|
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
bill wrote:
> On May 25, 1:24 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >> bill wrote: >> >> on second thoughts, you /do/ deserve a response. >> >>>>>>> everything you are suggesting has been looked at and failed. >>>>>> when? how hard did they try? and what choice do the unions have if the >>>>>> auto manufacturers collapse? >>>>> Every time there's a new automation technology out, and right up >>>>> to the strike line. Do you seriously think they are having cars hand >>>>> assembled because they like it? don't think much of the plant >>>>> engineers do you? >>>> i don't think you can collect and present a coherent argument. >>> That's because you don't bother to read, pay atention, or remove >>> your head from your ass. Your daddy is probably a union cocksucker >>> and it has colored your views such that you can't open your eyes. >> wrong. and i've never been a union member of any sort. no unions in my >> company either. >> >>> the >>> simple fact is that every new automation improvement is met by the >>> unions at the gate with a resounding NO!! >> so what did /management/ do to bring it in here? it's not like the >> legal tools don't exist. it happened in europe despite massive union >> protection laws and national strikes. and guess what, now europe is >> highly automated and highly productive. germany at any rate. it has >> unemployment problems, but so will we if we keep exporting jobs to china. >> >>> US auto makers lead the >>> field in new concepts applied to vehicles, or at least did until they >>> were summarily strangled by union mandated bullshit. >> cite. >> >>> for example, >>> unibody, crumple zones, onboard computers, the assembly line, gps >>> navigation ALL originated in us cars, >> wrong. unibody was citroen, france. > > in partnership with chrysler > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monocoque > >> the germans were into crash deformation zones in the 40's. > > I stand corrected. > >> if by "computers", you mean fuel injection, injection was used in germany in the 30's. electronic fuel injection was usa, > > Well, still happened :) > > but that was imposed on manufacturers, kicking and screaming, by > californias emissions laws. > > no, I meant the ECU. again, you'll just say it was installed to > deal with epa laws, but it still happened here. As did the catalytic > converter. but you were trying to argue it from the "automotive innovation" position, as if it was leadership by the auto industry. it wasn't. it was california's environmental laws that /forced/ a highly reluctant industry into compliance. and they fought it tooth and nail - all the way to federal court. > >> the assembly line, was ford, us. > > > > gps is /utterly/ irrelevant when your crankshafts are cast, your >> body pressings are mis-shapen and your transmissions barely last 100k. > > here's an interesting bit. anyway, until pretty recently, the us auto > industry was at least fully competitive with anyone's best. What > changed? I'll tell you, the technology changed and the companies were > prevented from implementing it due to UCS interference (union > suckers) > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...latives#Firsts i can tell you for sure, the bit on injection chronology is wrong. the me109 german fighter plane from ww2 used fuel injection, and that system was tested extensively on german racing cars in the 1930's as the nazi's armed ready for war, but in "stealth mode" due to the treaty of versailles. it may not have been used on production vehicles over there, but to claim that it dates from the 50's is incorrect. > >>> and were later implemented by >>> other countries, the issue is that we can not close our obsolete >>> plants, modernize the ones we have, or outsource to modern plants >>> without facing a strike by uneducated union cocksuckers like you. >> sure we can. if management don't have the balls to get on with it, >> that's not a union problem. shut the industry down. fire the lot of >> them. and start again. happens in other union industries. > > If management doesn't have the balls to face down a strike, lose > billions of dollars and precious market share, and then have the > federal government step in and decide what to do based on what will > win votes you mean? look, this isn't complicated, the unions are > strangling the industry, they aren't the only problem, but they are > the biggest. unions are a problem, but other fundamental problems are much bigger. they're /not/ responsible for poor product design, they're /not/ responsible for poor product specification, they /not/ responsible for lack of innovation, they're /not/ responsible for failure to bring new product to market, and they're most /definitely/ not responsible for suv's! > >>>>> incorrect. the employers wanted to keep their clerical staff >>>>> nonunion, the union wanted to expand to include the clerical staff. >>>>> It seems that it was a lockout, they had to get the technology >>>>> implemented and the union refused to do so, so that was that. >>>>> http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=5168 >>>> i don't think you even read your own citation! >>> And I know you didn't read it. That article is spun as far >>> toward the dockworkers as it is possible to spin anything and still >>> comes off making them look like childish twats. >> so why did you cite it? cite something that supports your argument, not >> contradicts it!!! > > It does support what I said. they had a dispute about freaking > bar codes. no, they were on board with bar codes from day one - they simply wanted data inputters to have the choice of being union. what's so freakin' tough about that? > I was wrong about strike vs lockout, but it really amounts > to the same thing, the unions refused to use the new tech, and the > company said you have to. the clerical staff is and was nonunion, so > the union claims that they were trying to exclude the clerical staff > from the union were bullshit. It's a little hard to find decent > objective analysis of political bullshit that happened 10 years ago, > so I'm going to have to ask you to look past the spin they put on that > one. translation: it's hard to find anything that supports the "unions caused it" position! basically because it doesn't exist. > >>>>>>> As another, trains to this day have a conductor, the conductor >>>>>>> was the guy in the caboose who operated the brake. when is the last >>>>>>> time you saw a caboose? however, when the automated brakes came into >>>>>>> play, the union threw a hissy and made them keep the conductor. >>>>>>> the unions in europe are nothing next to our own. >>>>>> you've never been there evidently. i have, and i have family there. >>>>>> unions there are /way/ more entrenched and expensive. yet they make >>>>>> more for less. it ain't a union problem bud. >>>>> Yep, been there, and you are the most abjectly full of >>>>> individual ever in history. Our unions force companies to pay >>>>> uneducated workers more than the starting salary for a ph.d, not the >>>>> case in europe. >>>> well, that shows how little you know. trained workers here get paid. >>>> trained workers there get paid. untrained workers here don't get paid, >>>> untrained workers there don't get paid. qualified tech professionals >>>> there get paid /significantly/ less than their equivalents here. >>>> http://www.newscientistjobs.com/search.action >>> nope, shows that you are an ignorant arrogant piece of . The >>> redirect to a job-site for scientists europe was quite a clever line >>> of total bullshit with no potential whatsoever to prove anything. >> eh? european engineering grads being paid $40k is bullshit? home many >> engineering grads here are going to work for that? > > All of them. starting salary for ALL branches of engineering is > 40k plus or minus 5 depending on location and specialty. cite. > >>> In >>> the US, untrained uneducated unmotivated union cocksuckers get paid >>> salaries approaching those earned by doctors, ($74,000 for dockworkers >>> on average vs $100,000 for doctors starting salary for civil engineers >>> $33,000) >> in europe, grads consistently get paid less than union workers. > > As they do here. but you were arguing that it was a union problem /here/! it's not. it's a union "problem" everywhere. the point is, detroit is citing it as the "cause". it's not. it's management paralysis and lack of gonads in dealing with their own lack of input. > >>> salary for auto workers in the US, $25/hr, or 50,000/year, >>> starting salary for an engineer at ford, $25,000. or for example, >>> union garbagemen make an average of 50-75000/yr, vs an mba starting >>> salary at $42,000. this list doesn't end. >> if you're trying to contradict what i said, you're making no sense. > > Okay, thing 1 was that I was talking about union pay scales > compared to professional pay scales, and pointing out that they are > consistently higher. but it's the same or worse in europe. detroit citing "union" as the cause of their problem is simply failure to acknowledge the elephant in the room. > >>> Also note that the german automotive industry is in collapse now >>> with similar problems to ours in terms of innovation, quality and >>> pricing. >> really? is that why bmw, mercedes and vw are all over american roads? > > Lag. unions work great as long as nothing changes. you'll note > that for the past 20 years, bmw and mercedes have been declining HARD > in quality, reliability and overall desireability. besides, luxury > cars are a bit of a special case. nothing much luxury about a vw. besides, mercedes are low end crap in europe - it's only dumb americans being willing to pay a premium that makes them "prestige" over here. ever ridden a taxi in germany? > >>> and as for french cars.... what french cars? >> er, peugeot, citroen, nissan... > > Nissan is japanese controlled by renault, france. > and the rest of them combined do not amount to > the sales on the toyota prius. France effectively has no auto > industry. yes they do. they /export/ nothing to the us, but nissan sell well. see above. and they sell massively throughout europe, the middle east and south america. > >>> Modern quality cars come from japan or the NON-UNION toyota >>> factory in the us. Unions produce nothing these days but dead >>> industries and jobs moved overseas. >> and that's another point, why ship AMERICAN jobs overseas to china, >> along with our technology, when we can AUTOMATE and keep our technology >> at home. bleating about unions is totally missing the point. > > the reason we don't do that is the unions will not allow it. > very simple, and very clearly true. Automation eliminates jobs. no, exporting jobs to china eliminates jobs. automation retains jobs. fewer jobs for sure, but they are retained, along with the technology. ask motorola about the "returns" they get from exporting their jobs and technology to china - a market flooded with cheap knock-off chinese competition where they're having serious problems. motorola's technology and intellectual property walked out the door every evening when their chinese employees went home. and now it's being used against their dumb asses. if they'd stayed home and automated, they could compete on price and keep their technology safe. > >>>>> Also, in europe, the union cocksucker mentality is >>>>> not so pervasive as here. >>>> eh? ever heard of a country called france? how about germany? they >>>> get /national/ strike paralysis. i repeat - /national/ strikes. the >>>> whole freakin' country shuts down. and you say /our/ unions are a >>>> problem? you don't know what the hell you're talking about. >>> Other countries with nonviable auto industries fail horribly to >>> prove your point. >> as they should here. if they can't make it, they should pack up and go >> home. > > Okay, but we're trying to answer the "why can't they make it?" > question, and the answer is very simple. Unions. 100% of all union > auto manufacturers in the world are losing market share compared to > 100% of the non-union manufacturers which are gaining. Those numbers > do not lie. No bleating, No squalking, just the cold facts, unions > and long term success are incompatible. elephant in the room - their product sucks! if they can't make anything worth buying, they're going to go out of business. cost structures are immaterial in comparison. > >>> I wasn't saying that europe didn't have unions or >>> that they weren't pervasive, I was saying that the union cocksucker >>> mentality like yours wasn't so pervasive, and for the bulk of europe, >>> it isn't. >> you've never been to europe!!! > > As it happens, and not that it's relevent, I've spent over a year > in europe, married a woman from there, worked with 3 companies, and > been in 7 countries. > so how did you miss the fact that unions have europe strangled with a 35 hour week, toxic high wages and benefits, and labor laws that prevent terminations? none of those things exist here. companies here say they can't make a profit because of unions, but the europeans manage to be able to in spite of them? something's terribly wrong with that excuse, particularly when you understand that it's the /european/ divisions of gm and frod that are generating the profits that keep those two companies afloat. kinda. reality is, detroit management that has lost touch with their customer base over here. and has continued to ignore the 30 year rising tide of japanese manufacturers using AMERICAN management skills and AMERICAN quality control to thrash us at the games WE invented. unions may be a huge pita, but bleating about them is like bleating about the fleas on a dog when it has your balls in its mouth - they're simply not the #1 problem. |
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
> > in partnership with chrysler
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monocoque > >> the germans were into crash deformation zones in the 40's. > > I stand corrected. > >> if by "computers", you mean fuel injection, injection was used in germany in the 30's. electronic fuel injection was usa, > > Well, still happened :) > > but that was imposed on manufacturers, kicking and screaming, by > > californias emissions laws. > > no, I meant the ECU. again, you'll just say it was installed to > > deal with epa laws, but it still happened here. As did the catalytic > > converter. > but you were trying to argue it from the "automotive innovation" > position, as if it was leadership by the auto industry. it wasn't. it > was california's environmental laws that /forced/ a highly reluctant > industry into compliance. and they fought it tooth and nail - all the > way to federal court. innovation wether it happens to accomodate a mandate or due to a drive for excellence or is delivered by pixies is still innovation. > >> the assembly line, was ford, us. > > gps is /utterly/ irrelevant when your crankshafts are cast, your > >> body pressings are mis-shapen and your transmissions barely last 100k. > > > > here's an interesting bit. anyway, until pretty recently, the us auto > > industry was at least fully competitive with anyone's best. What > > changed? I'll tell you, the technology changed and the companies were > > prevented from implementing it due to UCS interference (union > > suckers) > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...latives#Firsts > > i can tell you for sure, the bit on injection chronology is wrong. the > me109 german fighter plane from ww2 used fuel injection, and that system > was tested extensively on german racing cars in the 1930's as the nazi's > armed ready for war, but in "stealth mode" due to the treaty of > versailles. it may not have been used on production vehicles over > there, but to claim that it dates from the 50's is incorrect. Still an interesting page all in all. > > If management doesn't have the balls to face down a strike, lose > > billions of dollars and precious market share, and then have the > > federal government step in and decide what to do based on what will > > win votes you mean? look, this isn't complicated, the unions are > > strangling the industry, they aren't the only problem, but they are > > the biggest. > > unions are a problem, but other fundamental problems are much bigger. > they're /not/ responsible for poor product design, they're /not/ > responsible for poor product specification, they /not/ responsible for > lack of innovation, they're /not/ responsible for failure to bring new > product to market, and they're most /definitely/ not responsible for suv's! you are wrong. if costs are higher for X, then they need to be cut on Y to stay even. costs for labor are higher and the automation is a PITA to implement for every step of the implementation, so if that's a no-go, then the costs have to be made up in other places. The first cut is materials quality. second is tolerancing because that has a huge effect on costs. third cut is engineering. you don't have to agree, and frankly, this conversation is tiring. suvs are the fault of the american regulation and the consumer, not the manufacturers, so they are a red herring, the manufacturers were a little slow realizing that the suv day is past, but not badly so. > > It does support what I said. they had a dispute about freaking > > bar codes. > no, they were on board with bar codes from day one - they simply wanted > data inputters to have the choice of being union. what's so freakin' > tough about that? The fact that their existing data inputters were non-union? > > I was wrong about strike vs lockout, but it really amounts > > to the same thing, the unions refused to use the new tech, and the > > company said you have to. the clerical staff is and was nonunion, so > > the union claims that they were trying to exclude the clerical staff > > from the union were bullshit. It's a little hard to find decent > > objective analysis of political bullshit that happened 10 years ago, > > so I'm going to have to ask you to look past the spin they put on that > > one. > translation: it's hard to find anything that supports the "unions caused > it" position! basically because it doesn't exist. hard to find any other areticle whatsoever that isn't from socialism weekly. doesn't change the facts, which even in socialism weekly look BAD for the union position if you read the article I posted and look even a tiny bit past the spin. > > All of them. starting salary for ALL branches of engineering is > > 40k plus or minus 5 depending on location and specialty. > cite. http://www.doe.mtu.edu/news/degree_worth.html well, seems that chem-Es and EEs beat that and it's aparently been a while since I looked. I will therefore acknowledge being off a mite. However, the fact that a chemE is in the same freaking ballpark with the starting salary of a high school drop-out garbageman is nauseating. > >>> In > >>> the US, untrained uneducated unmotivated union cocksuckers get paid > >>> salaries approaching those earned by doctors, ($74,000 for dockworkers > >>> on average vs $100,000 for doctors starting salary for civil engineers > >>> $33,000) > >> in europe, grads consistently get paid less than union workers. > > As they do here. > > but you were arguing that it was a union problem /here/! it's not. > it's a union "problem" everywhere. the point is, detroit is citing it > as the "cause". it's not. it's management paralysis and lack of gonads > in dealing with their own lack of input. The fact that the european auto manufacturers are getting stepped on by the asian non-union shops doesn't give you a clue? the US manufacturers are collapsing first since they have the problem worse than europe, after all, the european unions DID allow the automation to happen. so, the collapse of the US manufacturers is making a hole big enough for the european inefficient unionized plants to tread water while the asians advance by leaps and bounds. > > Okay, thing 1 was that I was talking about union pay scales > > compared to professional pay scales, and pointing out that they are > > consistently higher. > but it's the same or worse in europe. detroit citing "union" as the > cause of their problem is simply failure to acknowledge the elephant in > the room. it's not the only thing, but it is the biggest thing. also, the union-ess in the us extends to all phases of the supply cycle more than in europe, europe has all the russian imports to draw from, nonunion steel, etc. Detroit doesn't. Okay, I'll grant that management has made some hideous calls, but the unions are the lions share of the issue. > >>> Also note that the german automotive industry is in collapse now > >>> with similar problems to ours in terms of innovation, quality and > >>> pricing. > >> really? is that why bmw, mercedes and vw are all over american roads? > > Lag. unions work great as long as nothing changes. you'll note > > that for the past 20 years, bmw and mercedes have been declining HARD > > in quality, reliability and overall desireability. besides, luxury > > cars are a bit of a special case. > nothing much luxury about a vw. besides, mercedes are low end crap in > europe - it's only dumb americans being willing to pay a premium that > makes them "prestige" over here. ever ridden a taxi in germany? yep, I have ridden in the 25 year old mercedes taxis in half of europe. > >>> and as for french cars.... what french cars? > >> er, peugeot, citroen, nissan... > > Nissan is japanese > controlled by renault, france. And mercedes is controlled by Chrysler, US. And renault is merged with GM, Saab merged a while back also with GM, bmw merged with land rover, british, jaguar merged with ford, so really, there's not much point in your statement. nissan got big as a japanese car, it's been merged with renault, we'll see where that goes, but for now it's still a japanese car, just like mercedes is a german car and gm is american, regardless of the stock ownership. > > and the rest of them combined do not amount to > > the sales on the toyota prius. France effectively has no auto > > industry. > yes they do. they /export/ nothing to the us, but nissan sell well. > see above. and they sell massively throughout europe, the middle east > and south america. nissan is a great japanese car company, however, like I said, all the rest of the french cars combined are less total volume than the toyota prius. > > the reason we don't do that is the unions will not allow it. > > very simple, and very clearly true. Automation eliminates jobs. > > no, exporting jobs to china eliminates jobs. automation retains jobs. > fewer jobs for sure, but they are retained, along with the technology. > ask motorola about the "returns" they get from exporting their jobs and > technology to china - a market flooded with cheap knock-off chinese > competition where they're having serious problems. motorola's > technology and intellectual property walked out the door every evening > when their chinese employees went home. and now it's being used against > their dumb asses. if they'd stayed home and automated, they could > compete on price and keep their technology safe. yes, however, the company does not need to ask anyon'e permission to move the jobs, they DO need to ask permission, face the strike, and go through the arbitration to automate. > > Okay, but we're trying to answer the "why can't they make it?" > > question, and the answer is very simple. Unions. 100% of all union > > auto manufacturers in the world are losing market share compared to > > 100% of the non-union manufacturers which are gaining. Those numbers > > do not lie. No bleating, No squalking, just the cold facts, unions > > and long term success are incompatible. > elephant in the room - their product sucks! if they can't make anything > worth buying, they're going to go out of business. cost structures are > immaterial in comparison. yep, gotta rob peter if paul is to get paid! non-union manufacturers are eating union shops up wholesale, why is toyota fast becoming the largest manufacturer and ford failing? what is the one fundamental difference between the toyota factory in the midwest and the ford factories in the midwest? UNIONS!!. > > As it happens, and not that it's relevent, I've spent over a year > > in europe, married a woman from there, worked with 3 companies, and > > been in 7 countries. > so how did you miss the fact that unions have europe strangled with a 35 > hour week, toxic high wages and benefits, and labor laws that prevent > terminations? none of those things exist here. companies here say they > can't make a profit because of unions, but the europeans manage to be > able to in spite of them? something's terribly wrong with that excuse, > particularly when you understand that it's the /european/ divisions of > gm and frod that are generating the profits that keep those two > companies afloat. kinda. because they DON'T. they have a few areas strangled thusly, and those countries are having economic problems. notice the patterns? the ford plant in europe? NON-UNION!! > reality is, detroit management that has lost touch with their customer > base over here. and has continued to ignore the 30 year rising tide of > japanese manufacturers using AMERICAN management skills and AMERICAN > quality control to thrash us at the games WE invented. unions may be a > huge pita, but bleating about them is like bleating about the fleas on a > dog when it has your balls in its mouth - they're simply not the #1 problem. We're going to have to agree to disagree here. it's fairly clear that you're not stupid, however, we're seeing this from different perspectives, I am both an engineer and a business-man, so I see the true costs the unions place on their industries, I see the performance of non-union vs union shops, and I see where those costs are being made up. Your background is unclear, however, it's pretty clear that you do have some technical background, and you are seeing the finished product inadequacy. I lay the blame for that in 1 place, you in another. screw it, in the end we're all dead anyway. |
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
> > in partnership with chrysler
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monocoque > >> the germans were into crash deformation zones in the 40's. > > I stand corrected. > >> if by "computers", you mean fuel injection, injection was used in germany in the 30's. electronic fuel injection was usa, > > Well, still happened :) > > but that was imposed on manufacturers, kicking and screaming, by > > californias emissions laws. > > no, I meant the ECU. again, you'll just say it was installed to > > deal with epa laws, but it still happened here. As did the catalytic > > converter. > but you were trying to argue it from the "automotive innovation" > position, as if it was leadership by the auto industry. it wasn't. it > was california's environmental laws that /forced/ a highly reluctant > industry into compliance. and they fought it tooth and nail - all the > way to federal court. innovation wether it happens to accomodate a mandate or due to a drive for excellence or is delivered by pixies is still innovation. > >> the assembly line, was ford, us. > > gps is /utterly/ irrelevant when your crankshafts are cast, your > >> body pressings are mis-shapen and your transmissions barely last 100k. > > > > here's an interesting bit. anyway, until pretty recently, the us auto > > industry was at least fully competitive with anyone's best. What > > changed? I'll tell you, the technology changed and the companies were > > prevented from implementing it due to UCS interference (union > > suckers) > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...latives#Firsts > > i can tell you for sure, the bit on injection chronology is wrong. the > me109 german fighter plane from ww2 used fuel injection, and that system > was tested extensively on german racing cars in the 1930's as the nazi's > armed ready for war, but in "stealth mode" due to the treaty of > versailles. it may not have been used on production vehicles over > there, but to claim that it dates from the 50's is incorrect. Still an interesting page all in all. > > If management doesn't have the balls to face down a strike, lose > > billions of dollars and precious market share, and then have the > > federal government step in and decide what to do based on what will > > win votes you mean? look, this isn't complicated, the unions are > > strangling the industry, they aren't the only problem, but they are > > the biggest. > > unions are a problem, but other fundamental problems are much bigger. > they're /not/ responsible for poor product design, they're /not/ > responsible for poor product specification, they /not/ responsible for > lack of innovation, they're /not/ responsible for failure to bring new > product to market, and they're most /definitely/ not responsible for suv's! you are wrong. if costs are higher for X, then they need to be cut on Y to stay even. costs for labor are higher and the automation is a PITA to implement for every step of the implementation, so if that's a no-go, then the costs have to be made up in other places. The first cut is materials quality. second is tolerancing because that has a huge effect on costs. third cut is engineering. you don't have to agree, and frankly, this conversation is tiring. suvs are the fault of the american regulation and the consumer, not the manufacturers, so they are a red herring, the manufacturers were a little slow realizing that the suv day is past, but not badly so. > > It does support what I said. they had a dispute about freaking > > bar codes. > no, they were on board with bar codes from day one - they simply wanted > data inputters to have the choice of being union. what's so freakin' > tough about that? The fact that their existing data inputters were non-union? > > I was wrong about strike vs lockout, but it really amounts > > to the same thing, the unions refused to use the new tech, and the > > company said you have to. the clerical staff is and was nonunion, so > > the union claims that they were trying to exclude the clerical staff > > from the union were bullshit. It's a little hard to find decent > > objective analysis of political bullshit that happened 10 years ago, > > so I'm going to have to ask you to look past the spin they put on that > > one. > translation: it's hard to find anything that supports the "unions caused > it" position! basically because it doesn't exist. hard to find any other areticle whatsoever that isn't from socialism weekly. doesn't change the facts, which even in socialism weekly look BAD for the union position if you read the article I posted and look even a tiny bit past the spin. > > All of them. starting salary for ALL branches of engineering is > > 40k plus or minus 5 depending on location and specialty. > cite. http://www.doe.mtu.edu/news/degree_worth.html well, seems that chem-Es and EEs beat that and it's aparently been a while since I looked. I will therefore acknowledge being off a mite. However, the fact that a chemE is in the same freaking ballpark with the starting salary of a high school drop-out garbageman is nauseating. > >>> In > >>> the US, untrained uneducated unmotivated union cocksuckers get paid > >>> salaries approaching those earned by doctors, ($74,000 for dockworkers > >>> on average vs $100,000 for doctors starting salary for civil engineers > >>> $33,000) > >> in europe, grads consistently get paid less than union workers. > > As they do here. > > but you were arguing that it was a union problem /here/! it's not. > it's a union "problem" everywhere. the point is, detroit is citing it > as the "cause". it's not. it's management paralysis and lack of gonads > in dealing with their own lack of input. The fact that the european auto manufacturers are getting stepped on by the asian non-union shops doesn't give you a clue? the US manufacturers are collapsing first since they have the problem worse than europe, after all, the european unions DID allow the automation to happen. so, the collapse of the US manufacturers is making a hole big enough for the european inefficient unionized plants to tread water while the asians advance by leaps and bounds. > > Okay, thing 1 was that I was talking about union pay scales > > compared to professional pay scales, and pointing out that they are > > consistently higher. > but it's the same or worse in europe. detroit citing "union" as the > cause of their problem is simply failure to acknowledge the elephant in > the room. it's not the only thing, but it is the biggest thing. also, the union-ess in the us extends to all phases of the supply cycle more than in europe, europe has all the russian imports to draw from, nonunion steel, etc. Detroit doesn't. Okay, I'll grant that management has made some hideous calls, but the unions are the lions share of the issue. > >>> Also note that the german automotive industry is in collapse now > >>> with similar problems to ours in terms of innovation, quality and > >>> pricing. > >> really? is that why bmw, mercedes and vw are all over american roads? > > Lag. unions work great as long as nothing changes. you'll note > > that for the past 20 years, bmw and mercedes have been declining HARD > > in quality, reliability and overall desireability. besides, luxury > > cars are a bit of a special case. > nothing much luxury about a vw. besides, mercedes are low end crap in > europe - it's only dumb americans being willing to pay a premium that > makes them "prestige" over here. ever ridden a taxi in germany? yep, I have ridden in the 25 year old mercedes taxis in half of europe. > >>> and as for french cars.... what french cars? > >> er, peugeot, citroen, nissan... > > Nissan is japanese > controlled by renault, france. And mercedes is controlled by Chrysler, US. And renault is merged with GM, Saab merged a while back also with GM, bmw merged with land rover, british, jaguar merged with ford, so really, there's not much point in your statement. nissan got big as a japanese car, it's been merged with renault, we'll see where that goes, but for now it's still a japanese car, just like mercedes is a german car and gm is american, regardless of the stock ownership. > > and the rest of them combined do not amount to > > the sales on the toyota prius. France effectively has no auto > > industry. > yes they do. they /export/ nothing to the us, but nissan sell well. > see above. and they sell massively throughout europe, the middle east > and south america. nissan is a great japanese car company, however, like I said, all the rest of the french cars combined are less total volume than the toyota prius. > > the reason we don't do that is the unions will not allow it. > > very simple, and very clearly true. Automation eliminates jobs. > > no, exporting jobs to china eliminates jobs. automation retains jobs. > fewer jobs for sure, but they are retained, along with the technology. > ask motorola about the "returns" they get from exporting their jobs and > technology to china - a market flooded with cheap knock-off chinese > competition where they're having serious problems. motorola's > technology and intellectual property walked out the door every evening > when their chinese employees went home. and now it's being used against > their dumb asses. if they'd stayed home and automated, they could > compete on price and keep their technology safe. yes, however, the company does not need to ask anyon'e permission to move the jobs, they DO need to ask permission, face the strike, and go through the arbitration to automate. > > Okay, but we're trying to answer the "why can't they make it?" > > question, and the answer is very simple. Unions. 100% of all union > > auto manufacturers in the world are losing market share compared to > > 100% of the non-union manufacturers which are gaining. Those numbers > > do not lie. No bleating, No squalking, just the cold facts, unions > > and long term success are incompatible. > elephant in the room - their product sucks! if they can't make anything > worth buying, they're going to go out of business. cost structures are > immaterial in comparison. yep, gotta rob peter if paul is to get paid! non-union manufacturers are eating union shops up wholesale, why is toyota fast becoming the largest manufacturer and ford failing? what is the one fundamental difference between the toyota factory in the midwest and the ford factories in the midwest? UNIONS!!. > > As it happens, and not that it's relevent, I've spent over a year > > in europe, married a woman from there, worked with 3 companies, and > > been in 7 countries. > so how did you miss the fact that unions have europe strangled with a 35 > hour week, toxic high wages and benefits, and labor laws that prevent > terminations? none of those things exist here. companies here say they > can't make a profit because of unions, but the europeans manage to be > able to in spite of them? something's terribly wrong with that excuse, > particularly when you understand that it's the /european/ divisions of > gm and frod that are generating the profits that keep those two > companies afloat. kinda. because they DON'T. they have a few areas strangled thusly, and those countries are having economic problems. notice the patterns? the ford plant in europe? NON-UNION!! > reality is, detroit management that has lost touch with their customer > base over here. and has continued to ignore the 30 year rising tide of > japanese manufacturers using AMERICAN management skills and AMERICAN > quality control to thrash us at the games WE invented. unions may be a > huge pita, but bleating about them is like bleating about the fleas on a > dog when it has your balls in its mouth - they're simply not the #1 problem. We're going to have to agree to disagree here. it's fairly clear that you're not stupid, however, we're seeing this from different perspectives, I am both an engineer and a business-man, so I see the true costs the unions place on their industries, I see the performance of non-union vs union shops, and I see where those costs are being made up. Your background is unclear, however, it's pretty clear that you do have some technical background, and you are seeing the finished product inadequacy. I lay the blame for that in 1 place, you in another. screw it, in the end we're all dead anyway. |
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
bill wrote:
<snip> > innovation wether it happens to accomodate a mandate or due to a > drive for excellence or is delivered by pixies is still innovation. detroit can't exactly claim it a glorious achievement of leadership and innovation. they fought and sued to stop it. and lost. > <snip> > you are wrong. if costs are higher for X, then they need to be > cut on Y to stay even. and if sales are zero, costs are irrelevant. > costs for labor are higher in europe... > and the automation > is a PITA to implement you might be closer to the truth than you intend - management doesn't have the balls to implement! personally, i have /zero/ sympathy if they can't get it together. > for every step of the implementation, so if > that's a no-go, then the costs have to be made up in other places. but automation slashes costs on everything. the only cost increase is that of capital, but it's cheaper to pay interest on machine loans than it is to pay salaries. > The first cut is materials quality. second is tolerancing because > that has a huge effect on costs. third cut is engineering. but it loses you customers! don't sales matter? > you don't > have to agree, and frankly, this conversation is tiring. suvs are the > fault of the american regulation and the consumer, not the > manufacturers, eh? so who makes them? japan didn't. japan stood about for years wondering if we'd gone insane. > so they are a red herring, the manufacturers were a > little slow realizing that the suv day is past, but not badly so. not a red herring if 50% of domestic production capacity and the majority of domestic revenue generation is derived from them. <snip> > The fact that their existing data inputters were non-union? no, having a lock-out in case inputters might want to join a union! > <snip> > > > http://www.doe.mtu.edu/news/degree_worth.html > > well, seems that chem-Es and EEs beat that and it's aparently > been a while since I looked. I will therefore acknowledge being off a > mite. However, the fact that a chemE is in the same freaking ballpark > with the starting salary of a high school drop-out garbageman is > nauseating. maybe they should join a union? [JOKE] <snip> > > The fact that the european auto manufacturers are getting stepped > on by the asian non-union shops doesn't give you a clue? but they're not. > the US > manufacturers are collapsing first since they have the problem worse > than europe, after all, the european unions DID allow the automation > to happen. so, the collapse of the US manufacturers is making a hole > big enough for the european inefficient unionized plants to tread > water while the asians advance by leaps and bounds. european manufacturers produce product european consumers want. /that's/ why they're not collapsing. even american manufacturers in europe produce product european consumers want, and profitably. why can't american manufacturers in america produce product american consumers want? profitably. > <snip> > > it's not the only thing, but it is the biggest thing. also, the > union-ess in the us extends to all phases of the supply cycle more > than in europe, europe has all the russian imports to draw from, > nonunion steel, etc. Detroit doesn't. Okay, I'll grant that > management has made some hideous calls, but the unions are the lions > share of the issue. dude, if the product is crap and not selling, there's no amount of union-blaming can cover for that. > <snip> > > And mercedes is controlled by Chrysler, US. other way around. daimler bought chrysler and senior management here was german. but the germans just sold it back to wall street, so it's back in domestic hands. now we'll see if the wall st sharpsters have the gonads to do what needs to be done. or whether they'll just asset strip and destroy. > And renault is > merged with GM, cite. there were talks, but they ended a year ago with no deal. apparently gm wanted to be paid to have renault bail them out!!! > Saab merged a while back also with GM, saab were bought by gm - they were desperate for a european marque of quality. > bmw merged with > land rover, british, bmw bought range rover. vw bought land rover. > jaguar merged with ford, ford bought jaguar. that's what prompted gm's purchase of saab. > so really, there's not > much point in your statement. nissan got big as a japanese car, it's > been merged with renault, we'll see where that goes, but for now it's > still a japanese car, nissan was in the can and sliding fast. then renault bought 44% and turned them around. > just like mercedes is a german car and gm is > american, regardless of the stock ownership. so rolls-royce is english, even though it's now owned by bmw and has bmw componentry? > <snip> > > nissan is a great japanese car company, however, like I said, all > the rest of the french cars combined are less total volume than the > toyota prius. cite. > <snip> > > yes, however, the company does not need to ask anyon'e permission > to move the jobs, they DO need to ask permission, face the strike, and > go through the arbitration to automate. so it's lack of balls. just what i've said all along. > <snip> > yep, gotta rob peter if paul is to get paid! non-union > manufacturers are eating union shops up wholesale, why is toyota fast > becoming the largest manufacturer and ford failing? what is the one > fundamental difference between the toyota factory in the midwest and > the ford factories in the midwest? UNIONS!!. how do unions affect sales and market share? frod is failing because their product line is crap and not selling, even with massive price slashing. there's no amount of union blaming can get in the way of frod's poor lineup choice. > <snip> > because they DON'T. they have a few areas strangled thusly, and > those countries are having economic problems. notice the patterns? > the ford plant in europe? NON-UNION!! wrong. highly unionized. > <snip> > > We're going to have to agree to disagree here. it's fairly clear > that you're not stupid, however, we're seeing this from different > perspectives, I am both an engineer and a business-man, so I see the > true costs the unions place on their industries, I see the performance > of non-union vs union shops, and I see where those costs are being > made up. i work closely with union and non-union vendors. and some of the lower rank union management are both stupid and corrupt. but in spite of that, their membership is, by and large, highly dependable and work is done to higher standards, even though it's more expensive. but it's not so much more expensive as to be unusable. pretty much covers the reliability/quality delta from where i stand. > Your background is unclear, however, it's pretty clear that > you do have some technical background, and you are seeing the finished > product inadequacy. I lay the blame for that in 1 place, you in > another. screw it, in the end we're all dead anyway. it ain't over till it's over. this can be turned around if we don't give up. and while we're down, stop shooting ourselves in the foot by giving our jobs and technology to the chinese. automation will cure that problem, but only after management acknowledge their own problems and take some initiative rather than simply react and complain. |
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
bill wrote:
<snip> > innovation wether it happens to accomodate a mandate or due to a > drive for excellence or is delivered by pixies is still innovation. detroit can't exactly claim it a glorious achievement of leadership and innovation. they fought and sued to stop it. and lost. > <snip> > you are wrong. if costs are higher for X, then they need to be > cut on Y to stay even. and if sales are zero, costs are irrelevant. > costs for labor are higher in europe... > and the automation > is a PITA to implement you might be closer to the truth than you intend - management doesn't have the balls to implement! personally, i have /zero/ sympathy if they can't get it together. > for every step of the implementation, so if > that's a no-go, then the costs have to be made up in other places. but automation slashes costs on everything. the only cost increase is that of capital, but it's cheaper to pay interest on machine loans than it is to pay salaries. > The first cut is materials quality. second is tolerancing because > that has a huge effect on costs. third cut is engineering. but it loses you customers! don't sales matter? > you don't > have to agree, and frankly, this conversation is tiring. suvs are the > fault of the american regulation and the consumer, not the > manufacturers, eh? so who makes them? japan didn't. japan stood about for years wondering if we'd gone insane. > so they are a red herring, the manufacturers were a > little slow realizing that the suv day is past, but not badly so. not a red herring if 50% of domestic production capacity and the majority of domestic revenue generation is derived from them. <snip> > The fact that their existing data inputters were non-union? no, having a lock-out in case inputters might want to join a union! > <snip> > > > http://www.doe.mtu.edu/news/degree_worth.html > > well, seems that chem-Es and EEs beat that and it's aparently > been a while since I looked. I will therefore acknowledge being off a > mite. However, the fact that a chemE is in the same freaking ballpark > with the starting salary of a high school drop-out garbageman is > nauseating. maybe they should join a union? [JOKE] <snip> > > The fact that the european auto manufacturers are getting stepped > on by the asian non-union shops doesn't give you a clue? but they're not. > the US > manufacturers are collapsing first since they have the problem worse > than europe, after all, the european unions DID allow the automation > to happen. so, the collapse of the US manufacturers is making a hole > big enough for the european inefficient unionized plants to tread > water while the asians advance by leaps and bounds. european manufacturers produce product european consumers want. /that's/ why they're not collapsing. even american manufacturers in europe produce product european consumers want, and profitably. why can't american manufacturers in america produce product american consumers want? profitably. > <snip> > > it's not the only thing, but it is the biggest thing. also, the > union-ess in the us extends to all phases of the supply cycle more > than in europe, europe has all the russian imports to draw from, > nonunion steel, etc. Detroit doesn't. Okay, I'll grant that > management has made some hideous calls, but the unions are the lions > share of the issue. dude, if the product is crap and not selling, there's no amount of union-blaming can cover for that. > <snip> > > And mercedes is controlled by Chrysler, US. other way around. daimler bought chrysler and senior management here was german. but the germans just sold it back to wall street, so it's back in domestic hands. now we'll see if the wall st sharpsters have the gonads to do what needs to be done. or whether they'll just asset strip and destroy. > And renault is > merged with GM, cite. there were talks, but they ended a year ago with no deal. apparently gm wanted to be paid to have renault bail them out!!! > Saab merged a while back also with GM, saab were bought by gm - they were desperate for a european marque of quality. > bmw merged with > land rover, british, bmw bought range rover. vw bought land rover. > jaguar merged with ford, ford bought jaguar. that's what prompted gm's purchase of saab. > so really, there's not > much point in your statement. nissan got big as a japanese car, it's > been merged with renault, we'll see where that goes, but for now it's > still a japanese car, nissan was in the can and sliding fast. then renault bought 44% and turned them around. > just like mercedes is a german car and gm is > american, regardless of the stock ownership. so rolls-royce is english, even though it's now owned by bmw and has bmw componentry? > <snip> > > nissan is a great japanese car company, however, like I said, all > the rest of the french cars combined are less total volume than the > toyota prius. cite. > <snip> > > yes, however, the company does not need to ask anyon'e permission > to move the jobs, they DO need to ask permission, face the strike, and > go through the arbitration to automate. so it's lack of balls. just what i've said all along. > <snip> > yep, gotta rob peter if paul is to get paid! non-union > manufacturers are eating union shops up wholesale, why is toyota fast > becoming the largest manufacturer and ford failing? what is the one > fundamental difference between the toyota factory in the midwest and > the ford factories in the midwest? UNIONS!!. how do unions affect sales and market share? frod is failing because their product line is crap and not selling, even with massive price slashing. there's no amount of union blaming can get in the way of frod's poor lineup choice. > <snip> > because they DON'T. they have a few areas strangled thusly, and > those countries are having economic problems. notice the patterns? > the ford plant in europe? NON-UNION!! wrong. highly unionized. > <snip> > > We're going to have to agree to disagree here. it's fairly clear > that you're not stupid, however, we're seeing this from different > perspectives, I am both an engineer and a business-man, so I see the > true costs the unions place on their industries, I see the performance > of non-union vs union shops, and I see where those costs are being > made up. i work closely with union and non-union vendors. and some of the lower rank union management are both stupid and corrupt. but in spite of that, their membership is, by and large, highly dependable and work is done to higher standards, even though it's more expensive. but it's not so much more expensive as to be unusable. pretty much covers the reliability/quality delta from where i stand. > Your background is unclear, however, it's pretty clear that > you do have some technical background, and you are seeing the finished > product inadequacy. I lay the blame for that in 1 place, you in > another. screw it, in the end we're all dead anyway. it ain't over till it's over. this can be turned around if we don't give up. and while we're down, stop shooting ourselves in the foot by giving our jobs and technology to the chinese. automation will cure that problem, but only after management acknowledge their own problems and take some initiative rather than simply react and complain. |
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
> > you are wrong. if costs are higher for X, then they need to be
> > cut on Y to stay even. > and if sales are zero, costs are irrelevant. yes, and to have sales you have to produce a comparable product at a comparable cost. can't do that when the biggest cost is twice as expensive for you as the competition. > > costs for labor are higher > in europe... nope, nice juicy eastern european nonunion steel and manufacturing labor markets. You can pay a union assembly shop, but not an entire supply chain. > > for every step of the implementation, so if > > that's a no-go, then the costs have to be made up in other places. > but automation slashes costs on everything. the only cost increase is > that of capital, but it's cheaper to pay interest on machine loans than > it is to pay salaries. except that you will have to face a strike, hire tens of thousands of lawyers and pay court fees and lose market share while you're not making cars in order to pull it off. nope, cheaper to keep sliding, you're dead anyway, might as well loot the body. > > The first cut is materials quality. second is tolerancing because > > that has a huge effect on costs. third cut is engineering. > but it loses you customers! don't sales matter? only if they are at a profit. making up a per unit loss on volume only kills you faster. > > you don't > > have to agree, and frankly, this conversation is tiring. suvs are the > > fault of the american regulation and the consumer, not the > > manufacturers, > eh? so who makes them? japan didn't. japan stood about for years > wondering if we'd gone insane. the US manufacturers made them because it was what their customers wanted. Now they are backing away from them as the market dries up, just like any competent management team would do. > > so they are a red herring, the manufacturers were a > > little slow realizing that the suv day is past, but not badly so. > not a red herring if 50% of domestic production capacity and the > majority of domestic revenue generation is derived from them. thus proving exactly that US auto management is neither myopic lacking in testicular fortitude, or stupid, they gave the customers what they wanted, in advance of thecompetition. > > The fact that the european auto manufacturers are getting stepped > > on by the asian non-union shops doesn't give you a clue? > > but they're not. yep, they are. european car sales are holding level or dropping while japanese sales are gaining furiously. > > the US > > manufacturers are collapsing first since they have the problem worse > > than europe, after all, the european unions DID allow the automation > > to happen. so, the collapse of the US manufacturers is making a hole > > big enough for the european inefficient unionized plants to tread > > water while the asians advance by leaps and bounds. > > european manufacturers produce product european consumers want. > /that's/ why they're not collapsing. even american manufacturers in > europe produce product european consumers want, and profitably. why > can't american manufacturers in america produce product american > consumers want? profitably. because the unions cost too much. > > it's not the only thing, but it is the biggest thing. also, the > > union-ess in the us extends to all phases of the supply cycle more > > than in europe, europe has all the russian imports to draw from, > > nonunion steel, etc. Detroit doesn't. Okay, I'll grant that > > management has made some hideous calls, but the unions are the lions > > share of the issue. > > dude, if the product is crap and not selling, there's no amount of > union-blaming can cover for that. if the product is crap because the unions are tooexpensive to allow for the manufacture of a good car at a comparable price then there is no amount of management blaming that will solve the problem. > <snip> > > yep, gotta rob peter if paul is to get paid! non-union > > manufacturers are eating union shops up wholesale, why is toyota fast > > becoming the largest manufacturer and ford failing? what is the one > > fundamental difference between the toyota factory in the midwest and > > the ford factories in the midwest? UNIONS!!. > > how do unions affect sales and market share? frod is failing because > their product line is crap and not selling, even with massive price > slashing. there's no amount of union blaming can get in the way of > frod's poor lineup choice. gee, perhaps by making a comparable product MORE EXPENSIVE?!? > > because they DON'T. they have a few areas strangled thusly, and > > those countries are having economic problems. notice the patterns? > > the ford plant in europe? NON-UNION!! > wrong. highly unionized. nope, non-union plant in russia, makes the entire european focus line. ford is closing their unionized western european plants. > > Your background is unclear, however, it's pretty clear that > > you do have some technical background, and you are seeing the finished > > product inadequacy. I lay the blame for that in 1 place, you in > > another. screw it, in the end we're all dead anyway. > > it ain't over till it's over. this can be turned around if we > don't give up. and while we're down, stop shooting ourselves in the > foot by giving our jobs and technology to the chinese. automation will > cure that problem, but only after management acknowledge their own > problems and take some initiative rather than simply react and complain. yup, it can be turned around if people get their heads out of their asses and figure out that if they keep holding out for featherbed, unrealistic pensions, no copay medical insurance, and guaranteed jobs for life, they will have no jobs whatsoever. |
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
> > you are wrong. if costs are higher for X, then they need to be
> > cut on Y to stay even. > and if sales are zero, costs are irrelevant. yes, and to have sales you have to produce a comparable product at a comparable cost. can't do that when the biggest cost is twice as expensive for you as the competition. > > costs for labor are higher > in europe... nope, nice juicy eastern european nonunion steel and manufacturing labor markets. You can pay a union assembly shop, but not an entire supply chain. > > for every step of the implementation, so if > > that's a no-go, then the costs have to be made up in other places. > but automation slashes costs on everything. the only cost increase is > that of capital, but it's cheaper to pay interest on machine loans than > it is to pay salaries. except that you will have to face a strike, hire tens of thousands of lawyers and pay court fees and lose market share while you're not making cars in order to pull it off. nope, cheaper to keep sliding, you're dead anyway, might as well loot the body. > > The first cut is materials quality. second is tolerancing because > > that has a huge effect on costs. third cut is engineering. > but it loses you customers! don't sales matter? only if they are at a profit. making up a per unit loss on volume only kills you faster. > > you don't > > have to agree, and frankly, this conversation is tiring. suvs are the > > fault of the american regulation and the consumer, not the > > manufacturers, > eh? so who makes them? japan didn't. japan stood about for years > wondering if we'd gone insane. the US manufacturers made them because it was what their customers wanted. Now they are backing away from them as the market dries up, just like any competent management team would do. > > so they are a red herring, the manufacturers were a > > little slow realizing that the suv day is past, but not badly so. > not a red herring if 50% of domestic production capacity and the > majority of domestic revenue generation is derived from them. thus proving exactly that US auto management is neither myopic lacking in testicular fortitude, or stupid, they gave the customers what they wanted, in advance of thecompetition. > > The fact that the european auto manufacturers are getting stepped > > on by the asian non-union shops doesn't give you a clue? > > but they're not. yep, they are. european car sales are holding level or dropping while japanese sales are gaining furiously. > > the US > > manufacturers are collapsing first since they have the problem worse > > than europe, after all, the european unions DID allow the automation > > to happen. so, the collapse of the US manufacturers is making a hole > > big enough for the european inefficient unionized plants to tread > > water while the asians advance by leaps and bounds. > > european manufacturers produce product european consumers want. > /that's/ why they're not collapsing. even american manufacturers in > europe produce product european consumers want, and profitably. why > can't american manufacturers in america produce product american > consumers want? profitably. because the unions cost too much. > > it's not the only thing, but it is the biggest thing. also, the > > union-ess in the us extends to all phases of the supply cycle more > > than in europe, europe has all the russian imports to draw from, > > nonunion steel, etc. Detroit doesn't. Okay, I'll grant that > > management has made some hideous calls, but the unions are the lions > > share of the issue. > > dude, if the product is crap and not selling, there's no amount of > union-blaming can cover for that. if the product is crap because the unions are tooexpensive to allow for the manufacture of a good car at a comparable price then there is no amount of management blaming that will solve the problem. > <snip> > > yep, gotta rob peter if paul is to get paid! non-union > > manufacturers are eating union shops up wholesale, why is toyota fast > > becoming the largest manufacturer and ford failing? what is the one > > fundamental difference between the toyota factory in the midwest and > > the ford factories in the midwest? UNIONS!!. > > how do unions affect sales and market share? frod is failing because > their product line is crap and not selling, even with massive price > slashing. there's no amount of union blaming can get in the way of > frod's poor lineup choice. gee, perhaps by making a comparable product MORE EXPENSIVE?!? > > because they DON'T. they have a few areas strangled thusly, and > > those countries are having economic problems. notice the patterns? > > the ford plant in europe? NON-UNION!! > wrong. highly unionized. nope, non-union plant in russia, makes the entire european focus line. ford is closing their unionized western european plants. > > Your background is unclear, however, it's pretty clear that > > you do have some technical background, and you are seeing the finished > > product inadequacy. I lay the blame for that in 1 place, you in > > another. screw it, in the end we're all dead anyway. > > it ain't over till it's over. this can be turned around if we > don't give up. and while we're down, stop shooting ourselves in the > foot by giving our jobs and technology to the chinese. automation will > cure that problem, but only after management acknowledge their own > problems and take some initiative rather than simply react and complain. yup, it can be turned around if people get their heads out of their asses and figure out that if they keep holding out for featherbed, unrealistic pensions, no copay medical insurance, and guaranteed jobs for life, they will have no jobs whatsoever. |
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
bill wrote:
>>> you are wrong. if costs are higher for X, then they need to be >>> cut on Y to stay even. >> and if sales are zero, costs are irrelevant. > > yes, and to have sales you have to produce a comparable product > at a comparable cost. can't do that when the biggest cost is twice as > expensive for you as the competition. and if sales are zero, it doesn't matter what your expenses are - you'll make no money. > >>> costs for labor are higher >> in europe... > > nope, nice juicy eastern european nonunion steel and > manufacturing labor markets. You can pay a union assembly shop, but > not an entire supply chain. eh? steel is a global commodity. it's traded on global markets. it costs less than $700 a ton dockside u.s.a. it's the steelmaker's problem if they can't produce it at a competitive price, not the car maker's. > >>> for every step of the implementation, so if >>> that's a no-go, then the costs have to be made up in other places. >> but automation slashes costs on everything. the only cost increase is >> that of capital, but it's cheaper to pay interest on machine loans than >> it is to pay salaries. > > except that you will have to face a strike, hire tens of > thousands of lawyers and pay court fees and lose market share while > you're not making cars in order to pull it off. nope, cheaper to keep > sliding, you're dead anyway, might as well loot the body. <snip> ok, this is the point at which i belatedly realize that you're simply not here for discussion - there's not a shred of rationality or reality in what you just said. |
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
bill wrote:
>>> you are wrong. if costs are higher for X, then they need to be >>> cut on Y to stay even. >> and if sales are zero, costs are irrelevant. > > yes, and to have sales you have to produce a comparable product > at a comparable cost. can't do that when the biggest cost is twice as > expensive for you as the competition. and if sales are zero, it doesn't matter what your expenses are - you'll make no money. > >>> costs for labor are higher >> in europe... > > nope, nice juicy eastern european nonunion steel and > manufacturing labor markets. You can pay a union assembly shop, but > not an entire supply chain. eh? steel is a global commodity. it's traded on global markets. it costs less than $700 a ton dockside u.s.a. it's the steelmaker's problem if they can't produce it at a competitive price, not the car maker's. > >>> for every step of the implementation, so if >>> that's a no-go, then the costs have to be made up in other places. >> but automation slashes costs on everything. the only cost increase is >> that of capital, but it's cheaper to pay interest on machine loans than >> it is to pay salaries. > > except that you will have to face a strike, hire tens of > thousands of lawyers and pay court fees and lose market share while > you're not making cars in order to pull it off. nope, cheaper to keep > sliding, you're dead anyway, might as well loot the body. <snip> ok, this is the point at which i belatedly realize that you're simply not here for discussion - there's not a shred of rationality or reality in what you just said. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:52 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands