car industry in the us collapsing-how to save it

[danyboy27]

i recently heard that the giants of the car industry in the us where about to total bankrupt, over 400 000 job cuts, an horrible tragedy for all those worker.
the 2 things more likely to happen:
-us governement will not do squat, and all thos worker will loose their jobs
-the us governement will give money to the industries, and they will hold a fews year again

what not likely to happen but would be great
-Nationalisation of the 3 giants in 1 state industry, the us automobil company(fictionnal name.)

i think its viable, and would make the us save millions of dollars for their public sector vehicules; police car,fireman car, military vehicules, etc.
they would also be able to make vehicules for the civilian sector and for export, giving both quality and good prices for the customers, and jobs for the workers.

to all the pessimists, no they will not build lada style crappy car...

anyway, my point of view on this, make me remember the old day when the us marines had their vehicules designed by the cannedfood.co company.

what i say is, if managed well, a big us state owned car company would benefit to everyone, and i am sure many people will import the car for both price and extreme quality.

[534634634265]

why support the dying car industries when oil will end our lifetime?
better to let them die and dissolve.

[Bud Struggle]

The best way to save it is get rid of the Unions and their pension and give away programs. Toyota's cost per man hour for making cars in 1/2 half that of US car makers.

Time for the car companies to go bankrupt, restructure and come out fighting.

[RGacky3]

The best way to save it is get rid of the Unions and their pension and give away programs.

How about we cut the Managers, and Corporate heads pay in half, until they get their act together.

[Bud Struggle]

How about we cut the Managers, and Corporate heads pay in half, until they get their act together.

No argument there. These big corporations run as if they were nationally funded institutions. They are in business to MAKE MONEY--not spend it.

[Plagueround]

The best way to save it is get rid of the Unions and their pension and give away programs. Toyota's cost per man hour for making cars in 1/2 half that of US car makers.

Time for the car companies to go bankrupt, restructure and come out fighting.

It's too bad their biggest problem is policies like the one you suggest above are the reason one of the reasons these industries are taking such a hit. Their consumers have been strangled for so long, they don't have any money left to take.

[InsaneSociety]

Don't worry, Obama will fix America. :)

[Anti Freedom]

Because Presidents are deities, and Obama is a good deity.

The auto industry should and must suffer from this. Bailing out the industry is just corporate welfare, a means to compensate foolish investors for taking the risk they did, and a means to prop up a foolish company for making the mistakes they made.

Nationalizing the industry would be rather pointless. The savings gained from nationalization likely would not be worth the costs of subsidizing the industry. And it certainly would not be worth politicizing the industry either, as then we'd have all sorts of legal attempts to control the auto industry to make it a slave to all sorts of various requests. And I would bet attempts to do away with either problem, would cause the loss of the benefit you trumpet as great.

I suppose that the prior analysis does not make much sense if you assume that the business would be managed well. Well, I would argue that such an assumption does not seem likely, once again, I point the politicization of the industry that would inevitably happen with nationalization, I also would point to the fact that managerial incentives would not be aligned with high competitiveness, finally importing really is unimportant. Money is only good if it buys junk, people stop exporting if they can't get junk worth the money they are importing in exchange for those exports. Yes, I recognize the existence of net foreign deficit, the issue is that our trade deficit is used to buy government bonds and US investments, both of which would not be counted as an export.

[RGacky3]

No argument there. These big corporations run as if they were nationally funded institutions. They are in business to MAKE MONEY--not spend it.

Problem is the CEOs and the such are the people in control so thats not gonna happen, ultimately they are looking out for the interest of making money, for themselves and their stockholders, and for that the workers are just a tool.

Also btw, there is not a big chance a car company going bankrupt will return "fighting".

[danyboy27]

the idea is to make the car industry profitable for the people and not for managers, and if the stat do a restructuration i am sure it can profitable.

[Bud Struggle]

Problem is the CEOs and the such are the people in control so thats not gonna happen, ultimately they are looking out for the interest of making money, for themselves and their stockholders, and for that the workers are just a tool.

Also btw, there is not a big chance a car company going bankrupt will return "fighting".

But the Unions make the worker VERY expensive to work with--I think the number was around $75. an hour per worker. Toyota is around $35 an hour. How are the American's going to compete?

WAY too high for the company to be profitable and innovative. I mean fantastacally way too high.

[Anti Freedom]

the idea is to make the car industry profitable for the people and not for managers, and if the stat do a restructuration i am sure it can profitable.
The idea is to make the car industry produce a desired product, at a level of quality and output that others find desirable, and do so using the least amount of resources, and all of this compared to other possible car manufacturers.

The issue is not whether this:

"ultimately they are looking out for the interest of making money, for themselves and their stockholders, and for that the workers are just a tool."

is true. No honest capitalist would deny that. A number of them promote that, such as Milton Friedman was known for.

The issue is whether or not this profit maximization based system is good compared to all viable alternatives. The issue of course, is to analyze it keeping in mind all of the issues that an allocative system has to deal with, as capitalism has an internal logic to it, based upon it's suppositions, and all other systems in the same light.

[pusher robot]

the 2 things more likely to happen:
-us governement will not do squat, and all thos worker will loose their jobs
-the us governement will give money to the industries, and they will hold a fews year again

This is wrong. A chapter 11 bankruptcy means the company reorganizes and renegotiates its contracts on more favorable terms. GM would still make cars, the workers would still go to work.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

But the Unions make the worker VERY expensive to work with--I think the number was around $75. an hour per worker. Toyota is around $35 an hour. How are the American's going to compete?

WAY too high for the company to be profitable and innovative. I mean fantastacally way too high.

That's such a pathetic excuse. What killed the American auto industry was shitty management pumping out cars for the '80s in the 21st century market, not unions. The UAW has decreased by over 50% since the '70s, and it has no say in what goes up for production. Most German and Japanese automakers are either unionized or have half of their board covered with workers (in Germany), yet they're not shitting out more gold than they consume.

The Japanese had two major, non-market advantages: the Japanese government has stricter MPG requirements, and they have universal health care.

[Bud Struggle]

That's such a pathetic excuse. What killed the American auto industry was shitty management pumping out cars for the '80s in the 21st century market, not unions. The UAW has decreased by over 50% since the '70s, and it has no say in what goes up for production. Most German and Japanese automakers are either unionized or have half of their board covered with workers (in Germany), yet they're not shitting out more gold than they consume.

The Japanese had two major, non-market advantages: the Japanese government has stricter MPG requirements, and they have universal health care.


The problem isn't the Unions per se, the problem is the unreasonable costs associated with the Big Three's particular Union contracts. And no question, the Automakers have been badly managed--and one of the worst things they did was let the Union demands get way out of hand.

Also, the German cars are competing in a completely different market than the American cars--and extra $500. here and there attached to the price tage of a BMW or MB doesn't make any difference, on the other hand $500 onto a Tarus will kill the sale.

Though you are right about the universal health care in Japan helping their auto makers.

[Edit] I just want to point out--I'm not particularly against Unions, just Union practices and demands that unfairly hamper a business from operating profitably.

[Rascolnikova]

The best way to save it is get rid of the Unions and their pension and give away programs. Toyota's cost per man hour for making cars in 1/2 half that of US car makers.

Time for the car companies to go bankrupt, restructure and come out fighting.

I'm all about worker's rights, but the auto-workers union system in the US is broken. Personally I'm inclined to think this is because whatever benefits it confers, it still lacks a fundamental recognition that workers have a right to own their lives.

[Bud Struggle]

Personally I'm inclined to think this is because whatever benefits it confers, it still lacks a fundamental recognition that workers have a right to own their lives.

What does that mean? Worker's contracts are negotiated to the last iota of what the Union can get out of the company. It's all about what the Union asks for.

How would your idea of "recognition" work?

And on a personal note: I haven't dealt with many basic unions (like UAW or Longshoremen) in my life (as opposed to the Plumbers Union or Electricians which are really something different all together,) but I've noticed the ones I have worked with, in the building I rent out (they don't work for me--they work for the renter)--is that for some reason they have this CONSTANT attitude of being pissed off. They do EXACTLY the work they are contracted to do, nothing more, nothing less and the entire time they are MAD at you.

Here in Florida, a right to work state, there are few Unions and the tension is decidedly less. Just my impression.

[Robert]

I don't know how you measure "worker's rights!" Does it mean a guaranteed pension for life, no matter what? Beginning at what age? After how many years of service? To how fat a pension are you entitled? Continuing every month until death, no matter how long you live? No matter how many vehicles are being sold? No matter how much cut in CEO compensation as made? No matter how much money the company is losing? Even after the revolution?

I smell chapter 11 bankruptcy for Ford and GM also, which will mean elimination of many plants, cancellation of existing pension rights, termination of many executive and management positions, and elimination of many models. Massive unemployment and resulting ripple effect throughout the economy. Maybe 2 million jobs.

This Chevy "Volt" may change the whole equation, however. It's reportedly all electric and due out in 2010 if GM can hold on that long.
Labor and management should sit down and decide whether they want to keep producing cars or not.

[RGacky3]

But the Unions make the worker VERY expensive to work with--I think the number was around $75. an hour per worker. Toyota is around $35 an hour. How are the American's going to compete?

WAY too high for the company to be profitable and innovative. I mean fantastacally way too high.

Imagen if those companies were run as a collective, without the need to pump money into fat cat investors and CEOs hands? Thats whats eating up the money, Labor is just one aspect of it, unfortunately its the one aspect everyone cuts first, they will ALWAYSS cut pay and cut labor before taking a pay hit or let the stock drop.

The Unions are not expensive to work with, because if they are charging less than the actual value of their labor (which means market price of what they produce) they are not expensive. (obviously subjectively they are, but I'm talking about exploitation here).

This is EXACTLY one reason that Social-Democracy cannot work, because in Capitalism the most cut throat fat cats win.


They do EXACTLY the work they are contracted to do, nothing more, nothing less and the entire time they are MAD at you

Yeah, as they should. Plus there should be tension, if theres not tension all that means is that the workers are more willing slaves. Like in a slave camp, I'd hope there would be tension.


I don't know how you measure "worker's rights!" Does it mean a guaranteed pension for life, no matter what? Beginning at what age? After how many years of service? To how fat a pension are you entitled? Continuing every month until death, no matter how long you live? No matter how many vehicles are being sold? No matter how much cut in CEO compensation as made? No matter how much money the company is losing? Even after the revolution?


A workers right is to 100% of what he produces.

BTW, about the UAW, I'm not sure how much of a democratic union it is, It seams to me kind of like a Business union, a top down union, the difference between a syndicalist democratic union and a business top down union is the difference between the USSR and Anarchist Spain.

[Rascolnikova]

*sigh*. .

OK. Since the two of you seem determined to ignore the possibility of anarcho-syndicalism in all your posts, I suppose it's time you were introduced.

Hopefully you recognize that it is possible for mutually agreed upon contracts to be unjust. Without that foundation, this is rather flat.

So, presuming that, lets say we leave everything the same as it is--except, we change our notion of just acquisition of property. Let's say we redefine employment as it presently exists to be unjust--and instead we say, for every hour a person works in a company, they must receive a single non-transferable voting share in that company; ownership of all corporations must be in proportion to hours worked.

Under this system, suddenly everyone has a much greater stake in the scene of their day to day life; what they are building up with their time--with their life--becomes theirs, rather than being owned by someone else who arbitrarily started out with more material property than them. Under this system, firms still compete in a market, and the former "employees" now have a personal stake in profitability.

Individuals whose labor has a greater market value would probably still be paid more; if it is really more efficient to pay them more, firms that voted to do so would be more profitable.

Personally I think we would have excellent safety nets under this kind of system, because when workers have power to do so they tend to look after each other very well.


This is sort of an idealization of the concept; it is but one way of running things, and in the long run I'm not sure it's the best one, but with a population as unskilled and apathetic as ours, it seems like it might be a good transitional step at least.

I think union structures are inherently problematic for several reasons. I also think that the degree to which they can encourage workers to be engaged with their lives and their work is the degree to which they succeed in realizing this principle--that people have a right to their own lives, and should not have to sell themselves off peacemeal to survive--and that any compromise short of this ideal is, indeed, a compromise.

[danyboy27]

i dont think the unions are the problem itself tonk, but maybe its what the union became with time. Originally here in quebec, the union really helped to improve the way the worker are treated by their boss, and i really have nothing to say against that. the problem is that those unions,after being so succesfull have amassed millions of dollars, and they basicly work has a corporation rigt now, the more member, the more money.

here they are really really really problematic, and i am not affraid to say they are destroying my province right now, beccause all the public sector is full of sindycates and unions, the governement cantchange the structures, ask for more from their bureaucrats, or even fire them if they are incompetents, they are basicly protected by the union and the only offense they could do to be fired is a rape or a murder, i am dead serious on this.

our education system is a joke, we got a shitload of incimpetents teatcher we cant fire beccause of the unions, we got ton of bureaucrats doing nothing and not getting fired, its like that all over the place.

[Robert]

Let's say we redefine employment as it presently exists to be unjust--and instead we say, for every hour a person works in a company, they must receive a single non-transferable voting share in that company; ownership of all corporations must be in proportion to hours worked.

No, let's not. If I offer someone a job, it's to help me (sorry) and to see how things work out. I'm not going to guarantee him any power over an organization based on one hour of work.

I also want to live in a society where there is some freedom of contract. If I'm willing to sweep up in your dance studio for a dollar a day and a cot, which is maybe all you can afford, plus the chance to observe upclose your pirouettes and pas de chat, then I don't want officious intermeddlers like Ulster and Killfacer saying we can't make that deal.

(You do realize they are planning to wrest power from TomK after the revolution, I trust?)

[Bud Struggle]

Just saw the Space shuttle launch--pretty freakin COOL! It lit up the whole sky! Anyway...




(You do realize they are planning to wrest power from TomK after the revolution, I trust?)
EVERY post on this subject starts off with "OK, let's take TomK's property away from him and then we can...."

But for example: I started my business around my kitchen table with my wife. I planned it out, I started production in my garage, I sold my customers, I made all the stuff myself, I delivered it myself--I plotted out capacities--I bought raw materials, I expanded to a business park.

I hired a few people now and then to help and then later some steady workers. I bought the plant, I sold more customers. I expanded, I collected the accounts payable--and when there wasn't enough money I covered the payroll. I planned and I grew the business. And the business grew. I hired more people.

And you are telling me that I owe a piece of my business to some guy that comes off the street and contracts with me to push a button on a machine for $7. an hour?

Nonesense.

[Plagueround]

And you are telling me that I owe a piece of my business to some guy that comes off the street and contracts with me to push a button on a machine for $7. an hour?

Nonesense.

Now then, now that I have a bit of spare time...

I don't feel like going into a long and drawn out tirade about private property and ownership and all that jazz. You've heard it enough times I suppose and to be quite honest I'm getting tired of wasting my time posting in the OI forum. But even so...

What I will say now is this:
You've recently, by your own admission, become more of a social democrat and shed some of those Reagan era Republican views (thank god). You seem to recognize that one of the reason's our economy is doing so terribly is because more and more people are unable to pay for the things they need and the things capitalists want them to buy. You seem to think that perhaps Obama will correct this by giving people a little bit of relief and allowing them to keep a bit more money. (I'll save my personal feelings on Barack for another thread).

Therefore, you've already acknowledged that perhaps the guy who you're paying $7 an hour needs a little bit more to keep going. He needs a little piece of your business. You're already giving him one. Your workers are an investment, and any money you give them is investing a bit more not only in your product, but in the future. If you really want our economy fixed, the little guy is going to need a bigger piece of the pie. Even if it's in the form of a raise, better benefits, or whatever, give this guy something more for the contribution he's made to the wealth you now enjoy. Keep in mind this is advice about keeping things the way you want them coming from a "commie".

As far as people "taking control of TomK's factory" comments go, I say that's a terrible way of looking at it. They way I see it, one of the comments you made during one of our conversations was the employee should make himself more attractive to the employer, give the employer a reason to continue investing money in him. Likewise, the employer needs to make sure working for him is an attractive and necessary contract. If we enter into a revolution type situation and we abolish the system that props your factory up, we'll likely eliminate any incentive you could possibly have to offer to the little guy to keep that factory running. We won't have to take the factory over, you'll render it obsolete if you refuse to adapt to the market and matching the incentives our system offers over continuing to pay people. So don't think of it as a hostile takeover, think of it as the market changing, as markets often do, and the businessman having to adjust their tactics to keep up.

Despite all this Tom, it's always a pleasure talking to you. I consider you just as much of a friend as most people around here and if you're ever in my aread, hit me up and I'll gladly buy you a round or two if you're ever up in my area. Hell, you're rich, if I buy the first few who knows how many you'll start fronting the money for. :lol:

[danyboy27]

i think for a small buisness, giving share might not be recommended, but i do think you can help your worker to feel good in their working place by many way, such has arranging the working place to make it fun to work in, pay them a little bit more, (but not too much, dont destroy the buisness by paying them overkill wages), be more flexible for vacantion or day off, organize party, there is many way to actually contribute to the worker when you are the boss, and not all of them actually implies to be bankrupted.

i think Tomk, if you are good with your guy, even if there is a (hypotetical)revolution, they will continue working for you, if they love their job and the atmosphere is great, i dont know why they would leave.

well, if you do decide to hand over shares, you could keep the majority of the actions, so the worker would be implicated, but you would still hold control over the buisness.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I would wait for them, or at least GM, to go bankrupt before nationalizing them.

It's a lot like when the government nationalized the Penn Central railroad, which was the largest bankruptcy in america until enron, along with six other bankrupt northeastern railroads and created Conrail. It was unprofitable at first, but it allowed the government to see the inefficiency and enact new reform to make the industry profitable again.

Like the railroads, the US auto industry is something I, after a lot of thought, don't think we should lay to waste. I can't stand the idea of the government simply bailing out he idiots, we need to bold moves to chop off the fat while saving an infrastructure that can become profitable.

One could argue that Chapter 11 will do the same thing, but I like my idea better.

[Rascolnikova]

But for example: I started my business around my kitchen table with my wife. I planned it out, I started production in my garage, I sold my customers, I made all the stuff myself, I delivered it myself--I plotted out capacities--I bought raw materials, I expanded to a business park.

I hired a few people now and then to help and then later some steady workers. I bought the plant, I sold more customers. I expanded, I collected the accounts payable--and when there wasn't enough money I covered the payroll. I planned and I grew the business. And the business grew. I hired more people.

And you are telling me that I owe a piece of my business to some guy that comes off the street and contracts with me to push a button on a machine for $7. an hour?

You are in the wrong place not to be told workers deserve to own the means of production. Also, I didn't say anything about how the transition would be handled; I don't see anything particularly wrong with letting you keep it till you retire, and your children, lovely though they may be, don't deserve to start out with it just because they were yours.

You had a garage; you had the money to buy materials and cover pay role; you had the education to do something with it. Those kinds of "starting" resources are not equally distributed.

Most people who earn 7$ an hour do considerably more than push a button for it. Fast food and other service sector jobs, an increasing segment of the US wage labor economy, are a great example of how brutal and unpleasant labor doesn't pay by effort.

I wouldn't be adverse to some sort of founder veto power, or automatic increase so you always held a significant proportion of voting shares, but lives are more than what they sell for at market. You could not have built up your business without their labor; there's no reason they shouldn't have a stake in what they have helped create.




No, let's not. If I offer someone a job, it's to help me (sorry) and to see how things work out. I'm not going to guarantee him any power over an organization based on one hour of work.

And provided you've put at least three hours of work into this organization you're so attached to, he wouldn't have any power over it. As more hours go in, more voting shares are created; if you've worked more on it than someone else, you will be able to outvote them.



I also want to live in a society where there is some freedom of contract. If I'm willing to sweep up in your dance studio for a dollar a day and a cot, which is maybe all you can afford, plus the chance to observe upclose your pirouettes and pas de chat, then I don't want officious intermeddlers like Ulster and Killfacer saying we can't make that deal.I didn't say profits would be divided according to hours worked; I said voting shares would be distributed that way. Nothing about the system I proposed would preclude this arrangement.



(You do realize they are planning to wrest power from TomK after the revolution, I trust?)Exactly whose side do you think I'm on?


Edit: I do hope both of you will now stop pretending socialism is necessarily anti-democracy.

Edit: Also,
Awe, you're at least semi-literate about ballet. Always a sexy quality in a straight man. :)

[Lenin's Law]

It's funny that the anti-union argument from the capitalists is being made now...after nearly three decades of union appeasement, concessions, and the collabortion with management leading to its predictable decline. When the auto unions were the most militant during the 1930s-50s the American auto industry was easily the most powerful, the most productive and profitable in the world. The excuse of "competitiveness" was used beginning around the late 70s/early 80s to mark the latest trend of union concessions and deals with the management and what happened?

Workers were laid off anyway despite the union concessions, plants were closed and among the factories that remained predictably, the capitalists demanded more and more cuts, more and more concessions until the point we are at now: when everything is blamed on the crumbs which have remained from the capitalists' table.

This demonstrates the anarchy and perverse nature of the capitalist system and what is needed most of all is workers control: quality vehicles being made to meet the needs of the people and not for private profit.

[Robert]

what is needed most of all is workers control: quality vehicles being made to meet the needs of the people and not for private profit.The "people" include consumers, correct? Consumers don't like GM products. Nationalising GM won't change that.

The people do like Japanese cars, which are profitably engineered in Japan and manufactured in non-union plants in Mississippi, Ohio, and Kentucky.

The workers in those plants typically make double the average wage, and triple the minimum. Not that that's "fair," but let's know the facts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/25/AR2007052502458_pf.html

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

The problem isn't the Unions per se, the problem is the unreasonable costs associated with the Big Three's particular Union contracts. And no question, the Automakers have been badly managed--and one of the worst things they did was let the Union demands get way out of hand.

Also, the German cars are competing in a completely different market than the American cars--and extra $500. here and there attached to the price tage of a BMW or MB doesn't make any difference, on the other hand $500 onto a Tarus will kill the sale.

Though you are right about the universal health care in Japan helping their auto makers.

[Edit] I just want to point out--I'm not particularly against Unions, just Union practices and demands that unfairly hamper a business from operating profitably.


I think you misunderstand the market of European car manufacturers. The American market isn't the only one. The most sold European cars aren't luxury ones.

[Rascolnikova]

The "people" include consumers, correct? Consumers don't like GM products. Nationalising GM won't change that.

The people do like Japanese cars, which are profitably engineered in Japan and manufactured in non-union plants in Mississippi, Ohio, and Kentucky.

The workers in those plants typically make double the average wage, and triple the minimum. Not that that's "fair," but let's know the facts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/25/AR2007052502458_pf.html

To be fair, the far superior state of Japanese engineering does have something to do with this as well.

[Robert]

I don't know whether the engineering is far superior or not, as I see little difference between American and Japanese cars anymore, but what political significance does this have anyway?

People are consumers, and they want quality products. They get them because Toyota and GM are in competition to offer what people want, not what they "need."

You guys will never be able to sell communism to the masses until you work this reality into your worldview.

[RGacky3]

Blaiming the collapse of the Car industry on Unions, would be like blaiming a collapse of cotton farms on slaves being freed.

[Rascolnikova]

I don't know whether the engineering is far superior or not, as I see little difference between American and Japanese cars anymore, but what political significance does this have anyway?

People are consumers, and they want quality products. They get them because Toyota and GM are in competition to offer what people want, not what they "need."

You guys will never be able to sell communism to the masses until you work this reality into your worldview.

They actually aren't in competition to offer what people want; they're in competition because that's one of the realities of making profit for a very small group of people, which is the motivation behind everything they do. While there is some overlap between the two, let's not mistake the actual goals.

I'm not fully aware of the political significance of the engineering differential, but it's definitely there, and there are any number of political things it could indicate--for example, it could be a reflection of the fact Japanese culture entails a great deal of loyalty between employers and employees. . . And that kind of loyalty, while not granting decision making power, is a kind of recognition, once more, for that fundamental principle--that lives are worth more than they sell for at market.

[Robert]

I don't understand any of that. I do understand that the Japanese are capitalists and they are making profits selling Camry's and Altimas to Americans who like them better than Malibus and Impalas. If it's engineering superiority, fine; that's not the same thing as higher wages or worker control of factories.

It ain't broke. Don't fix it.

[Rascolnikova]

I don't understand any of that. I do understand that the Japanese are capitalists and they are making profits selling Camry's and Altimas to Americans who like them better than Malibus and Impalas. If it's engineering superiority, fine; that's not the same thing as higher wages or worker control of factories.

It ain't broke. Don't fix it.

Perhaps it is worth examining what creates engineering superiority, since the US is so lacking in it these days?

Loyalty to one's employees creates benefits that are functionally very similar to what unions give, in some ways; job security and good pensions being key examples. . . and culturally those benefits are presumed to be a function, not of better competition in the market, but of worker's rights to something more substantive than wages in exchange for their time.

Contrast this to privileges based on an antagonism between management, who takes the position that labor deserves nothing in particular and negotiates only because they must, and unions, who fundamentally must know that they fight a loosing battle in every case due to this set up.

[Robert]

since the US is so lacking in it these days?

So lacking? What are you talking about? Chevrolets may not be Lexuses, but they aren't Yugos either, and people around the world stand in line to attend Rice, MIT, and Stanford's engineering schools.

The USA makes more than cars anyway. Think Texas Instruments, Boeing, Motorola, Apple, General Electric, John Deere, and Caterpillar to name a handful.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Nobody's challenging the fact that the American economy is larger than the Japanese
you can settle down

[Die Neue Zeit]

They actually aren't in competition to offer what people want; they're in competition because that's one of the realities of making profit for a very small group of people, which is the motivation behind everything they do. While there is some overlap between the two, let's not mistake the actual goals.

I'm not fully aware of the political significance of the engineering differential, but it's definitely there, and there are any number of political things it could indicate--for example, it could be a reflection of the fact Japanese culture entails a great deal of loyalty between employers and employees. . . And that kind of loyalty, while not granting decision making power, is a kind of recognition, once more, for that fundamental principle--that lives are worth more than they sell for at market.

If anything else, the competition is superficial; most of them get a number of specific car parts from the same supplier.

[butterfly]

Bump> build public transport <

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

It's funny that the anti-union argument from the capitalists is being made now...after nearly three decades of union appeasement, concessions, and the collabortion with management leading to its predictable decline. When the auto unions were the most militant during the 1930s-50s the American auto industry was easily the most powerful, the most productive and profitable in the world. The excuse of "competitiveness" was used beginning around the late 70s/early 80s to mark the latest trend of union concessions and deals with the management and what happened?

From the 1930s-50s the US auto industry was the only one in existence on anything close to a large scale.

From the 1970s/80s, and actually earlier, the countries we had rebuilt had their own auto industries which obviously, and for the first time, gave the American manufacturers true competition.

It's not an excuse, it's the reality in dealing with the fact that labor issues are the millstone around the American manufacturers necks. And, obviously, when the head is made up of morons the whole thing is going to drown.


Workers were laid off anyway despite the union concessions,

They're not laid off, they're bought out.



plants were closed and among the factories that remained predictably, the capitalists demanded more and more cuts, more and more concessions until the point we are at now: when everything is blamed on the crumbs which have remained from the capitalists' table.

Ahh, yes. The crumbs from the capitalist table.

Drove by a Ford plant. At least as many Toyota, Hyundais, and Hondas as there were Fords. They should fire those people, they need to choose crumbs that benefit their people.


This demonstrates the anarchy and perverse nature of the capitalist system and what is needed most of all is workers control: quality vehicles being made to meet the needs of the people and not for private profit.

No. This shows the need for sober management.

[Rascolnikova]

So lacking? What are you talking about? Chevrolets may not be Lexuses, but they aren't Yugos either, and people around the world stand in line to attend Rice, MIT, and Stanford's engineering schools.

The USA makes more than cars anyway. Think Texas Instruments, Boeing, Motorola, Apple, General Electric, John Deere, and Caterpillar to name a handful.

We have some good schools, but we graduate proportionately less science and engineering people than the rest of the first world, and that number is declining. . And, not a lot of countries engineer cars worse than we do. . . mostly just France. I've studied auto-repair a bit, classes in a tech college, and all the good mechanics I know agree. The engineers aren't unionized, so you can't blame it on that; US manufacturers create a worse product on a variety of levels.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

We have some good schools, but we graduate proportionately less science and engineering people than the rest of the first world, and that number is declining. . And, not a lot of countries engineer cars worse than we do. . . mostly just France. I've studied auto-repair a bit, classes in a tech college, and all the good mechanics I know agree. The engineers aren't unionized, so you can't blame it on that; US manufacturers create a worse product on a variety of levels.

I absolutely agree with this.

When Sputnik went up, we realized that we were behind in math and science and we improved those programs. By the time I got to High School, however, you wouldn't be able to tell. Don't get me wrong, I knew some very smart cookies growing up, but on the large scale I'd say we have almost unlimited room for improvement.