that car if I
was interested in longevity. I did and put 125000 major problem-free
miles on it. Traded it in on a 1970 Fiat 124 Sport Coupe. Major mistake.
oh well,
jo4hn

"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> True, but even so, why should the government be cosigning loans for
> private
> businesses which are such poor credit risks that they can't otherwise
> qualify
> for those loans?

Because at no cost (in fact at a profit) to the tax payer it preserved a
100,000+ good paying jobs....At the time Chrysler had a very short term
temporary problem.


Had the government not cosigned the loans, Chrysler would
> have gone bankrupt. Perhaps that would have prompted GM and Ford to
> realize
> that they could or would be next if they didn't change their ways, and
> start
> building what America buys.
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

That is just plain silly......GM and Ford have sold a lot of cars, obviously
more than anybody else world wide in the years following the loan......From
parts to chassi they have to compete world wide with much lower wages(often
at rates well below a living wage here)...in fact even quality issues are
impacted as one can afford fewer hours on quality control and/or
detail.....Incidently GM sells more cars in China than anyone else (built in
China).....Rod

"jo4hn" wrote:

> I once bought a brand new 1963 MGB. A good friend (an Austin owner) told
> me that I must torque/tighten every bolt and screw on that car if I was
> interested in longevity. I did and put 125000 major problem-free miles on
> it. Traded it in on a 1970 Fiat 124 Sport Coupe. Major mistake.


And to think my Tonka Toy just rolled over on 126,000.

Oil & filters, a battery, wiper blades, some tires, as well as a tune up at
100,000 have been the only maintenance req'd.

Any wonder Detroit is losing market share?

Lew

Hank wrote:

> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>>
>> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> Yep, same here where we are. There are two Toyota dealers, after
>>> mistakenly stopping at one of them to compare to the first dealer we
>>> visited, I can emphatically state that I will never darken their door
>>> with my presence again. I thought that style of "what's it gonna
>>> take to get you to drive out of here with this today?" high-pressure
>>> sales tactics had gone by the wayside in the 70's. Sadly not so.
>>> OTOH, the dealership we did buy our Toyota (good sales staff, no
>>> pressure, etc) from appears to have put all their weasels in the
>>> service department.
>>
>> I bought my first Toyota, the Tundra in July. Had Honda offered a
>> bigger pickup I may have gotten one of those. My local Toyota
>> dealership was/is very easy to deal with and treated my wife and I
>> like royalty even after the sale. Normally you pay for that type
>> service when buying the vehicle and expecially when there is no high
>> pressure. They invited me to shop the competition and their prices
>> and then come back and buy the Tundra. I am sure I probably could
>> have gotten it cheaper but "drive out", $6k under sticker was good
>> enough for me. I figure close to $8k off when considering the savings
>> of TTL, alarm, and tinted glass being included in the drive out price.
>> I did notice a small ding in the quarter panel after going home and
>> was provided a free rental car while they massaged the ding out and a
>> free rental car again when the brake light switch failed. They will
>> be seeing me again.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> I bought a Toyota Avalon last year. I live out in the sticks and the
> closest Toyota Dealer is 45 miles away. I used the internet to shop
> dealers within 100 miles of where I live. I found that Toyota dealers are
> no different than any other dealers. Some are great, others so-so and
> some just suck. I was working with one in Newburgh NY (85 miles away).
> They quoted me a price for a Blizzard Pearl Avalon XLS and asked me to
> come on down so they could evaluate my trade in. I told them I didn't
> know if I was going to trade a car or not and was only interested in the
> price of the Avalon. I agreed to visit them, but I also made arrangements
> to visit other Toyota dealerships along the way.
> When I got to Newburgh and intoduced myself to the salesman that I had
> been dealing with and he asked me to leave the keys to my car on his desk
> so they could evaluate my car as a trade in. He then told me me that the
> Avalon we had been dicussing had been sold the previous afternoon and,
> since it had been his day off, he didn't find out in time to call me.
> Damn, I felt so unlucky. Fortunately he said he would be able to get
> another, but he didn't think the salesmanager would approve it at the
> same price since sales incentives had changed two days prior. Again my
> bad luck. He asked how much I could afford per month for a new Toyota. I
> answered him with "as much as required". He said "No, I mean what monthly
> payments can you handle". Again I said "whatever they are". He then said
> "I need a dollar figure so I can work with you". I said "give me a price
> on the car and if I like it I will buy it from you". I'm not sure if the
> twit thought I meant the car or the price. At this point the sales
> manager walked into the office. He explained that that the monthly
> payment I could afford would assist them in providing with the absolutely
> best deal I could ever hope to find. I again said "I can afford whatever
> the monthly payment is". I remarked to the them that it seemed that I was
> being double teamed. Being the ignorant type that I am, I felt reassured
> when they stated they had only what was best for me in mind. My fears now
> allayed, we started to negotiate the price of the car. I was sitting in
> the salesman's cubicle and looking out at the parking lot and noticed my
> car was in the exact same spot I left it. The salesman then told after
> evaluating my car as a trade in they could only offer me xxxx since they
> found so many things it needed. My bad luck again. I then asked them for
> a price on a Toyota Avalon XLS in blizzard white. They again responded
> with "how much can you afford per month so we can structure a loan to
> meet your needs". I was now getting a little tired of the games we were
> playing and had an appointment at another dealer across the river (in
> Wappingers). I then told them I would like a 1 month note and would make
> one payment and that was all I could afford. I also mentioned that I
> noticed my car hadn't been moved and their diagnosis of its difficiencies
> was truly wondrous. They assured me I was mistakened.
> Toyota dealers are 'CAR DEALERS'. Some are great and some suck; just like
> dealers of all other brand.
> I ended up getting a great deal (in my mind) from the dealer in
> Wappingers. (2006 Toyota Avalon XLS)

Sounds exactly like the dealership I will no longer even glance at when I
drive by. I certainly agree it's not the brand being sold but the weasels
selling it that make the difference. As I said, the other dealer was a
dream to deal with as you found with the dealer with whom you ultimately
did business. Actually, that was my point, a lot of the issue is with the
dealer in terms of the dealing. The quality of the vehicle is a function
of the manufacturer (or at least highly correlated, everybody has their
hangar queens, just some more than others). OTOH, the dealer that had the
great sales office had a bunch of weasels in the service department; my
trust level was severely lowered on several occasions to the point I
started using independent service (less expensive in the long run anyway).



--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

On Jan 26, 4:55=A0pm, "Virgle" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > The US auto industry is simply reaping the rewards of their arrogance of=

> > the last 50+ years of building a poor product and thinking their custome=
rs
> > would continue to buy that poor product offering indefinitely.
> > Lew
>
> Lew you are correct. I bought a new Chevy in the 50's and financed it for =
3
> years
> The metal rusted out under the back window before I got it paid off.
> The only reason the quality improved was because of the imports.

You mean like the Hundai Pony?
The Yugo?

On Jan 26, 5:51 am, "Rod & Betty Jo" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hank wrote:
> > Jimbo <[email protected]> wrote in news:874b4ec0-d3f4-4f73-837b-
> > [email protected]:
>
> >> The last quarter's results:
>
> >> Toyota makes $4 billion in profits, while Ford racked up $9 billion
> >> in losses. Ford folks are still scratching their heads.
>
> >> IF THIS WASN'T SO SAD IT MIGHT BE FUNNY.
>
> > They don't have the baggage the American big three must carry.
>
> I believe I've read that the Big three have a labor/benefit cost of nearly
> $75.00 per hr where-as Toyota has one of $45.00...not a insignificant
> difference.....Good medical and retirement packages do not come
> cheap.....Rod

So how do you propose to fix things, with crappy medical and
retirement packages? Or do you want the .gov to deliver those plans?
And what's the problem we're trying to solve? Unemployment is pretty
low so this sounds like a lament for the auto industry. Personally, I
wish Detroit designed cars I wanted to buy. Sadly, they don't.

"dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Jimbo wrote:
> ...
>
>> Ford has spent the last 30 years moving all its factories out of the
>> US, claiming they can't make money paying American wages. Toyota has
>> spent the last 30 years building more than a dozen plants inside the
>> US.
> ...
>
> You might want to look at _where_ in the US those plants are located and
> see if that is, perhaps, enlightening...
>
> --

Please enlighten me.

Toyota prefers Canada to the Southern US. Sad NYTimes article :
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/25/opinion/25krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

On Jan 26, 6:52=A0pm, Tanus <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Jan 26, 4:55 pm, "Virgle" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> The US auto industry is simply reaping the rewards of their arrogance =
of
> >>> the last 50+ years of building a poor product and thinking their custo=
mers
> >>> would continue to buy that poor product offering indefinitely.
> >>> Lew
> >> Lew you are correct. I bought a new Chevy in the 50's and financed it f=
or 3
> >> years
> >> The metal rusted out under the back window before I got it paid off.
> >> The only reason the quality improved was because of the imports.
>
> > You mean like the Hundai Pony?
> > The Yugo?
>
> I can see your tongue planted firmly in
> yer cheek, Rob.
>
Hehehe, yup. They were garbage.
so was the Honda 600. Read this and chuckle:
-------------
The Honda 600 sedan (N600) and coupe (Z600) are small cars - just over
10 feet long, and weighing about 1300 pounds. Although not overpowered
by any means with a two cylinder motorcycle engine with 36 cubic
inches and 36 horsepower, they were actually fairly sophisticated and
powerful compared with the other micro cars of the time. Some of the
features that differentiated the Honda 600 were front power disc
brakes, 4 speed all synchro transmission, a tachometer (coupe only),
and a surprisingly spacious interior with reasonably comfortable
seats. All this is true when compared with Subaru 360, Fiat 500 or 600
features. Compared with the typical US car of the time, the 600 is a
tiny, cramped, underpowered car.
--------------
I actually drove one of these. What a hoot.

Hundais are actually very well-built cars these days. The styling
isn't great, but word has it that they are very reliable.

"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Yep, same here where we are. There are two Toyota dealers, after
> mistakenly stopping at one of them to compare to the first dealer we
> visited, I can emphatically state that I will never darken their door with
> my presence again. I thought that style of "what's it gonna take to get
> you to drive out of here with this today?" high-pressure sales tactics had
> gone by the wayside in the 70's. Sadly not so. OTOH, the dealership we
> did buy our Toyota (good sales staff, no pressure, etc) from appears to
> have put all their weasels in the service department.

I bought my first Toyota, the Tundra in July. Had Honda offered a bigger
pickup I may have gotten one of those. My local Toyota dealership was/is
very easy to deal with and treated my wife and I like royalty even after the
sale. Normally you pay for that type service when buying the vehicle and
expecially when there is no high pressure. They invited me to shop the
competition and their prices and then come back and buy the Tundra. I am
sure I probably could have gotten it cheaper but "drive out", $6k under
sticker was good enough for me. I figure close to $8k off when considering
the savings of TTL, alarm, and tinted glass being included in the drive out
price. I did notice a small ding in the quarter panel after going home and
was provided a free rental car while they massaged the ding out and a free
rental car again when the brake light switch failed. They will be seeing me
again.

"Tanus" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> The Pony was a POS for sure, but I also remember the early Toyotas from
> the late 60s, early 70s that rusted even in Sarnia, where not as much salt
> is used.
>
> I don't know about the durability of the current Hyundais, but there are a
> hell of a lot of them on the road, so I'm assuming that at least some of
> the owners are pleased with them.
>
> Toyota seems to have corrected their initial foray into North America.
>
> The Yugo. 'Nuff said there.

It seems that if the Japanese are controlling their products they do well.
But, do you remember the British built Sterling? It was an Acura in
disguised but built by the British. It did not last very long. I don't
know if it was POS, or if it was a marketing nightmare, or too little
selection. IIRC there was only 1 model in the US.

On Jan 26, 5:09 pm, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote innews:[email protected]:
>
>
>
> > In article <[email protected]>, Han
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
> >>news:[email protected]:
>
> >>> Do you remember seeing the UAW bumper stickers in the 70s that said
> >>> "Buy What America Builds"?
>
> >>> Too bad that management never figured out that the Japanese were
> >>> eating them for lunch with a different approach: Build What America
> >>> Buys.
>
> >>Isn't this called capitalism, or the marketplace? The marketing
> >>people and the beancounters can confuse things to the public so that
> >>labor costs are "postponed", but eventually it comes out somehow, and
> >>the labor contract needs changes,or the company goes "bankrupt" and
> >>the pensions are converted to something the "government" "guarantees".
>
> > Exactly so. Too bad the government decided that it "had to" bail out
> > Chrysler when they were belly-up. That distorted the action of the
> > free market, and allowed the mismanagement to continue, thus
> > postponing the point at which Ford and GM would get the message.
>
> Not sure that the bailout had that effect. I thought that Chrysler sort
> of righted itself and paid the loan back, even ahead of time.

I thought Chrysler had trouble getting loans. It was the government
acting as a 'co-signer' that made the difference. The loan itself was
private money.

Untied Airlines is another story entirely. It sure looks like the
company
was deliberately run into bankruptcy as a ploy to dump their
pensioners
off onto the taxpayers. Now as a consequence of years of
mismanagement,
United Airlines has a big advantage over the others who still support
their pensioners.

Had UAL been dissolved, its current employees would have mostly been
able to hire into the better managed airlines that would be expanding
to pick
up UAL's old business.

The problem with corporate pensions plans since the 1970's have been
mis, non, or malfeasance on the part of management coupled with
de (or non) regulation, allowing corporations to underfund them or
even
declare and take back 'surpluses' when they were really running at a
deficit
by any honest accounting practice.

A defined benefit package is fine, but only WITH the appropriate
planning.

--

FF

"Hank" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> They don't have the baggage the American big three must carry.

Very true, they don't have to provide health care for long gone workers and
their families even after they are dead.

In article <[email protected]>, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Han wrote:
>> [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> In article <[email protected]>, Han
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> Do you remember seeing the UAW bumper stickers in the 70s that
>>>>> said
>>>>> "Buy What America Builds"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Too bad that management never figured out that the Japanese were
>>>>> eating them for lunch with a different approach: Build What
>>>>> America
>>>>> Buys.
>>>>>
>>>> Isn't this called capitalism, or the marketplace? The marketing
>>>> people and the beancounters can confuse things to the public so
>>>> that
>>>> labor costs are "postponed", but eventually it comes out somehow,
>>>> and the labor contract needs changes,or the company goes
>>>> "bankrupt"
>>>> and the pensions are converted to something the "government"
>>>> "guarantees".
>>>
>>> Exactly so. Too bad the government decided that it "had to" bail
>>> out
>>> Chrysler when they were belly-up. That distorted the action of the
>>> free market, and allowed the mismanagement to continue, thus
>>> postponing the point at which Ford and GM would get the message.
>>>
>> Not sure that the bailout had that effect. I thought that Chrysler
>> sort of righted itself and paid the loan back, even ahead of time.
>
>There was't a loan from the government. What Chrysler got from the
>government was "loan guarantees", in other words the government
>effectively cosigned the Chrysler loan application. The taxpayer
>would only have been on the hook if Chrysler defaulted, which they did
>not.

True, but even so, why should the government be cosigning loans for private
businesses which are such poor credit risks that they can't otherwise qualify
for those loans? Had the government not cosigned the loans, Chrysler would
have gone bankrupt. Perhaps that would have prompted GM and Ford to realize
that they could or would be next if they didn't change their ways, and start
building what America buys.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article <[email protected]>, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:

>But, do you remember the British built Sterling? It was an Acura in
>disguised but built by the British. It did not last very long. I don't
>know if it was POS, or if it was a marketing nightmare, or too little
>selection. IIRC there was only 1 model in the US.

Those were *nice* cars. SWMBO and I were quite impressed, and seriously
considering buying one, until we started talking price with the dealer.
Waaaaay overpriced IMO, and no willingness to bargain.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>> Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
>>
>>> Hank wrote:
>>>> Jimbo <[email protected]> wrote in news:874b4ec0-d3f4-4f73-837b-
>>>> [email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> The last quarter's results:
>>>>>
>>>>> Toyota makes $4 billion in profits, while Ford racked up $9 billion
>>>>> in losses. Ford folks are still scratching their heads.
>>>>>
>>>>> IF THIS WASN'T SO SAD IT MIGHT BE FUNNY.
>>>> They don't have the baggage the American big three must carry.
>>> I believe I've read that the Big three have a labor/benefit cost of
>>> nearly
>>> $75.00 per hr where-as Toyota has one of $45.00...not a insignificant
>>> difference.....Good medical and retirement packages do not come
>>> cheap.....Rod
>>
>> My understanding is that the companies like Toyota offer competitive
>> medical and retirement packages as everyone else. What they don't do is
>> offer to make those medical benefits free for life, even after
>> retirement. *That* is what is killing the big 3. They made promised back
>> during the
>> heyday of unions and strikes that is now coming back to haunt them. Read
>> a
>> while ago that for each car GM ships, something on the order of $1200
>> (may
>> be more, but I don't want to exaggerate a number I read several years
>> ago)
>> of that car goes to pay for retiree benefits.
>
> Last I saw was $1500. But, "they" didn't make that decision in a
> vacuum--labor was a willing co-conspirator (and, of course, were really
> the leader, not the follower).

Last I heard, $2200 per vehicle 3 years ago.

"dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
> ...
>
>> Last I heard, $2200 per vehicle 3 years ago.
>
> I think they've managed to pare it down some, but I wouldn't say it's
> not--I don't know how old the number I recall hearing is...
>
> --

They probably have reduced it with the latest labor agreement. Additionally
I believe GM is actually making money again. Ford may go down the tubes.

>
> The US auto industry is simply reaping the rewards of their arrogance of
> the last 50+ years of building a poor product and thinking their customers
> would continue to buy that poor product offering indefinitely.
> Lew
>
Lew you are correct. I bought a new Chevy in the 50's and financed it for 3
years
The metal rusted out under the back window before I got it paid off.
The only reason the quality improved was because of the imports.

Virgle

In article <[email protected]>, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> Do you remember seeing the UAW bumper stickers in the 70s that said
>> "Buy What America Builds"?
>>
>> Too bad that management never figured out that the Japanese were
>> eating them for lunch with a different approach: Build What America
>> Buys.
>>
>Isn't this called capitalism, or the marketplace? The marketing people and
>the beancounters can confuse things to the public so that labor costs are
>"postponed", but eventually it comes out somehow, and the labor contract
>needs changes,or the company goes "bankrupt" and the pensions are converted
>to something the "government" "guarantees".

Exactly so. Too bad the government decided that it "had to" bail out Chrysler
when they were belly-up. That distorted the action of the free market, and
allowed the mismanagement to continue, thus postponing the point at which Ford
and GM would get the message.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Jeff" wrote:
>
>> Personally, I
>> wish Detroit designed cars I wanted to buy. Sadly, they don't.
>
> If you want an argument, change the subject.
>
> The US auto industry is simply reaping the rewards of their arrogance of
> the last 50+ years of building a poor product and thinking their customers
> would continue to buy that poor product offering indefinitely.
>
> Bring back those big tailfins and the chrome rings on the Buicks of the
> mid 50s used to distinguish a new model year.
>
> NOT


You hit the nail on the head Lew. Additionally they paid workers benefits
that were bordering on reckless.
The big 3 never had to compete. There was always too many buyers until the
Asian and German automobiles started to catch on. I retired at 40 from the
automotive business and from age 23 to retirement I worked for an Oldsmobile
dealership and later a wholesale AC/Delco/3M distributor that sold strictly
to GM dealers.
I was always in upper management and the BS GM would pull left me with no
sympathy for the now gone Oldsmobile division. They are getting what they
deserve.

Jimbo <[email protected]> wrote in news:874b4ec0-d3f4-4f73-837b-
[email protected]:

> Japanese company (Toyota) and an American company (General
> Motors) decided to have a canoe race on the Missouri River . Both
> teams practiced long and hard to reach their peak performance before
> the race.
>
> On the big day, the Japanese won by a mile.
>
> The Americans, very discouraged and depressed, decided to investigate
> the reason for the crushing defeat. A management team made up of
> senior management was formed to investigate and recommend appropriate
> action. Their conclusion was the Japanese had 8 people rowing and 1
> person steering, while the American team had 8 people steering and 1
> person rowing.
>
> Feeling a deeper study was in order, American management hired a
> consulting company and paid them a large amount of money for a second
> opinion. They advised, of course, that too many people were steering
> the boat, while not enough people were rowing.
>
> Not sure of how to utilize that information, but wanting to prevent
> another loss to the Japanese, the rowing team's management structure
> was totally reorganized to 4 steering supervisors, 3 area steering
> superintendents and 1 assistant superintendent steering manager. They
> also implemented a new performance system that would give the 1 person
> rowing the boat greater incentive to work harder. It was called the
> "Rowing Team Quality First Program," with meetings, dinners, free
> pens, and a certificate of completion for the rower. There was
> discussion of getting new paddles, canoes and other equipment, extra
> vacation days for practices, and bonuses.
>
> The next year the Japanese won by two miles.
>
> Humiliated, the American management laid off the rower (a reduction in
> workforce) for poor performance, halted development of a new canoe,
> sold the paddles, and canceled all capital investments for new
> equipment. The money saved was distributed to the Senior Executives as
> bonuses and the next year's racing team was "outsourced" to India . .
>

Reminds me much of IBM. I think the problem started with the hiring of
middle management.
>
> However sad but oh so true! Here's something else to think about:
>
> Ford has spent the last 30 years moving all its factories out of the
> US, claiming they can't make money paying American wages. Toyota has
> spent the last 30 years building more than a dozen plants inside the
> US.
>
> The last quarter's results:
>
> Toyota makes $4 billion in profits, while Ford racked up $9 billion in
> losses. Ford folks are still scratching their heads.
>
> IF THIS WASN'T SO SAD IT MIGHT BE FUNNY.

They don't have the baggage the American big three must carry.

[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Do you remember seeing the UAW bumper stickers in the 70s that said
> "Buy What America Builds"?
>
> Too bad that management never figured out that the Japanese were
> eating them for lunch with a different approach: Build What America
> Buys.
>
Isn't this called capitalism, or the marketplace? The marketing people and
the beancounters can confuse things to the public so that labor costs are
"postponed", but eventually it comes out somehow, and the labor contract
needs changes,or the company goes "bankrupt" and the pensions are converted
to something the "government" "guarantees".

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> In article <[email protected]>, Han
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Do you remember seeing the UAW bumper stickers in the 70s that said
>>> "Buy What America Builds"?
>>>
>>> Too bad that management never figured out that the Japanese were
>>> eating them for lunch with a different approach: Build What America
>>> Buys.
>>>
>>Isn't this called capitalism, or the marketplace? The marketing
>>people and the beancounters can confuse things to the public so that
>>labor costs are "postponed", but eventually it comes out somehow, and
>>the labor contract needs changes,or the company goes "bankrupt" and
>>the pensions are converted to something the "government" "guarantees".
>
> Exactly so. Too bad the government decided that it "had to" bail out
> Chrysler when they were belly-up. That distorted the action of the
> free market, and allowed the mismanagement to continue, thus
> postponing the point at which Ford and GM would get the message.
>
Not sure that the bailout had that effect. I thought that Chrysler sort
of righted itself and paid the loan back, even ahead of time. I think
that the current state of affairs is mainly a product of "collusion"
between the accountants and the labor benefits people, so that everything
was postponed on the balance sheet until later (which is really soon now,
when the older workers really retire). That's why I think that for
pensions and health care contributions defined benefits are bad, and
defined contributions better, from a true accounting standpoint. Somehow
we are going to have to learn that there is a real cost to benefits, and
we should take responsibility. Question is how to make people pay (one
way or another) for the costs of preventive healthcare vs. cancer
treatment. Example is that women apparently choose not to have
mammograms if there is a copayment. How many will then get breast cancer
that is detected too late???


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Yep, same here where we are. There are two Toyota dealers, after
>> mistakenly stopping at one of them to compare to the first dealer we
>> visited, I can emphatically state that I will never darken their door
>> with my presence again. I thought that style of "what's it gonna
>> take to get you to drive out of here with this today?" high-pressure
>> sales tactics had gone by the wayside in the 70's. Sadly not so.
>> OTOH, the dealership we did buy our Toyota (good sales staff, no
>> pressure, etc) from appears to have put all their weasels in the
>> service department.
>
> I bought my first Toyota, the Tundra in July. Had Honda offered a
> bigger pickup I may have gotten one of those. My local Toyota
> dealership was/is very easy to deal with and treated my wife and I
> like royalty even after the sale. Normally you pay for that type
> service when buying the vehicle and expecially when there is no high
> pressure. They invited me to shop the competition and their prices
> and then come back and buy the Tundra. I am sure I probably could
> have gotten it cheaper but "drive out", $6k under sticker was good
> enough for me. I figure close to $8k off when considering the savings
> of TTL, alarm, and tinted glass being included in the drive out price.
> I did notice a small ding in the quarter panel after going home and
> was provided a free rental car while they massaged the ding out and a
> free rental car again when the brake light switch failed. They will
> be seeing me again.
>
>
>
>

I bought a Toyota Avalon last year. I live out in the sticks and the
closest Toyota Dealer is 45 miles away. I used the internet to shop
dealers within 100 miles of where I live. I found that Toyota dealers are
no different than any other dealers. Some are great, others so-so and
some just suck. I was working with one in Newburgh NY (85 miles away).
They quoted me a price for a Blizzard Pearl Avalon XLS and asked me to
come on down so they could evaluate my trade in. I told them I didn't
know if I was going to trade a car or not and was only interested in the
price of the Avalon. I agreed to visit them, but I also made arrangements
to visit other Toyota dealerships along the way.
When I got to Newburgh and intoduced myself to the salesman that I had
been dealing with and he asked me to leave the keys to my car on his desk
so they could evaluate my car as a trade in. He then told me me that the
Avalon we had been dicussing had been sold the previous afternoon and,
since it had been his day off, he didn't find out in time to call me.
Damn, I felt so unlucky. Fortunately he said he would be able to get
another, but he didn't think the salesmanager would approve it at the
same price since sales incentives had changed two days prior. Again my
bad luck. He asked how much I could afford per month for a new Toyota. I
answered him with "as much as required". He said "No, I mean what monthly
payments can you handle". Again I said "whatever they are". He then said
"I need a dollar figure so I can work with you". I said "give me a price
on the car and if I like it I will buy it from you". I'm not sure if the
twit thought I meant the car or the price. At this point the sales
manager walked into the office. He explained that that the monthly
payment I could afford would assist them in providing with the absolutely
best deal I could ever hope to find. I again said "I can afford whatever
the monthly payment is". I remarked to the them that it seemed that I was
being double teamed. Being the ignorant type that I am, I felt reassured
when they stated they had only what was best for me in mind. My fears now
allayed, we started to negotiate the price of the car. I was sitting in
the salesman's cubicle and looking out at the parking lot and noticed my
car was in the exact same spot I left it. The salesman then told after
evaluating my car as a trade in they could only offer me xxxx since they
found so many things it needed. My bad luck again. I then asked them for
a price on a Toyota Avalon XLS in blizzard white. They again responded
with "how much can you afford per month so we can structure a loan to
meet your needs". I was now getting a little tired of the games we were
playing and had an appointment at another dealer across the river (in
Wappingers). I then told them I would like a 1 month note and would make
one payment and that was all I could afford. I also mentioned that I
noticed my car hadn't been moved and their diagnosis of its difficiencies
was truly wondrous. They assured me I was mistakened.
Toyota dealers are 'CAR DEALERS'. Some are great and some suck; just like
dealers of all other brand.
I ended up getting a great deal (in my mind) from the dealer in
Wappingers. (2006 Toyota Avalon XLS)

On Jan 26, 3:26=A0pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Han wrote:
> > [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
> >news:[email protected]:
>
> >> In article <[email protected]>, Han
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
> >>>news:[email protected]:
>
> >>>> Do you remember seeing the UAW bumper stickers in the 70s that
> >>>> said
> >>>> "Buy What America Builds"?
>
> >>>> Too bad that management never figured out that the Japanese were
> >>>> eating them for lunch with a different approach: Build What
> >>>> America
> >>>> Buys.
>
> >>> Isn't this called capitalism, or the marketplace? =A0The marketing
> >>> people and the beancounters can confuse things to the public so
> >>> that
> >>> labor costs are "postponed", but eventually it comes out somehow,
> >>> and the labor contract needs changes,or the company goes
> >>> "bankrupt"
> >>> and the pensions are converted to something the "government"
> >>> "guarantees".
>
> >> Exactly so. Too bad the government decided that it "had to" bail
> >> out
> >> Chrysler when they were belly-up. That distorted the action of the
> >> free market, and allowed the mismanagement to continue, thus
> >> postponing the point at which Ford and GM would get the message.
>
> > Not sure that the bailout had that effect. =A0I thought that Chrysler
> > sort of righted itself and paid the loan back, even ahead of time.
>
> There was't a loan from the government. =A0What Chrysler got from the
> government was "loan guarantees", in other words the government
> effectively cosigned the Chrysler loan application. =A0The taxpayer
> would only have been on the hook if Chrysler defaulted, which they did
> not.
>
> > I
> > think that the current state of affairs is mainly a product of
> > "collusion" between the accountants and the labor benefits people,
> > so
> > that everything was postponed on the balance sheet until later
> > (which
> > is really soon now, when the older workers really retire). =A0That's
> > why I think that for pensions and health care contributions defined
> > benefits are bad, and defined contributions better, from a true
> > accounting standpoint. =A0Somehow we are going to have to learn that
> > there is a real cost to benefits, and we should take responsibility.
> > Question is how to make people pay (one way or another) for the
> > costs
> > of preventive healthcare vs. cancer treatment.
>
> That's my big objection to socialized medicine. =A0It gives the
> government a legitimate reason pry into matters that traditionally
> have remained private.
>
> > Example is that women
> > apparently choose not to have mammograms if there is a copayment.
> > How many will then get breast cancer that is detected too late???
>
> --
> --
> --John
> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

>
> That's my big objection to socialized medicine. It gives the
> government a legitimate reason pry into matters that traditionally
> have remained private.
>
Hmm..so you are okay with insurance companies cherrypicking patients
and denying the rest care?

TMT

Leon wrote:

>
> It seems that if the Japanese are controlling their products they do well.
> But, do you remember the British built Sterling? It was an Acura in
> disguised but built by the British. It did not last very long. I don't
> know if it was POS, or if it was a marketing nightmare, or too little
> selection. IIRC there was only 1 model in the US.
>
>

The sterling used the Honda Legend engine but was built by the Rover
Group in Britain. It had all the electrical, material and assembly
problems common for British cars of that time.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]

On Jan 26, 3:31=A0pm, jo4hn <[email protected]> wrote:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
> > "Jeff" wrote:
>
> >> Personally, I
> >> wish Detroit designed cars I wanted to buy. Sadly, they don't.
>
> > If you want an argument, change the subject.
>
> > The US auto industry is simply reaping the rewards of their arrogance of=
the
> > last 50+ years of building a poor product and thinking their customers w=
ould
> > continue to buy that poor product offering indefinitely.
>
> > Bring back those big tailfins and the chrome rings on the Buicks of the =
mid
> > 50s used to distinguish a new model year.
>
> > NOT
>
> > Lew
>
> Much has to do with the management attitude that its customers are not
> the consumers but rather the stockholders. =A0Build a car that is reliable=

> and efficient (see Toyota, Honda) and I will buy it.

Add safety and performance and an assured resale value and that car
becomes expensive.
Reliability and efficiency isn't enough, IMHO.

Another factor, and I'll mention a local example of this, is service.
A local dealer of a pretty good car is a rip-off artist. He doesn't
get many sales "because you gotta be nuts to own that car in this
town."
Today's car buyer wants everything for nothing. They all promise you
the moon, but the wars are won in the service departments. As
consumers we are very vulnerable in service related matters.

likes to go fast

r

Jimbo wrote:
...

> Ford has spent the last 30 years moving all its factories out of the
> US, claiming they can't make money paying American wages. Toyota has
> spent the last 30 years building more than a dozen plants inside the
> US.
...

You might want to look at _where_ in the US those plants are located and
see if that is, perhaps, enlightening...

--

Mark & Juanita wrote:
> dpb wrote:
>
>> Jimbo wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> Ford has spent the last 30 years moving all its factories out of the
>>> US, claiming they can't make money paying American wages. Toyota has
>>> spent the last 30 years building more than a dozen plants inside the
>>> US.
>> ...
>>
>> You might want to look at _where_ in the US those plants are located and
>> see if that is, perhaps, enlightening...
>>
>> --
>
> Certainly might be, but not for the reasons you are thinking.

How do you know that? :)

--

Jeff wrote:
...
> So how do you propose to fix things, with crappy medical and
> retirement packages? Or do you want the .gov to deliver those plans?
...
The latter is the Japanese way which is a major part of the cost
differential. Secondly, they don't have the other 50 years of
operations prior to WWII to add that legacy overhead of facilities, etc.

As for the solution, I don't have a great "magic bullet", but definitely
isn't level field at present...

--

dpb wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
> ...
>> So how do you propose to fix things, with crappy medical and
>> retirement packages? Or do you want the .gov to deliver those
>> plans?
> ...
> The latter is the Japanese way which is a major part of the cost
> differential. Secondly, they don't have the other 50 years of
> operations prior to WWII to add that legacy overhead of facilities,
> etc.
>
> As for the solution, I don't have a great "magic bullet", but
> definitely isn't level field at present...

Maybe we should start a war with the Japanese and this time let _them_
bomb _us_ into rubble. I mean it worked for _them_.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Leon wrote:
> "Garage_Woodworks" <.@.> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>> Jimbo wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Ford has spent the last 30 years moving all its factories out of the
>>>> US, claiming they can't make money paying American wages. Toyota has
>>>> spent the last 30 years building more than a dozen plants inside the
>>>> US.
>>> ...
>>>
>>> You might want to look at _where_ in the US those plants are located and
>>> see if that is, perhaps, enlightening...
>>>
>> Please enlighten me.
>>
>> Toyota prefers Canada to the Southern US. Sad NYTimes article :
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/25/opinion/25krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
>>
>>
>
> Toyota may prefer Canada but they have a brand new plant in San Antonio
> Texas that builds some the new and very popular Tundra's.

Just plot the existing facilities on a US map...

--

Mark & Juanita wrote:
> dpb wrote:
>
...

> I don't get that comment regarding "legacy overhead of facilities ...".
> The fact is, that if the infrastructure in facilities is that old, it has
> been paid in full for a number of years compared with the real cost and
> overhead of having to build new infrastructure in a place you've never done
> business before. *That* should be an advantage for the US automakers, not
> a detriment.
...

Not entirely--US manufacturers are in very large, high-volume production
facilities that are a product of the path by which they arrived in the
current position based on their overall business experience. From there
being a relatively small number of models to today when iirc I saw just
the other day over 850 separate models are now in the US market, there
is a much more fragmented market so these large facilities aren't as
efficient as the smaller facilities. Making that transition is _VERY_
expensive. The Japanese, otoh, had very tight land restrictions and not
a very large home market so their facilities were never nearly so large.
That's not anything the US manufacturers did "wrong", it was simply
the result of being in business where they were when they were in the
market they were in.

Add to it, of course, the difference in labor which also has a long
history behind it of how they got there--at least 30 years longer in
real volume manufacturing as compared. One cannot make a point
comparison today w/o accounting for the marked difference in path by
which the two reached their current positions.

Were there mistakes made on the way? Of course, but it's much easier to
point the finger now than it was to have been so prescient at the time
in the place...

--

Mark & Juanita wrote:
> Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
>
>> Hank wrote:
>>> Jimbo <[email protected]> wrote in news:874b4ec0-d3f4-4f73-837b-
>>> [email protected]:
>>>
>>>> The last quarter's results:
>>>>
>>>> Toyota makes $4 billion in profits, while Ford racked up $9 billion
>>>> in losses. Ford folks are still scratching their heads.
>>>>
>>>> IF THIS WASN'T SO SAD IT MIGHT BE FUNNY.
>>> They don't have the baggage the American big three must carry.
>> I believe I've read that the Big three have a labor/benefit cost of nearly
>> $75.00 per hr where-as Toyota has one of $45.00...not a insignificant
>> difference.....Good medical and retirement packages do not come
>> cheap.....Rod
>
> My understanding is that the companies like Toyota offer competitive
> medical and retirement packages as everyone else. What they don't do is
> offer to make those medical benefits free for life, even after retirement.
> *That* is what is killing the big 3. They made promised back during the
> heyday of unions and strikes that is now coming back to haunt them. Read a
> while ago that for each car GM ships, something on the order of $1200 (may
> be more, but I don't want to exaggerate a number I read several years ago)
> of that car goes to pay for retiree benefits.

Last I saw was $1500. But, "they" didn't make that decision in a
vacuum--labor was a willing co-conspirator (and, of course, were really
the leader, not the follower).

I've not researched the actual US structuring of their wage/benefits
packages--in Japan, much of the burden is shifted to the government, not
them. Whether there's a way they get some of their costs back in a
home government subsidization arrangement or not, I don't know.
Wouldn't put it totally out of the realm of possibility to maintain the
competitive edge...perhaps WTO tentacles are strong enough; I have my
doubts.

--

Han wrote:
> [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Han
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> Do you remember seeing the UAW bumper stickers in the 70s that
>>>> said
>>>> "Buy What America Builds"?
>>>>
>>>> Too bad that management never figured out that the Japanese were
>>>> eating them for lunch with a different approach: Build What
>>>> America
>>>> Buys.
>>>>
>>> Isn't this called capitalism, or the marketplace? The marketing
>>> people and the beancounters can confuse things to the public so
>>> that
>>> labor costs are "postponed", but eventually it comes out somehow,
>>> and the labor contract needs changes,or the company goes
>>> "bankrupt"
>>> and the pensions are converted to something the "government"
>>> "guarantees".
>>
>> Exactly so. Too bad the government decided that it "had to" bail
>> out
>> Chrysler when they were belly-up. That distorted the action of the
>> free market, and allowed the mismanagement to continue, thus
>> postponing the point at which Ford and GM would get the message.
>>
> Not sure that the bailout had that effect. I thought that Chrysler
> sort of righted itself and paid the loan back, even ahead of time.

There was't a loan from the government. What Chrysler got from the
government was "loan guarantees", in other words the government
effectively cosigned the Chrysler loan application. The taxpayer
would only have been on the hook if Chrysler defaulted, which they did
not.

> I
> think that the current state of affairs is mainly a product of
> "collusion" between the accountants and the labor benefits people,
> so
> that everything was postponed on the balance sheet until later
> (which
> is really soon now, when the older workers really retire). That's
> why I think that for pensions and health care contributions defined
> benefits are bad, and defined contributions better, from a true
> accounting standpoint. Somehow we are going to have to learn that
> there is a real cost to benefits, and we should take responsibility.
> Question is how to make people pay (one way or another) for the
> costs
> of preventive healthcare vs. cancer treatment.

That's my big objection to socialized medicine. It gives the
government a legitimate reason pry into matters that traditionally
have remained private.

> Example is that women
> apparently choose not to have mammograms if there is a copayment.
> How many will then get breast cancer that is detected too late???

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Mark & Juanita wrote:
> Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>
...

>> That paid for building of 60 years ago may be very inefficient for today's
>> production. Sometimes it is best to bring in the bulldozer and start
>> fresh.
>
> Agreed. Even in that case, the land is paid for, so I still don't see why
> having land / buildings one owns can be considered a detriment relative to
> someone coming in new who has to buy both land and put buildings and deal
> with new regulations regarding where and how they can build. At worst, I'd
> say it's a wash, at best a slight advantage to the companies already in
> place.

So, they have land now that has their _CURRENT_ production facilities on
it and you expect them to raze that and build new facilities on the same
site? What are they going to do about production (revenue) while that
is going on? Meanwhile, there's no market for the existing
facilities--so they couldn't come close to recouping their investment
were they to try to sell...that's not even breaking even, what more
being an advantage.

And, of course, in the US, the EPA and other regs apply to rebuilding as
well as the new, so you would have to add in the restoration/recovery
costs which would undoubtedly be astronomical in some instances.

All in all, they're not in an enviable position and not all the grief by
far is terminal stupidity as most try to make it to be...

--


--

Leon wrote:
...

> Last I heard, $2200 per vehicle 3 years ago.

I think they've managed to pare it down some, but I wouldn't say it's
not--I don't know how old the number I recall hearing is...

--

Robatoy wrote:
> On Jan 26, 4:55 pm, "Virgle" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> The US auto industry is simply reaping the rewards of their arrogance of
>>> the last 50+ years of building a poor product and thinking their customers
>>> would continue to buy that poor product offering indefinitely.
>>> Lew
>> Lew you are correct. I bought a new Chevy in the 50's and financed it for 3
>> years
>> The metal rusted out under the back window before I got it paid off.
>> The only reason the quality improved was because of the imports.
>
> You mean like the Hundai Pony?
> The Yugo?
>

I can see your tongue planted firmly in
yer cheek, Rob.

The Pony was a POS for sure, but I also
remember the early Toyotas from the late
60s, early 70s that rusted even in
Sarnia, where not as much salt is used.

I don't know about the durability of the
current Hyundais, but there are a hell
of a lot of them on the road, so I'm
assuming that at least some of the
owners are pleased with them.

Toyota seems to have corrected their
initial foray into North America.

The Yugo. 'Nuff said there.

--
Tanus

This is not really a sig.

http://www.home.mycybernet.net/~waugh/shop/

Leon wrote:
> "Tanus" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> The Pony was a POS for sure, but I also remember the early Toyotas from
>> the late 60s, early 70s that rusted even in Sarnia, where not as much salt
>> is used.
>>
>> I don't know about the durability of the current Hyundais, but there are a
>> hell of a lot of them on the road, so I'm assuming that at least some of
>> the owners are pleased with them.
>>
>> Toyota seems to have corrected their initial foray into North America.
>>
>> The Yugo. 'Nuff said there.
>
> It seems that if the Japanese are controlling their products they do well.
> But, do you remember the British built Sterling? It was an Acura in
> disguised but built by the British. It did not last very long. I don't
> know if it was POS, or if it was a marketing nightmare, or too little
> selection. IIRC there was only 1 model in the US.
>
>

I don't remember that at all. Other
Canadians may recall it, but as far as
I know, it wasn't released in Canada

--
Tanus

This is not really a sig.

http://www.home.mycybernet.net/~waugh/shop/

Mark & Juanita wrote:
> dpb wrote:
>
>> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>> Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>>>
>> ...
>>
>>>> That paid for building of 60 years ago may be very inefficient for
>>>> today's
>>>> production. Sometimes it is best to bring in the bulldozer and start
>>>> fresh.
>>> Agreed. Even in that case, the land is paid for, so I still don't see
>>> why
>>> having land / buildings one owns can be considered a detriment relative
>>> to someone coming in new who has to buy both land and put buildings and
>>> deal
>>> with new regulations regarding where and how they can build. At worst,
>>> I'd say it's a wash, at best a slight advantage to the companies already
>>> in place.
>> So, they have land now that has their _CURRENT_ production facilities on
>> it and you expect them to raze that and build new facilities on the same
>> site? What are they going to do about production (revenue) while that
>> is going on?
>
> What is the company that is coming to a new area, getting land use
> permits, going through environmental impact studies, and then building
> their facilities doing about production while all of that is going on? I
> still don't see the disadvantage.

They're either expanding production or building entirely new -- they're
not removing current production for two years while doing so. If you
can't see a disadvantage, you're not looking.


>> Meanwhile, there's no market for the existing
>> facilities--so they couldn't come close to recouping their investment
>> were they to try to sell...that's not even breaking even, what more
>> being an advantage.
>>
>> And, of course, in the US, the EPA and other regs apply to rebuilding as
>> well as the new, so you would have to add in the restoration/recovery
>> costs which would undoubtedly be astronomical in some instances.
>>
>
> But at least the land that they are rebuilding on has already been used
> for the same purpose, so they aren't having to deal with the people who
> come out of the woodwork trying to save some endangered bacteria or wooly
> caterpillar when someone tries to build somewhere new.

Even if so, it doesn't eliminate any of the contamination issues, etc.,
that don't go away on re-permitting. And, of course, it doesn't address
the issue of disposal of the present facility, much of which may qualify
as hazardous waste as well. Such costs are potentially deal-breakers
and are the reason many industrial sites are abandoned currently.

It's certainly not nearly the economic "advantage" you would like to
make it seem.

--

Leon wrote:
> "dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> Leon wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> Last I heard, $2200 per vehicle 3 years ago.
>> I think they've managed to pare it down some, but I wouldn't say it's
>> not--I don't know how old the number I recall hearing is...
>>
>> --
>
> They probably have reduced it with the latest labor agreement. Additionally
> I believe GM is actually making money again. Ford may go down the tubes.

I doubt it--they've got some tough times to get through yet, but I fully
expect them to weather the storm...

--

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
> On Jan 26, 3:26 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Han wrote:
>>> [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>>> In article <[email protected]>, Han
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
>>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>>>>> Do you remember seeing the UAW bumper stickers in the 70s that
>>>>>> said
>>>>>> "Buy What America Builds"?
>>
>>>>>> Too bad that management never figured out that the Japanese
>>>>>> were
>>>>>> eating them for lunch with a different approach: Build What
>>>>>> America
>>>>>> Buys.
>>
>>>>> Isn't this called capitalism, or the marketplace? The marketing
>>>>> people and the beancounters can confuse things to the public so
>>>>> that
>>>>> labor costs are "postponed", but eventually it comes out
>>>>> somehow,
>>>>> and the labor contract needs changes,or the company goes
>>>>> "bankrupt"
>>>>> and the pensions are converted to something the "government"
>>>>> "guarantees".
>>
>>>> Exactly so. Too bad the government decided that it "had to" bail
>>>> out
>>>> Chrysler when they were belly-up. That distorted the action of
>>>> the
>>>> free market, and allowed the mismanagement to continue, thus
>>>> postponing the point at which Ford and GM would get the message.
>>
>>> Not sure that the bailout had that effect. I thought that Chrysler
>>> sort of righted itself and paid the loan back, even ahead of time.
>>
>> There was't a loan from the government. What Chrysler got from the
>> government was "loan guarantees", in other words the government
>> effectively cosigned the Chrysler loan application. The taxpayer
>> would only have been on the hook if Chrysler defaulted, which they
>> did not.
>>
>>> I
>>> think that the current state of affairs is mainly a product of
>>> "collusion" between the accountants and the labor benefits people,
>>> so
>>> that everything was postponed on the balance sheet until later
>>> (which
>>> is really soon now, when the older workers really retire). That's
>>> why I think that for pensions and health care contributions
>>> defined
>>> benefits are bad, and defined contributions better, from a true
>>> accounting standpoint. Somehow we are going to have to learn that
>>> there is a real cost to benefits, and we should take
>>> responsibility.
>>> Question is how to make people pay (one way or another) for the
>>> costs
>>> of preventive healthcare vs. cancer treatment.
>>
>> That's my big objection to socialized medicine. It gives the
>> government a legitimate reason pry into matters that traditionally
>> have remained private.
>>
>>> Example is that women
>>> apparently choose not to have mammograms if there is a copayment.
>>> How many will then get breast cancer that is detected too late???
>>
>> --
>> --
>> --John
>> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>>
>> That's my big objection to socialized medicine. It gives the
>> government a legitimate reason pry into matters that traditionally
>> have remained private.
>>
> Hmm..so you are okay with insurance companies cherrypicking patients
> and denying the rest care.

It's better than having the government micromanaging people's lives.

It is not within the power of the insurance companies to deny anyone
medical treatment. They can deny payment, in which case if the
patient can't pay the hospital is on the hook for it, but they cannot
deny treatment. Hospitals are required by law to treat anybody who
walks in the door, regardless of ability to pay.

And the use of the word "care" to refer to medical treatment seems to
me blatant pandering. I don't want _care_, I want _treatment_. If
the guy doing the treating is a sociopath who is incapable of even
understanding the notion of _care_ I don't give a damn as long as he
does his job competently.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Rod & Betty Jo <[email protected]> wrote:

: "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
: news:[email protected]...
:>
:> True, but even so, why should the government be cosigning loans for
:> private
:> businesses which are such poor credit risks that they can't otherwise
:> qualify
:> for those loans?

: Because at no cost (in fact at a profit) to the tax payer it preserved a
: 100,000+ good paying jobs....At the time Chrysler had a very short term
: temporary problem.


: Had the government not cosigned the loans, Chrysler would
:> have gone bankrupt. Perhaps that would have prompted GM and Ford to
:> realize
:> that they could or would be next if they didn't change their ways, and
:> start
:> building what America buys.
:> Regards,
:> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

: That is just plain silly......GM and Ford have sold a lot of cars, obviously
: more than anybody else world wide in the years following the loan......From
: parts to chassi they have to compete world wide with much lower wages(often
: at rates well below a living wage here)...in fact even quality issues are
: impacted as one can afford fewer hours on quality control and/or
: detail.....Incidently GM sells more cars in China than anyone else (built in
: China).....Rod


But thirty years after the loan, they still don't build cars that
are anywhere as good as Toyota, Honda, and Nissan do.


So Doug's point remains.

-- Andy Barss

In article <[email protected]>, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:

> Yep, same here where we are. There are two Toyota dealers, after
>mistakenly stopping at one of them to compare to the first dealer we
>visited, I can emphatically state that I will never darken their door with
>my presence again. I thought that style of "what's it gonna take to get
>you to drive out of here with this today?" high-pressure sales tactics had
>gone by the wayside in the 70's. Sadly not so. OTOH, the dealership we
>did buy our Toyota (good sales staff, no pressure, etc) from appears to
>have put all their weasels in the service department.

SWMBO and I saw that high-pressure stuff last time we were shopping for a
car... with flat-out lies on top of it. Told the salespeople at every
dealership we visited that we were looking for a used car, a few years old,
small to medium size, and fuel-efficient (specifically, 30+ mpg on the
highway). One guy tried his damnedest to sell us a 1992 Cadillac DeVille.
Claimed it would get 32mpg. Yeah, riiiiight.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article <[email protected]>, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Jeff" wrote:
>
>> Personally, I
>> wish Detroit designed cars I wanted to buy. Sadly, they don't.
>
>If you want an argument, change the subject.
>
>The US auto industry is simply reaping the rewards of their arrogance of the
>last 50+ years of building a poor product and thinking their customers would
>continue to buy that poor product offering indefinitely.

Do you remember seeing the UAW bumper stickers in the 70s that said "Buy What
America Builds"?

Too bad that management never figured out that the Japanese were eating them
for lunch with a different approach: Build What America Buys.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Garage_Woodworks" <.@.> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> Jimbo wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> Ford has spent the last 30 years moving all its factories out of the
>>> US, claiming they can't make money paying American wages. Toyota has
>>> spent the last 30 years building more than a dozen plants inside the
>>> US.
>> ...
>>
>> You might want to look at _where_ in the US those plants are located and
>> see if that is, perhaps, enlightening...
>>
>> --
>
> Please enlighten me.
>
> Toyota prefers Canada to the Southern US. Sad NYTimes article :
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/25/opinion/25krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
>
>

Toyota may prefer Canada but they have a brand new plant in San Antonio
Texas that builds some the new and very popular Tundra's.

"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> I don't get that comment regarding "legacy overhead of facilities ...".
> The fact is, that if the infrastructure in facilities is that old, it has
> been paid in full for a number of years compared with the real cost and
> overhead of having to build new infrastructure in a place you've never
> done
> business before. *That* should be an advantage for the US automakers, not
> a detriment.

That paid for building of 60 years ago may be very inefficient for today's
production. Sometimes it is best to bring in the bulldozer and start fresh.