VABills Posted June 28, 2005 Posted June 28, 2005 Basically they came out yesterday, said they were doing so well that they may actually have to do things to harm their business to keep some of the American companies in business. So American car makers are being run into the ground over all the union perks, and now a foreign company may have to raise prices and do other things other things to allow them to "catch their breath". Isn't it great that a well run company now has to damage itself just so it doesn't destroy any competition?
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 28, 2005 Posted June 28, 2005 Basically they came out yesterday, said they were doing so well that they may actually have to do things to harm their business to keep some of the American companies in business. So American car makers are being run into the ground over all the union perks, and now a foreign company may have to raise prices and do other things other things to allow them to "catch their breath". Isn't it great that a well run company now has to damage itself just so it doesn't destroy any competition? 369482[/snapback] I'm not sure I understand. WHY exactly would Toyota want competition? The entire goal of capitalism is to annihilate the competition and rule the market.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 28, 2005 Posted June 28, 2005 Basically they came out yesterday, said they were doing so well that they may actually have to do things to harm their business to keep some of the American companies in business. So American car makers are being run into the ground over all the union perks, and now a foreign company may have to raise prices and do other things other things to allow them to "catch their breath". Isn't it great that a well run company now has to damage itself just so it doesn't destroy any competition? 369482[/snapback] Right...it's really going to hurt Toyota to raise prices. "Hey, Detroit, we're sorry you can't compete...we'll increase our gross margins to help."
Dave in VA Posted June 28, 2005 Posted June 28, 2005 Basically they came out yesterday, said they were doing so well that they may actually have to do things to harm their business to keep some of the American companies in business. So American car makers are being run into the ground over all the union perks, and now a foreign company may have to raise prices and do other things other things to allow them to "catch their breath". Isn't it great that a well run company now has to damage itself just so it doesn't destroy any competition? 369482[/snapback] So American car makers are being run into the ground over all the union perks, So are you absolving GM's management from having anything to do with their plight? Read some topics on GM management and golden parachutes and you'll see what I'm getting at. (Mind you, I'm not disagreeing that the unions are certainly part of the problem as well.)
VABills Posted June 28, 2005 Author Posted June 28, 2005 http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/27/Autos/bc.a....reut/index.htm The Detroit giants' troubles -- stemming in part from massive employee health-care costs -- have aroused worries in some quarters about possible political fallout, to the point that Toyota Chairman Hiroshi Okuda suggested recently that price hikes might be needed to give GM and Ford room to "catch their breath."
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 28, 2005 Posted June 28, 2005 http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/27/Autos/bc.a....reut/index.htm 369499[/snapback] How very Japanese of them. Taking the long view. They could raise their prices 15% and still not lose out to American auto makers.
GG Posted June 28, 2005 Posted June 28, 2005 I'm not sure I understand. WHY exactly would Toyota want competition? The entire goal of capitalism is to annihilate the competition and rule the market. 369489[/snapback] That is not the goal of capitalism. The goal is to settle into the optimal mix of supply & demand. By its definitition, "ruling the markets" in capitalism is impossible, because once a monopoly is established, the monopolist's profits would be high enough to encourage new competition. Capitalism is very destructive to status quo that way. My guess of Toyota's motives is a move to prop up the US automotive supply industry, not the big 3. Few people outside the industry are talking about the pain that the suppliers are going through, as the Big 3 are struggling. If the suppliers continue to do badly, that's bad news for Toyota's operations in the US.
Dave in VA Posted June 28, 2005 Posted June 28, 2005 http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/27/Autos/bc.a....reut/index.htm 369499[/snapback] I get it, but weren't those benefits arrived at through bargaining? Bargaining involves both sides, no? Then, who is it that's designing cars the public doesn't want (and are now blue light specials vis a vis employee pricing)? Does the union design cars? (See Malibu Maxx, soon to go away, see Saturn, Pontiac G6). Did the union make the decision to acquire Saab (overall market share declining)? There's plenty of blame to go around at GM.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 28, 2005 Posted June 28, 2005 I get it, but weren't those benefits arrived at through bargaining? Bargaining involves both sides, no? Then, who is it that's designing cars the public doesn't want (and are now blue light specials vis a vis employee pricing)? Does the union design cars? (See Malibu Maxx, soon to go away, see Saturn, Pontiac G6). Did the union make the decision to acquire Saab (overall market share declining)? There's plenty of blame to go around at GM. 369525[/snapback] Yes, but the fact remains when you pay your workers 2x what your competitors do, it's going to harm your business.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 28, 2005 Posted June 28, 2005 That is not the goal of capitalism. The goal is to settle into the optimal mix of supply & demand. By its definitition, "ruling the markets" in capitalism is impossible, because once a monopoly is established, the monopolist's profits would be high enough to encourage new competition. Capitalism is very destructive to status quo that way. My guess of Toyota's motives is a move to prop up the US automotive supply industry, not the big 3. Few people outside the industry are talking about the pain that the suppliers are going through, as the Big 3 are struggling. If the suppliers continue to do badly, that's bad news for Toyota's operations in the US. 369524[/snapback] Thanks for that clarification. As you prolly guessed, I'm no economist.
VABills Posted June 28, 2005 Author Posted June 28, 2005 I get it, but weren't those benefits arrived at through bargaining? Bargaining involves both sides, no? Then, who is it that's designing cars the public doesn't want (and are now blue light specials vis a vis employee pricing)? Does the union design cars? (See Malibu Maxx, soon to go away, see Saturn, Pontiac G6). Did the union make the decision to acquire Saab (overall market share declining)? There's plenty of blame to go around at GM. 369525[/snapback] And if the management didn't give in the all of the stupid demands the union walks and the car maker generates no income. Plus there is no real incentive to work hard at the plants as these folks in the union pretty much have guananteed contracts for the life of that agreement. If the contracts were more incentive driven, and make the employees get less pay for less work and more bonuses for good work, then maybe it would be a win win situation.
KD in CA Posted June 28, 2005 Posted June 28, 2005 I get it, but weren't those benefits arrived at through bargaining? Bargaining involves both sides, no? I don't call it bargining when the laws are rigged to favor the unions.
Dave in VA Posted June 28, 2005 Posted June 28, 2005 That is not the goal of capitalism. The goal is to settle into the optimal mix of supply & demand. By its definitition, "ruling the markets" in capitalism is impossible, because once a monopoly is established, the monopolist's profits would be high enough to encourage new competition. Capitalism is very destructive to status quo that way. My guess of Toyota's motives is a move to prop up the US automotive supply industry, not the big 3. Few people outside the industry are talking about the pain that the suppliers are going through, as the Big 3 are struggling. If the suppliers continue to do badly, that's bad news for Toyota's operations in the US. 369524[/snapback] It's pretty widely written that Toyota's motivation for doing this is so that "nationalistic feelings" are not aroused in the US. They fear the backlash from that would be worse. I wish I could site you a source off the top of my head but I can't. Google around and you'll find it.
Dave in VA Posted June 28, 2005 Posted June 28, 2005 I don't call it bargining when the laws are rigged to favor the unions. 369534[/snapback] Please cite the laws that rig things for the unions.
VABills Posted June 28, 2005 Author Posted June 28, 2005 It's pretty widely written that Toyota's motivation for doing this is so that "nationalistic feelings" are not aroused in the US. They fear the backlash from that would be worse. I wish I could site you a source off the top of my head but I can't. Google around and you'll find it. 369538[/snapback] So we as Americans can't appreciate someone else building better cars and cheaper? So the unions will be able to continue to rip us off, demand twice as much money, better benefits, to make shity cars, and that's okay with you and the rest of America, becuase we don't really want to have to work hard to get ahead. Wow, I don't believe that was the attitude that made our country strong. I also hope you don't teach your kids that attitude, or this country will be in trouble.
Dave in VA Posted June 28, 2005 Posted June 28, 2005 Yes, but the fact remains when you pay your workers 2x what your competitors do, it's going to harm your business. 369527[/snapback] What I don't get in several of the posts here is any sort of admission that mgmt has played a role in this predicament. I find that amazing and an extremely narrow view of the situation.
VABills Posted June 28, 2005 Author Posted June 28, 2005 What I don't get in several of the posts here is any sort of admission that mgmt has played a role in this predicament. I find that amazing and an extremely narrow view of the situation. 369547[/snapback] And how many times has a government arbitrator defined the contract because management and the union couldn't agree. More often then you think. Plus again, the union hold's management over the barrel because the management can't hire replacement workers at less cost because the union will kill or intimidate the workers and their families. Tell me that is legal, and that management can do a damn thing about it?
Dave in VA Posted June 28, 2005 Posted June 28, 2005 So we as Americans can't appreciate someone else building better cars and cheaper? So the unions will be able to continue to rip us off, demand twice as much money, better benefits, to make shity cars, and that's okay with you and the rest of America, becuase we don't really want to have to work hard to get ahead. Wow, I don't believe that was the attitude that made our country strong. I also hope you don't teach your kids that attitude, or this country will be in trouble. 369546[/snapback] Dude, it's pretty clear to me both parties are to blame here, so both parties need to be part of the solution. I'm not sure I follow what your point is -- I was only citing what some others were saying about Toyota's motivation. And FWIW,I used to buy only foreign, now my vehicles are GM, Ford, Ford, and Olds. I want to believe in us industry, trust me.
GG Posted June 28, 2005 Posted June 28, 2005 It's pretty widely written that Toyota's motivation for doing this is so that "nationalistic feelings" are not aroused in the US. They fear the backlash from that would be worse. I wish I could site you a source off the top of my head but I can't. Google around and you'll find it. 369538[/snapback] Gee, and here I thought that Japanese bashing went awayin the '90s, when China started rising. (Let's hear VABills's take on Gung Ho) It's interesting that you would continue to toe the old party line. No one cares about Japan Inc. anymore, other than knowing they make pretty damn good products.
Dave in VA Posted June 28, 2005 Posted June 28, 2005 And how many times has a government arbitrator defined the contract because management and the union couldn't agree. More often then you think. Plus again, the union hold's management over the barrel because the management can't hire replacement workers at less cost because the union will kill or intimidate the workers and their families. Tell me that is legal, and that management can do a damn thing about it? 369554[/snapback] You are mighty determined to lay this square on the union, but let me ask you: You have not addressed any of my points about the bad business decisions that GM's made. Or do you believe that they've benefited the company?
Recommended Posts