My buddy returned from a holiday in Cuba (socialist haven). He was sickened by the discussions of several Canadians from Ontario that work at auto plants there. They were quite proud of making 85 grand plus a year, explaining how to scam overtime, when to call in sick so that their buddy would get called in at double time etc. Then being able later to ask for the favour to be returned. Netting them all thousands of extra dollars.

My last four vehicles have been Toyota or Nissan and I am constantly urging others to purchase or lease products made in non Union plants by companies outside the big three.

Its my own personal answer to Buzz Hargrove, while he is busy trying to get a meeting with Jack Layton and Paul Martin I am busy undoing as much of his work as I can.

quote:

---

My buddy returned from a holiday in Cuba (socialist haven). He was sickened by the discussions of several Canadians from Ontario that work at auto plants there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by NeoCommIntern:
My buddy returned from a holiday in Cuba (socialist haven).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by NeoCommIntern:

Must be all the quality cars the union brothers and sisters are building that the public are just to stupid to buy.

---

A few threads ago concerning the ever popular topic of trolls, I argued a fairly narrow definition of the term, liking as I do a very precise application of the Queen’s English. My point was a bit hypothetical, so as a person who does some training, I’m always grateful when someone provides concrete examples of what I’m trying to get across. Now this guy is what I’d call your garden variety troll. Note how he jumps from one thread to another, littering the board with all the usual neo con shibboleths, with with a gleeful abandon. Intellectually as shallow as an oil slick, and about as appealing, you can almost hear him cackling in his imagined superiority.

Now compare this with neo, who also got called a troll. Personally, I saw neo as a genuine Rand cultist who had the compulsion to proselytise so common to that sort. Equally as shallow, (funny how that word comes up so often when discussing neo cons) he has since just reverted to occasional sniping from behind the huge snit he got into when no one wanted to buy his snake oil.

quote:

---

Do you not think that declining market share could be caused by the companies taking a marketing approach to sell cars that people just don't want, a decision that is made by the company authorities and that the unions have no control over?

---

But anyways, this has nothing to do with market share and this thread is a little off-base. Domestic cars are generally cheaper than their Japanese counterparts, and often their S. Korean competitors. High quality, vastly improved styling and fuel efficiency - this is the big 3 of Asian vehicles: combine these killer advantages and you have advantage number 4, a long-earned golden reputation among the public, one that is improving, not dissipating.

Have you seen the new Civic Hybrid? Really cool looking inside and out, and "cheap." (Relatively). Although I wouldn't buy one cause a car is like driving a big plastic credit card, and the longer you drive the more the plastic shreds, until all you are left with is the debt.

quote:

---

originally posted by oldgoat
Now compare this with neo, who also got called a troll. Personally, I saw neo as a genuine Rand cultist who had the compulsion to proselytise so common to that sort. Equally as shallow, (funny how that word comes up so often when discussing neo cons) he has since just reverted to occasional sniping from behind the huge snit he got into when no one wanted to buy his snake oil.

---

[ 03 November 2005: Message edited by: HopeForUnity ]

I admit this article isn't perfectly clear but Buzz seems to be saying that one of the reasons that the Big Three have less than 50% of the domestic market is because of trade barriers that prevent them from selling cars abroad.

That does not compute. If the domestic consumers aren't buying domestic cars the reason has nothing to do with whether or not someone in Korea wants to buy a North American car. It has to do with the fact that people in North America don't want to buy cars manufactured by the Big Three. While the decision as to what type of car should be manufactured in Canada or the US is not made by the unions the way to solve the problem is not to try to ban imports but to start making cars that people want to buy.

Way back when imports first started to make a dent in the North American market the auto makers said that it didn't matter. Those cars were being bought by college kids who would have bought junkers anyways. When that group gets a real job and can afford it they'll start buying US cars. Wrong. They started buying more expensive foreign cars. Eventually it sent a wake up signal to the North American manufacturers and they started focusing on quality and designing cars that people wanted to buy as opposed to cars the manufacturers wanted to sell. That much will happen again.

quote:

---

"The auto companies will survive but their presence will be smaller here unless the government does something," Hargrove said.

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

quote:

---

The big three monopolosing car companies are helping to prop-up private health insurance companies in the U.S.

---

On this one you're wrong. The big three are private insurance companies that just happen to build cars once in a while. Other companies provide their own benefits, either in the same way that a GM does (i.e., by means of self insurance) or by purchasing an insurance policy from an insurance company. The results of GM's health insurance program are independent of anyone else's (unless there are some residual Medicare/Medicaid benefits involved). The costs of providing coverage to GM's employees, past, present and future, is borne entirely by GM and its employees, not by anyone else.

Having said that, the introduction of public medical insurance would mean that the cost of providing those benefits would not have to be built into the cost of a car. Instead, the funds would come out of tax dollars or universal health insurance premiums with the effect that incomes would be reduced by equivalent amounts [whether it would be the same amount or something less, or more, is another question but the cost of providing coverage has to come from somewhere.]

As an observation, the question of private medical insurance and/or private pensions is serious thread drift and belongs on its own thread, not here.

[ 03 November 2005: Message edited by: abnormal ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by kurichina:
Well, most of that group works on the rigs and are hardly hurting for cash. Few of them are putting much away for a rainy day, though. -___- The bigger trucks also have higher insurance premiums and higher sticker prices as well.

---

I work in the oilfield and just switched from 1/2 tons which I had normally used to a 3/4 ton.

The thing is a pig on fuel, a nightmare to park and corners like a cruise ship. It cost me $10,000 more than a comparable 1/2 ton would have been. Oh if I could go back.

The reason we in the field are switching to the larger vehicles though is simply that the 1/2 ton trucks are no longer built to withstand the abuse that an average oilfield truck has to endure.

The big three have realized that the urban market for trucks is much more lucrative than the people who actually use them for field work. If you look at the interior of a new truck, it is as luxurious as any sedan is. They have put the engineering in 1/2 tons into superficial changes in order to make them comfy city vehicles. They have neglected to put any improvements into the vehicles with working them in mind. They are pretty trucks that are intended to be used in the city with the occasional camping trip on a gravel road.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kurichina:
C. Morgan, my dad has echoed your thoughts on bigger trucks a number of times. But what I wonder is: no one had that large of trucks in the '80's. So, is the oilfield really that much more tough on vehicles than it was in the '80's?

That said, I have no problem with people who buy these things for actual work. City-dwellers who buy them purely for the "kewlness-factor" though... well... . (Don't impress me much! )

---

The oilfield is not tougher that it was in the 80s.

The point is that the trucks got weaker.

quote:

---

abnormal says:
It has to do with the fact that people in North America don't want to buy cars manufactured by the Big Three.

---

A lot of people DO buy cars made in North America.

quote:

---

abnormal says:
Eventually it sent a wake up signal to the North American manufacturers and they started focusing on quality and designing cars that people wanted to buy as opposed to cars the manufacturers wanted to sell. That much will happen again.

---

Apparently the Pontiac Vibe and the Toyota Matrix are the same car. The Matrix out sells the Vibe at a rate of about 10 to one. There's a lot of marketing to account for the difference there.

The Pontiac Solstice did really well with sales being highlighted on the show 'The Apprentice'.

And speaking of Trump, he said on a talk show recently that he could easily put a team of about 16 people together that he knows personally that could negotiate better trade deals than what the US currently has because they are tough negotiators and they understand business. The trade deals the US has negotiated for herself are absolute jokes. It's actually sad. Because the victim is the Ameican worker in particular and the country itself in general. I have no doubt that Trump or any number of other top business leaders in the States could do better trade deals than the ones negotioated by their hapless political class.

quote:

---

the health plans which add roughly $1500 to the price of _every_ car and truck made and sold by the Big Three in the US

---

You're absolutely correct. However, the point that most posters are missing is that simply introducing a universal healthcare plan will not make the costs go away (it may change the absolute number of dollars involved, but the cost won't disappear). The money will come from somewhere. If not from an effective surcharge on the cost of a car, then from taxes (or some sort of universal health care premium - a tax by a different name). The result is simply that the price of a car goes down and incomes go down by the same amount.

[ 04 November 2005: Message edited by: abnormal ]

Wagoner said GM has quietly held "intense discussions" with the UAW and its other unions regarding efforts to cut GM's skyrocketing health care tab, which is about $5.6 billion in cash this year or roughly $1,500 for every car and truck GM sells

scroll down to:
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
G. Richard Wagoner, Jr. Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer
Salary $2,200,000 Bonus $2,460,000

(there's a few more of these guys)

Ford: Health costs add $1,000 per vehicle
Ford spent $3.2 billion on health care in 2003 for 560,000 employees, retirees and their dependents. The costs added $1,000 to the price of every Ford car and truck built in the United States — up from $700 three years ago

Vehicle incentives on top of health costs

Rick Wagoner, chairman and CEO of GM, has been quoted as saying that he estimates that health care costs add approximately $1,400 to the price of each GM vehicle sold. Most analysts place Ford and Chrysler's cost at about $1,200 per vehicle.

According to CNW research, average incentives on GM vehicles were more than $4,600 per unit by the end of 2004. Combined with health care costs, that adds up to more than $6,000 for every vehicle GM sells. The incentive figure is lower for Ford and Chrysler—about $4,600 and $4,500, respectively. Although when health care costs are added, the total costs are comparable to GM's. This incredible price pressure has forced the Big Three into a host of cost-cutting measures. Not surprising, they're pushing some of the pressure down to their suppliers.

comment: What's wrong with this picture? Well, if I'm an American, I may not be able to afford health insurance for myself or my family, but if I buy a vehicle from the Big Three, I'm paying for someone else's healthcare! Holy shit. Time for universal medicare, folks.

[ 04 November 2005: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]

It pays to read the following from the Western Standard to see a bit more of the puzzle.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
I think trade deals are just one part of the problem, the other, as previous posters here and elsewhere have said, is the health plans which add roughly $1500 to the price of _every_ car and truck made and sold by the Big Three in the US. The US desperately needs medicare - not just for businesses to be competitive, but for the 43 million Americans with no health care whatsoever. God, what a fucked-up country.

---

FYI, many Americans can afford to pay for health insurance yet choose not to. This does not leave them without medical help if they require it. Although this is what most people on the left believe and what many of the left leaders want you to believe.

No system is perfect, ours or theirs. We have huge waiting lists with soaring costs and they have a choice with soaring costs.

Many Americans close to 18% of the total unisured pool are just betting they will not require medical aid and do not purchase insurance even though they could afford to.

"In addition, the study found that 50 percent of all bankruptcy filings were partly the result of medical expenses (11). Every 30 seconds in the United States someone files for bankruptcy in the aftermath of a serious health problem."

You make an interesting point re those that choose to be uninsured. While I doubt the numbers are as high as you claim, this is a problem. Even companies that provide top flight medical coverage find that employees will opt out (that's generally the case if they have cafeteria benefits systems and the employee keeps any money they don't spend). I do know my previous employer actually changed the rules so that employees could not opt out of medical coverage. Fortunately this was the result of a sharp eyed clerk in HR spotting a trend as opposed to someone falling ill with no coverage.

quote:

---

Originally posted by abnormal:

You're absolutely correct. However, the point that most posters are missing is that simply introducing a universal healthcare plan will not make the costs go away (it may change the absolute number of dollars involved, but the cost won't disappear). The money will come from somewhere. If not from an effective surcharge on the cost of a car, then from taxes (or some sort of universal health care premium - a tax by a different name). The result is simply that the price of a car goes down and incomes go down by the same amount.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by NeoCommIntern:
Health Care costs are just one of the reasons that the Big 3 are in trouble. Keep in mind that any of Toyota, Honda or Nissan's plants in the states must pay for health insurance as well.

It pays to read the following from the Western Standard to see a bit more of the puzzle.

Toyota Chooses Canada

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tory Spelling:

And speaking of Trump, he said on a talk show recently that he could easily put a team of about 16 people together that he knows personally that could negotiate better trade deals than what the US currently has because they are tough negotiators and they understand business. The trade deals the US has negotiated for herself are absolute jokes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cogito ergo sum:

You're wrong on that one NeoCommie. Most of the Toyota, Nissan, Honda, BMW, Mercedes, etc. plants in the US are built in so-called "right to work" (aka. anti-union) southern states where their workforce is not unionized and they don't have to provide anywhere near the same level of health insurance and pensions as GM/Ford/Chrysler do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cogito ergo sum:

You're wrong on that one NeoCommie. Most of the Toyota, Nissan, Honda, BMW, Mercedes, etc. plants in the US are built in so-called "right to work" (aka. anti-union) southern states where their workforce is not unionized and they don't have to provide anywhere near the same level of health insurance and pensions as GM/Ford/Chrysler do.

BTW, your Western Standard link is pretty useless since it requires registration. Care to summarize what point you think the article is making?

---

Why don't they have to provide the same level of health insurance.??? Hmmm.

The WS article is making the point that there are a huge number of factors at play in the auto sector, healthcare costs being only one component. Tax incentives, corporate and personal income taxes and straight handouts from the government are some others.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wobbly:
Yeah, cause that would totally be legal under international law.

---

Who cares about international law. We can just do as we choose and wait to get a strongly worded letter from the U.N.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wobbly:
Yeah, cause that would totally be legal under international law.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by NeoCommIntern:

Why don't they have to provide the same level of health insurance.??? Hmmm.

---

Canadian businesses _do_ believe in these laws, unless we get rid of the entire class of people that choose to follow these rules it just isn't going to happen. Also our economies are completely intertwined, we can't just sever these economic connections without something else to fall back on.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wobbly:

Its a nice idea, but that doesn't mean its possible. Funny thing is that this anti USA talk is exactly how people around here in Alberta talk about the rest of Canada.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cogito ergo sum:

BTW, your Western Standard link is pretty useless since it requires registration. Care to summarize what point you think the article is making?

---

Tolerance !! Tolerance !!! kill them if they won't be Tolerant. !!

You know banning someones thoughts is no different than killing babies. Maybe you folks should go and read Jimmy Carters recent views on abortion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by NymphoCommIntern:
You know banning someones thoughts is no different than killing babies. Maybe you folks should go and read Jimmy Carters recent views on abortion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by NymphoCommIntern:
Do you think Morgantalers clinics all have a copy of Better Homes and Gardens in the waiting rooms??

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jchodoriwsky:
How much do these costs factor in to the car quality and appeal?

I mean, if the big 3 were no longer unionized and they saved, say, $1500/car, would they lower their prices that much, or would they make the cars $1500 better, or... would they just increase profit margins that much and still charge as much as they used to and not improve their products?

---

DaimlerChrysler considers exporting Chryslers from China

During the 1980's, the United States government, egged on by a Detroit auto industry terrified of Japan's low-cost, fuel-efficient cars, imposed quotas on imports of many Hondas and Toyotas. So Honda and Toyota - and Mitsubishi and Mazda and Nissan - started making luxury cars that could challenge Detroit in a far more profitable market. The results can be seen on the highways and byways of America: Acuras, Lexuses and boatloads of other high-end Japanese cars, which have steadily put the squeeze on a market niche previously dominated by the Americans and the Europeans.

One of the big concerns for GM is that every present employee is supporting 3 retirees.

quote:

---

Originally posted by outlandist:
One of the big concerns for GM is that every present employee is supporting 3 retirees.

---

Imagine how many more full-time workers GM could afford to hire if the U.S. had socialized medicine. It's really costing them to prop-up over-bloated salaries of insurance CEO's and duplication of health care bureaucracies.

The Center for Automotive Research(non-profit) says that every job lost in an auto plant has the domino effect of 9.4 jobs lost somewhere else in the economy.

Job cuts mean production lines will be sped-up, fewer workers will be overloaded and with excessive overtime - health and safety will decline and assembly line productivity will suffer.

[ 12 November 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

The Center for Automotive Research(non-profit) says that every job lost in an auto plant has the domino effect of 9.4 jobs lost somewhere else in the economy.

Mr.Hargrove received attaboys for his deft handling of the latest GM negotiations where wages went up to >34/hr from>31 but with >2000 job losses.Even though the jobs will be lost through attrition,they will not be available to others.

This is only the beginning.I can't find an article online from China.It was about a modest Chinese city of a million or so that was growing exponentiallydue to auto plant construction,Daimler/Chrysler among them.If the big three wish to survive,they also will have to offshore production.

[ 12 November 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

---

[ 12 November 2005: Message edited by: outlandist ]

That's still a LOT of vehicles. . I can't say the origin of a car has even factored into our decision on which vehicle to buy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by outlandist:

[ 12 November 2005: Message edited by: outlandist ]

---

Outlandist, I think you're being too hard on unions for loss of manufacturing jobs in North America. The US has lost manufacturing jobs every year since time immemorial. Unions are weak here in Canada and even weaker in the U.S. compared to Europe. I'm not sure if Volkswagen or the Japanese car makers are in China yet, but union jobs are not the only ones being lost to China.

IBM, Microsoft andINTEL have moved, not just manufacturing jobs, but high level research and development labs to China and India and taking advantage of a highly educated and skilled workforce. Bob Rae says China is building twelve new M.I.T-style engineering universities across China. High-tech has been an engine for economic growth in the U.S. since the beginning of Keynesian-militarism. Education is relatively cheap in China and India for hundreds of millions of working class people. And the cost of living isn't what it is over here. Add to that the Chinese aren't propping up dozens and dozens of private health insurance bureaucracies.

We need stronger unions in the west. What we need is a world-wide union movement. Nothing short of a workers revolution to level the capitalist's unequal, off-kilter playing field, not lower wages or higher infant mortality associated with U.S.-style health care. Private insurance would be a good place for American's to begin trimming the excess.

[ 12 November 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

- snip -

But so far, the only publicly announced plan to bring Chinese cars to the U.S. market is automotive entrepreneur Malcolm Bricklin's project to import cars built by China's Chery Automobile Co. starting in 2007.

[ 13 November 2005: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]

Don't know what I did earlier but I hit the wrong button.

I am certainly NOT blaming unions for the present difficulties in the North American manufacturing sector.

I don't have any specifics,but I assume that increasing lifespans and the associated medical costs of retirees plus increased use of robotics etc has skewed the worker/retiree ratio.

My point is that in Canada,we need to address this loss of jobs with increased education opportunities and increased research and development to capitalise on an educated workforce rather than racing to the bottom trying to compete against low cost labour.

I believe it was the Hughes foundation that recently started a multidicipline research organisation in Maryland that advertised worldwide for 300 PhDs.

This will be our competition in the future.Canada needs to prepare for the day when export of raw materials will no longer sustain the country.

Burdening young people with a mountain of debt via student loans for any sort of post secondary education is short-sighted and counterproductive.