Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › Time for Jeff Bridges to dump Hyundai
- This topic has 2,580 replies, 38 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 3 months ago by
Coronita.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 14, 2009 at 3:03 PM #416253June 14, 2009 at 3:19 PM #415545
tucker…
Participanti love america and americans. i am a federal employee. i want to see america kick ass. trust me we need to wake up and smell the coffee. we have been kicked in the balls right now,and we will probably fall in the gutter (DEPRESSION)but we as americans will kick ass again trust me. i think it may have started with the tea partys. in my own honest opinion.
right now im going to stretch my dollar though
times are tough
June 14, 2009 at 3:19 PM #415784Participanti love america and americans. i am a federal employee. i want to see america kick ass. trust me we need to wake up and smell the coffee. we have been kicked in the balls right now,and we will probably fall in the gutter (DEPRESSION)but we as americans will kick ass again trust me. i think it may have started with the tea partys. in my own honest opinion.
right now im going to stretch my dollar though
times are tough
June 14, 2009 at 3:19 PM #416042Participanti love america and americans. i am a federal employee. i want to see america kick ass. trust me we need to wake up and smell the coffee. we have been kicked in the balls right now,and we will probably fall in the gutter (DEPRESSION)but we as americans will kick ass again trust me. i think it may have started with the tea partys. in my own honest opinion.
right now im going to stretch my dollar though
times are tough
June 14, 2009 at 3:19 PM #416110Participanti love america and americans. i am a federal employee. i want to see america kick ass. trust me we need to wake up and smell the coffee. we have been kicked in the balls right now,and we will probably fall in the gutter (DEPRESSION)but we as americans will kick ass again trust me. i think it may have started with the tea partys. in my own honest opinion.
right now im going to stretch my dollar though
times are tough
June 14, 2009 at 3:19 PM #416268Participanti love america and americans. i am a federal employee. i want to see america kick ass. trust me we need to wake up and smell the coffee. we have been kicked in the balls right now,and we will probably fall in the gutter (DEPRESSION)but we as americans will kick ass again trust me. i think it may have started with the tea partys. in my own honest opinion.
right now im going to stretch my dollar though
times are tough
June 14, 2009 at 3:44 PM #415563Allan from Fallbrook
ParticipantRt.66: I don’t disagree that we (the US) have been sold down the river by our elected officials and I posted in another post that we’ve seen a considerable amount of our manufacturing sent overseas and allowed it to happen.
But, let’s look at that for a moment. Why did that happen? In the case of the auto industry and competitiveness, isn’t it fair to say that perhaps American workers were paid in excess of what was a competitive rate and largely because of the collective bargaining agreements that the AFL-CIO and UAW negotiated?
My dad was an aerospace engineer at Ford Aerospace. When I asked him once why Ford was in the aerospace business, he responded, “GM”. GM bought Hughes and Ford immediately followed suit. Why were either Ford or GM in the aerospace business? For that matter, why did GM buy EDS (Ross Perot’s Electronic Data Systems)?
My point on both topics (union concessions and the aerospace business): Is that neither the labor component nor the management component of either company was watching the ball anymore. Instead of focusing on “sticking to the knitting” and building good, reliable and, most importantly, well designed cars, GM and Ford were playing the role of globe trotting, “diversified” corporations and forgot what brought them success in the first place.
As to your comparing GM/Ford to Fiat, Toyota, Renault et al in the 1970s: I take your point, but it’s somewhat specious, in that Fiat, Toyota, Renault and Co. were nowhere near the mammoth size of GM or Ford, nor were they possessed of their commensurate economies of scale, supply chain capabilities or in-house engineering acumen. GM and Ford had all the tools in place to continue their domination, but their failure to push back regarding wages and benefits and their inability to keep pace with the times and economic conditions ultimately doomed them.
By the way, GM was making money a few years back largely due to having renegotiated wages and benefits and by offering what amounted to suicidal financing options (remember 0%?) in order to do so. They failed to follow up and continue their push on the unions, which would have vastly altered the calculus of this equation, and they finally just ran out of time before some of their newer and better designs came to market.
As to the advantages that foreign automakers enjoy while on America soil: Yes, it is bullshit and I’ve said so before.
I’m not trying to demonize GM or AFL-CIO/UAW, but the final judgment rests with GM’s management and the decisions of union leaders at AFL-CIO/UAW. It was a long time in coming (approx 30 years), but insular thinking and greed blew up GM.
June 14, 2009 at 3:44 PM #415801ParticipantRt.66: I don’t disagree that we (the US) have been sold down the river by our elected officials and I posted in another post that we’ve seen a considerable amount of our manufacturing sent overseas and allowed it to happen.
But, let’s look at that for a moment. Why did that happen? In the case of the auto industry and competitiveness, isn’t it fair to say that perhaps American workers were paid in excess of what was a competitive rate and largely because of the collective bargaining agreements that the AFL-CIO and UAW negotiated?
My dad was an aerospace engineer at Ford Aerospace. When I asked him once why Ford was in the aerospace business, he responded, “GM”. GM bought Hughes and Ford immediately followed suit. Why were either Ford or GM in the aerospace business? For that matter, why did GM buy EDS (Ross Perot’s Electronic Data Systems)?
My point on both topics (union concessions and the aerospace business): Is that neither the labor component nor the management component of either company was watching the ball anymore. Instead of focusing on “sticking to the knitting” and building good, reliable and, most importantly, well designed cars, GM and Ford were playing the role of globe trotting, “diversified” corporations and forgot what brought them success in the first place.
As to your comparing GM/Ford to Fiat, Toyota, Renault et al in the 1970s: I take your point, but it’s somewhat specious, in that Fiat, Toyota, Renault and Co. were nowhere near the mammoth size of GM or Ford, nor were they possessed of their commensurate economies of scale, supply chain capabilities or in-house engineering acumen. GM and Ford had all the tools in place to continue their domination, but their failure to push back regarding wages and benefits and their inability to keep pace with the times and economic conditions ultimately doomed them.
By the way, GM was making money a few years back largely due to having renegotiated wages and benefits and by offering what amounted to suicidal financing options (remember 0%?) in order to do so. They failed to follow up and continue their push on the unions, which would have vastly altered the calculus of this equation, and they finally just ran out of time before some of their newer and better designs came to market.
As to the advantages that foreign automakers enjoy while on America soil: Yes, it is bullshit and I’ve said so before.
I’m not trying to demonize GM or AFL-CIO/UAW, but the final judgment rests with GM’s management and the decisions of union leaders at AFL-CIO/UAW. It was a long time in coming (approx 30 years), but insular thinking and greed blew up GM.
June 14, 2009 at 3:44 PM #416058ParticipantRt.66: I don’t disagree that we (the US) have been sold down the river by our elected officials and I posted in another post that we’ve seen a considerable amount of our manufacturing sent overseas and allowed it to happen.
But, let’s look at that for a moment. Why did that happen? In the case of the auto industry and competitiveness, isn’t it fair to say that perhaps American workers were paid in excess of what was a competitive rate and largely because of the collective bargaining agreements that the AFL-CIO and UAW negotiated?
My dad was an aerospace engineer at Ford Aerospace. When I asked him once why Ford was in the aerospace business, he responded, “GM”. GM bought Hughes and Ford immediately followed suit. Why were either Ford or GM in the aerospace business? For that matter, why did GM buy EDS (Ross Perot’s Electronic Data Systems)?
My point on both topics (union concessions and the aerospace business): Is that neither the labor component nor the management component of either company was watching the ball anymore. Instead of focusing on “sticking to the knitting” and building good, reliable and, most importantly, well designed cars, GM and Ford were playing the role of globe trotting, “diversified” corporations and forgot what brought them success in the first place.
As to your comparing GM/Ford to Fiat, Toyota, Renault et al in the 1970s: I take your point, but it’s somewhat specious, in that Fiat, Toyota, Renault and Co. were nowhere near the mammoth size of GM or Ford, nor were they possessed of their commensurate economies of scale, supply chain capabilities or in-house engineering acumen. GM and Ford had all the tools in place to continue their domination, but their failure to push back regarding wages and benefits and their inability to keep pace with the times and economic conditions ultimately doomed them.
By the way, GM was making money a few years back largely due to having renegotiated wages and benefits and by offering what amounted to suicidal financing options (remember 0%?) in order to do so. They failed to follow up and continue their push on the unions, which would have vastly altered the calculus of this equation, and they finally just ran out of time before some of their newer and better designs came to market.
As to the advantages that foreign automakers enjoy while on America soil: Yes, it is bullshit and I’ve said so before.
I’m not trying to demonize GM or AFL-CIO/UAW, but the final judgment rests with GM’s management and the decisions of union leaders at AFL-CIO/UAW. It was a long time in coming (approx 30 years), but insular thinking and greed blew up GM.
June 14, 2009 at 3:44 PM #416126ParticipantRt.66: I don’t disagree that we (the US) have been sold down the river by our elected officials and I posted in another post that we’ve seen a considerable amount of our manufacturing sent overseas and allowed it to happen.
But, let’s look at that for a moment. Why did that happen? In the case of the auto industry and competitiveness, isn’t it fair to say that perhaps American workers were paid in excess of what was a competitive rate and largely because of the collective bargaining agreements that the AFL-CIO and UAW negotiated?
My dad was an aerospace engineer at Ford Aerospace. When I asked him once why Ford was in the aerospace business, he responded, “GM”. GM bought Hughes and Ford immediately followed suit. Why were either Ford or GM in the aerospace business? For that matter, why did GM buy EDS (Ross Perot’s Electronic Data Systems)?
My point on both topics (union concessions and the aerospace business): Is that neither the labor component nor the management component of either company was watching the ball anymore. Instead of focusing on “sticking to the knitting” and building good, reliable and, most importantly, well designed cars, GM and Ford were playing the role of globe trotting, “diversified” corporations and forgot what brought them success in the first place.
As to your comparing GM/Ford to Fiat, Toyota, Renault et al in the 1970s: I take your point, but it’s somewhat specious, in that Fiat, Toyota, Renault and Co. were nowhere near the mammoth size of GM or Ford, nor were they possessed of their commensurate economies of scale, supply chain capabilities or in-house engineering acumen. GM and Ford had all the tools in place to continue their domination, but their failure to push back regarding wages and benefits and their inability to keep pace with the times and economic conditions ultimately doomed them.
By the way, GM was making money a few years back largely due to having renegotiated wages and benefits and by offering what amounted to suicidal financing options (remember 0%?) in order to do so. They failed to follow up and continue their push on the unions, which would have vastly altered the calculus of this equation, and they finally just ran out of time before some of their newer and better designs came to market.
As to the advantages that foreign automakers enjoy while on America soil: Yes, it is bullshit and I’ve said so before.
I’m not trying to demonize GM or AFL-CIO/UAW, but the final judgment rests with GM’s management and the decisions of union leaders at AFL-CIO/UAW. It was a long time in coming (approx 30 years), but insular thinking and greed blew up GM.
June 14, 2009 at 3:44 PM #416284ParticipantRt.66: I don’t disagree that we (the US) have been sold down the river by our elected officials and I posted in another post that we’ve seen a considerable amount of our manufacturing sent overseas and allowed it to happen.
But, let’s look at that for a moment. Why did that happen? In the case of the auto industry and competitiveness, isn’t it fair to say that perhaps American workers were paid in excess of what was a competitive rate and largely because of the collective bargaining agreements that the AFL-CIO and UAW negotiated?
My dad was an aerospace engineer at Ford Aerospace. When I asked him once why Ford was in the aerospace business, he responded, “GM”. GM bought Hughes and Ford immediately followed suit. Why were either Ford or GM in the aerospace business? For that matter, why did GM buy EDS (Ross Perot’s Electronic Data Systems)?
My point on both topics (union concessions and the aerospace business): Is that neither the labor component nor the management component of either company was watching the ball anymore. Instead of focusing on “sticking to the knitting” and building good, reliable and, most importantly, well designed cars, GM and Ford were playing the role of globe trotting, “diversified” corporations and forgot what brought them success in the first place.
As to your comparing GM/Ford to Fiat, Toyota, Renault et al in the 1970s: I take your point, but it’s somewhat specious, in that Fiat, Toyota, Renault and Co. were nowhere near the mammoth size of GM or Ford, nor were they possessed of their commensurate economies of scale, supply chain capabilities or in-house engineering acumen. GM and Ford had all the tools in place to continue their domination, but their failure to push back regarding wages and benefits and their inability to keep pace with the times and economic conditions ultimately doomed them.
By the way, GM was making money a few years back largely due to having renegotiated wages and benefits and by offering what amounted to suicidal financing options (remember 0%?) in order to do so. They failed to follow up and continue their push on the unions, which would have vastly altered the calculus of this equation, and they finally just ran out of time before some of their newer and better designs came to market.
As to the advantages that foreign automakers enjoy while on America soil: Yes, it is bullshit and I’ve said so before.
I’m not trying to demonize GM or AFL-CIO/UAW, but the final judgment rests with GM’s management and the decisions of union leaders at AFL-CIO/UAW. It was a long time in coming (approx 30 years), but insular thinking and greed blew up GM.
June 14, 2009 at 4:20 PM #415573Rt.66
ParticipantI disagree. GM could have gone on paying $14 an hour to new hires and $27hr (about what Toyota and Honda pay US employees) to their very long term UAW employeees forever IF, if…. the 3 unfair trade advantages mentioned above had been addressed.
I’ve read that all 3 together add up to $4-$6k per car. Can you imagine how much more development GM could put into small profit margin economy cars had it not been for the Unfair advantage that Toyota, Hyundia etc. enjoy from their Job friendly and aggressive Governments?
GMs legacy costs are not an evil, anchor of non-competetiveness we should be chastising them for. Those legacy costs are pensions and healthcare. Important things that we all should be fortunate enough to have. They are doing our country a solid. Our Gov. should recognize that and provide a fair trade counterbalance to keep those flowing.
What do they do instead? Send the jobs to China, Japan and Korea and have the tax payer pick up the bill for folks cheated and thrown into poverty?
I don’t care what it is anyone does for work I would just as eagerly defend any pension you earned.
Its f@cked up to let retired people and American jobs take it in the @ss because people in charge thinks its cool to allow foriegn countries with predatory, unfair and unjust trade policies to scam us into GD2.
June 14, 2009 at 4:20 PM #415811ParticipantI disagree. GM could have gone on paying $14 an hour to new hires and $27hr (about what Toyota and Honda pay US employees) to their very long term UAW employeees forever IF, if…. the 3 unfair trade advantages mentioned above had been addressed.
I’ve read that all 3 together add up to $4-$6k per car. Can you imagine how much more development GM could put into small profit margin economy cars had it not been for the Unfair advantage that Toyota, Hyundia etc. enjoy from their Job friendly and aggressive Governments?
GMs legacy costs are not an evil, anchor of non-competetiveness we should be chastising them for. Those legacy costs are pensions and healthcare. Important things that we all should be fortunate enough to have. They are doing our country a solid. Our Gov. should recognize that and provide a fair trade counterbalance to keep those flowing.
What do they do instead? Send the jobs to China, Japan and Korea and have the tax payer pick up the bill for folks cheated and thrown into poverty?
I don’t care what it is anyone does for work I would just as eagerly defend any pension you earned.
Its f@cked up to let retired people and American jobs take it in the @ss because people in charge thinks its cool to allow foriegn countries with predatory, unfair and unjust trade policies to scam us into GD2.
June 14, 2009 at 4:20 PM #416068ParticipantI disagree. GM could have gone on paying $14 an hour to new hires and $27hr (about what Toyota and Honda pay US employees) to their very long term UAW employeees forever IF, if…. the 3 unfair trade advantages mentioned above had been addressed.
I’ve read that all 3 together add up to $4-$6k per car. Can you imagine how much more development GM could put into small profit margin economy cars had it not been for the Unfair advantage that Toyota, Hyundia etc. enjoy from their Job friendly and aggressive Governments?
GMs legacy costs are not an evil, anchor of non-competetiveness we should be chastising them for. Those legacy costs are pensions and healthcare. Important things that we all should be fortunate enough to have. They are doing our country a solid. Our Gov. should recognize that and provide a fair trade counterbalance to keep those flowing.
What do they do instead? Send the jobs to China, Japan and Korea and have the tax payer pick up the bill for folks cheated and thrown into poverty?
I don’t care what it is anyone does for work I would just as eagerly defend any pension you earned.
Its f@cked up to let retired people and American jobs take it in the @ss because people in charge thinks its cool to allow foriegn countries with predatory, unfair and unjust trade policies to scam us into GD2.
June 14, 2009 at 4:20 PM #416136ParticipantI disagree. GM could have gone on paying $14 an hour to new hires and $27hr (about what Toyota and Honda pay US employees) to their very long term UAW employeees forever IF, if…. the 3 unfair trade advantages mentioned above had been addressed.
I’ve read that all 3 together add up to $4-$6k per car. Can you imagine how much more development GM could put into small profit margin economy cars had it not been for the Unfair advantage that Toyota, Hyundia etc. enjoy from their Job friendly and aggressive Governments?
GMs legacy costs are not an evil, anchor of non-competetiveness we should be chastising them for. Those legacy costs are pensions and healthcare. Important things that we all should be fortunate enough to have. They are doing our country a solid. Our Gov. should recognize that and provide a fair trade counterbalance to keep those flowing.
What do they do instead? Send the jobs to China, Japan and Korea and have the tax payer pick up the bill for folks cheated and thrown into poverty?
I don’t care what it is anyone does for work I would just as eagerly defend any pension you earned.
Its f@cked up to let retired people and American jobs take it in the @ss because people in charge thinks its cool to allow foriegn countries with predatory, unfair and unjust trade policies to scam us into GD2.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.