I don’t discount the influence of short-sighted labor policies but I think that just blaming the unions is really just more of stupid protectionism.
The plants manufacturing Hondas, Nissans, and Toyotas in the south have dealt with ambitious unions in ways that kept them profitable.
Very few are closed shops. This is because they offered deals and benefits that eliminated the demand for organized labor forces. This is also in line with the weak showing those unions have had in Asia.
Its not like the unions don’t have a presence. They do (which is probably why the manufacturers continue to offer great options).
Personally, I don’t think about these things when I buy or lease. I think about what the best value is. That’s why I won’t ever buy American until they either get a lot cheaper or a lot better.
I don’t think I am making a bad decision by leaving the exchange rate and bonds out of the equation.[/quote]
Dan: Hence the use of the words “influence of” the unions and organized labor in my post above.
I have no issues with organized labor or unions per se, and, in their time, they certainly leveled the playing field and were essential to America’s success.
My argument starts with the unions from about 1947 on, especially the AFL-CIO and UAW and the suicidal CBAs that were negotiated with Detroit’s Big Three.
The corrosive effects of those CBAs literally lasted decades and ultimately destroyed the competitive posture of GM, Ford and Mopar and was one of the contributing factors that allowed Japanese and Korean automakers to develop their toehold (which began in the late 1960s, early 1970s) into significant market share (other factors would also be GM management’s inability to correctly read the wants of their customers and the beginning of some truly horrific US policies on trade).
Again, I have nothing against organized labor and unions, EXCEPT when their presence becomes a negative (the so-called “deadweight” effect).
