• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Emergency manager: Detroit won't pay $2.5B it owes

Gimmesometruth said:
Uh...if you hadn't noticed, mileage is mostly a matter of power AND weight. Weight was always the issue, that is always a matter of design. But you just admitted, they were locked into a 0.50 cent/gallon mentality, big and heavy.....while EVERYONE went light and small. GM's answer was the Chevette or Vega. It was not the unions designing this.
Click to expand...

The labor cost per vehicle caused by the UAW made it impossible for American auto manufacturers to make any profit on small cars. In order to generate profits needed for the development of new technologies, US auto makers had to sell big cars and trucks that carried high profits. The labor cost for a Chevette was not that much lower than the labor cost for a 1/2 ton pickup truck.

Union pay and benefits caused a drain on capital needed to meet the changing demand of the US car buyers. That truth continues to cause GM trouble today.

It's rather clear you are not familiar with the auto industry. Perhaps you should take some time to get familiar.
 
ocean515 said:
The labor cost per vehicle caused by the UAW made it impossible for American auto manufacturers to make any profit on small cars. In order to generate profits needed for the development of new technologies, US auto makers had to sell big cars and trucks that carried high profits. The labor cost for a Chevette was not that much lower than the labor cost for a 1/2 ton pickup truck.

Union pay and benefits caused a drain on capital needed to meet the changing demand of the US car buyers. That truth continues to cause GM trouble today.

It's rather clear you are not familiar with the auto industry. Perhaps you should take some time to get familiar.
Click to expand...
Um...it was not the price of the price of US vehicles in the 70's and 80's that caused the market share losses. It was the designs that turned off buyers. In 1976 a Mustang II cost less than a Celica, and I drove and worked on both, there is no comparison. The Mustang was a shrunk down version of it's Falcon past, a rebodied Pinto....while the Celica was running the fantastic 20R and smooth 5 speed. The Celica was so solid. The Celica was easy to work on (if you ever had to) whereas the Mustang had a joke of an emissions system and could barely get out of its own way.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Um...it was not the price of the price of US vehicles in the 70's and 80's that caused the market share losses. It was the designs that turned off buyers. In 1976 a Mustang II cost less than a Celica, and I drove and worked on both, there is no comparison. The Mustang was a shrunk down version of it's Falcon past, a rebodied Pinto....while the Celica was running the fantastic 20R and smooth 5 speed. The Celica was so solid. The Celica was easy to work on (if you ever had to) whereas the Mustang had a joke of an emissions system and could barely get out of its own way.
Click to expand...

The Mustang II, along with such winners as the VEGA, and others from Detroit were built as a direct result of their response to the OPEC oil crisis and rapid increases in gas prices. These cars were rushed through development to try and hang on to market share.

The Japanese had long perfected small car production due to the price of gasoline in Japan.

It takes 3-5 years to bring a new car and new technology to market. Throw in $1-3 billion in cost, and it takes a pile of profit to generate the money needed for product development. Hard to make any money when massive labor costs have to be buried in a car selling for $12,000 wholesale, versus an almost similar labor cost in a larger vehicle selling for twice as much.

Managment certainly must carry some of the blame, but there is absolutlely no way to sugar coat UAW strong arm tactics that used strikes to create such abomanations as the Jobs Bank program.

You need to get more informed on the auto industry.
 
ocean515 said:
Managment certainly must carry some of the blame, but there is absolutlely no way to sugar coat UAW strong arm tactics that used strikes to create such abomanations as the Jobs Bank program.
Click to expand...

We can blame the union for asking for the moon. But the blame really lies on the people who gave it to them. ;)
 
MaggieD said:
When I think of the design of an automobile, I think of how it looks not how cheaply it's made. Your pointing out that it means workmanship and mpg doesn't change anything I've said.
Click to expand...

True. You still said what you said, but he's right to point out that materials, mpg, and quality are the result of design.
 
MaggieD said:
We can blame the union for asking for the moon. But the blame really lies on the people who gave it to them. ;)
Click to expand...

I can't completely agree with that Maggie.

When the UAW closed production plants to strike for what they wanted, it's a bit tough to blame only the people who gave in to their demands.

Strikes and threats of strikes caused management at the big three to conceed to many demands that later devastated the domestic industry.

In 1998, the UAW strike against GM lasted 54 days.

10 things to know about historic 1998 UAW strike against General Motors in Flint (with photo gallery from strike) | MLive.com

•During the 1998 strike, 3,400 workers at Flint Metal Center walked off the job to join the picket line on June 5. Less than a week later, 5,800 workers from Flint East joined them, bringing the total number of striking workers to 9,200.
•The 54-day strike by the United Auto Workers union against General Motors was the longest GM strike since 1970, when work stopped for 67 days (Sept. 14-Nov. 23).
 
MaggieD said:
We can blame the union for asking for the moon. But the blame really lies on the people who gave it to them. ;)
Click to expand...

Hey. Don't look at me !! I have blamed the Democrats from day 1.
 
MaggieD said:
We can blame the union for asking for the moon. But the blame really lies on the people who gave it to them. ;)
Click to expand...

Are you really that simplistic in your thinking?? The fact that the two ( union and management) would not work toward a solution that works for all is a combined failure. The unions proved is was better for them to force the company into bankruptcy than have a contract that would keep the company in business.
 
ocean515 said:
The Mustang II, along with such winners as the VEGA, and others from Detroit were built as a direct result of their response to the OPEC oil crisis and rapid increases in gas prices. These cars were rushed through development to try and hang on to market share.

The Japanese had long perfected small car production due to the price of gasoline in Japan.

It takes 3-5 years to bring a new car and new technology to market. Throw in $1-3 billion in cost, and it takes a pile of profit to generate the money needed for product development. Hard to make any money when massive labor costs have to be buried in a car selling for $12,000 wholesale, versus an almost similar labor cost in a larger vehicle selling for twice as much.

Managment certainly must carry some of the blame, but there is absolutlely no way to sugar coat UAW strong arm tactics that used strikes to create such abomanations as the Jobs Bank program.

You need to get more informed on the auto industry.
Click to expand...
LOL...a $12K car cost...in the mid 70's? And I need to "be more informed"?

FFS!

Again, the unions did not cause the market share losses, the crap designs did. The domestic builders had euro and south american designs in hand, already developed (that is how the Chevette came to be), it was the corporate hubris that stopped innovation in Detroit...not the unions.
 
ocean515 said:
I can't completely agree with that Maggie.

When the UAW closed production plants to strike for what they wanted, it's a bit tough to blame only the people who gave in to their demands.

Strikes and threats of strikes caused management at the big three to conceed to many demands that later devastated the domestic industry.

In 1998, the UAW strike against GM lasted 54 days.

10 things to know about historic 1998 UAW strike against General Motors in Flint (with photo gallery from strike) | MLive.com

•During the 1998 strike, 3,400 workers at Flint Metal Center walked off the job to join the picket line on June 5. Less than a week later, 5,800 workers from Flint East joined them, bringing the total number of striking workers to 9,200.
•The 54-day strike by the United Auto Workers union against General Motors was the longest GM strike since 1970, when work stopped for 67 days (Sept. 14-Nov. 23).
Click to expand...

At some point, it amounts to being blackmailed. And, as with all blackmail, there comes a time when you draw a line in the sand. BUT. When CEO bonuses are tied to stock performance, are the moguls looking out for the company? Or themselves.
 
MaggieD said:
At some point, it amounts to being blackmailed. And, as with all blackmail, there comes a time when you draw a line in the sand. BUT. When CEO bonuses are tied to stock performance, are the moguls looking out for the company? Or themselves.
Click to expand...

And when politicians staying in office is tied to a happy union membership ........... we see what happens !
 
Gimmesometruth said:
False premise, the unions did not "bring down" the US auto industry, they make less than auto workers in Germany and less than US workers in foreign owned US auto plants.

I'm sorry...how do you spell her name? Dumb...indeed.
Click to expand...

A workers salary is irrelevant when when it comes to a global industry. Supply and demand, economic models, cost of living etc all play a factor when making salary comparisons.

In the United States unions have done absolutely nothing but destroy business in general. Unions don't adhere do economic laws - no they operate on their own delusional plane...

Hell, you may as well try to compare a BMW to a Ford Taurus next...
 
MaggieD said:
At some point, it amounts to being blackmailed. And, as with all blackmail, there comes a time when you draw a line in the sand. BUT. When CEO bonuses are tied to stock performance, are the moguls looking out for the company? Or themselves.
Click to expand...

A CEO (or any leader for that matter) is only as good as their product....

How can anyone blame a CEO because they're stuck with union employees who make absolutely nothing but overpriced junk that no one wants?

How do you fix the problem when the problem is with the labor - the same people you cant kick to the curb?
 
I though Obama save the auto industry. And why are the suburbs doing fine?

Gimmesometruth said:
Yes yes...the city fathers are responsible for the decline of the US auto industry.

Scapegoating rather than understanding we have no industrial policy is the way of low intelligence conservatives.
Click to expand...
 
Hey. Liberal dogma is to stick as many folks as possible on the gubmit teat. That includes the unions, such as UAW, where gubmit enables them to leech off anything they can with over-priced inferior product, so that they will keep with the huge political contributions. Then real competition ripped the UAW a new asshole. And so we bailed them out, and didn't even get a poorly made car for our money !

Works for awhile. Then, as we see with Detroit, they finally ran out of other people's money. Now we have a city full of parasites, and everything has been sucked dry.

Thanks liberals. What big city is next ? Or are we gonna send an entire state over the cliff ?
 
Last edited:
JC Callender said:
I though (sic) Obama save (sic) the auto industry.
Click to expand...
Wow, you live in Detroit....and you don't know what the President did?


And why are the suburbs doing fine?
Click to expand...
Even Grosse Pointe is losing population.

FFS man, you should be the one telling us how it is.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
LOL...a $12K car cost...in the mid 70's? And I need to "be more informed"?

FFS!

Again, the unions did not cause the market share losses, the crap designs did. The domestic builders had euro and south american designs in hand, already developed (that is how the Chevette came to be), it was the corporate hubris that stopped innovation in Detroit...not the unions.
Click to expand...

The pricing I quoted was relative to the market at the time of GM's bankruptcy, not the '70's. Please try to refute the point.

In 1975, Congress enacted the first C.A.F.E. standards. Why don't you research that history, and how the UAW fought to keep Ford and GM from importing small cars manufactured outside the U.S.. Also look into how the DOT and the NHTSA refused to accept crash testing done outside the country before they would certify imported cars for sale in the U.S.

The designs were junk. No argument there. But it's very clear you are unfamiliar with the facts as they stood in the '70's and beyond, and the role the UAW played in damaging the US auto industry, allong with the resulting loss of market share that followed.

FFS, get informed.
 
MaggieD said:
At some point, it amounts to being blackmailed. And, as with all blackmail, there comes a time when you draw a line in the sand. BUT. When CEO bonuses are tied to stock performance, are the moguls looking out for the company? Or themselves.
Click to expand...

CEO pay has gotten out of hand. The Boards are to blame for putting bean counters in place of car people. However, when the UAW resisted quality and productivity improvements, market share was lost to higher quality vehicles developed in Japan and elsewhere.
 
shrubnose said:
I agree.

Those who bought these bonds made a serious mistake.



"While it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." ~ John Stuart Mill
Click to expand...

Yea, how would investors know that 60 million idiots would elect a left wing, corrupt activist into a position of authority who would then go on to interfere with their bonds as part of the pay-back for the UAW's support ?

No, you people made the mistake. Your'e just too short sighted and too indebted to a corrupt ideology to know better.
 
Fenton said:
Yea, how would investors know that 60 million idiots would elect a left wing, corrupt activist into a position of authority who would then go on to interfere with their bonds as part of the pay-back for the UAW's support ?

No, you people made the mistake. Your'e just too short sighted and too indebted to a corrupt ideology to know better.
Click to expand...




I didn't buy any of those 'iffy' bonds.

Did you?




Better day's are coming. ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.
 
ocean515 said:
The pricing I quoted was relative to the market at the time of GM's bankruptcy, not the '70's. Please try to refute the point.
Click to expand...
The context of the conversation was 70's cars (MustangII vs Celica), if you want to shift the discussion away from that (for which I don't blame you), fine.

Now if you want to get into a discussion about per unit costs, we can do that. The Japanese and German industries and govts made a choice to socialize most of the legacy costs (pensions and health care) and in the case of Japan, to subsidize some of the development and production costs to help the car industry gain a market share in the US by allowing those companies to compete at below cost. They did this with radios, TV's, steel, IC's, optics...on and on. The US on the other hand decided not to this anywhere near the same extent nor did we decide to tariff those imports to bring them inline with true costs. Were the unions to blame for these macro-econ choices? I don't think so.

The other big issue is that even with the new, much lower pay and benefits scheme forced through (without govt benefits making up for the reduced industry provided compensation) is that the reasons why people turned away from the big 3 still exist....the product does not hold up to imports, whether this is warranted or not....the perception remains. It is born out in resale values.

So were unions to blame for this? No, as previously discussed, unions did not do engineering.

In 1975, Congress enacted the first C.A.F.E. standards. Why don't you research that history, and how the UAW fought to keep Ford and GM from importing small cars manufactured outside the U.S.. Also look into how the DOT and the NHTSA refused to accept crash testing done outside the country before they would certify imported cars for sale in the U.S.
Click to expand...
Why would anyone who has an interest in keeping manufacturing in the US want an easier time for imports? How does that counter what I am arguing?

The designs were junk. No argument there. But it's very clear you are unfamiliar with the facts as they stood in the '70's and beyond, and the role the UAW played in damaging the US auto industry, allong (sic) with the resulting loss of market share that followed.

FFS, get informed.
Click to expand...
I'm still waiting for you to show that exact point.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
The context of the conversation was 70's cars (MustangII vs Celica), if you want to shift the discussion away from that (for which I don't blame you), fine.

Now if you want to get into a discussion about per unit costs, we can do that. The Japanese and German industries and govts made a choice to socialize most of the legacy costs (pensions and health care) and in the case of Japan, to subsidize some of the development and production costs to help the car industry gain a market share in the US by allowing those companies to compete at below cost. They did this with radios, TV's, steel, IC's, optics...on and on. The US on the other hand decided not to this anywhere near the same extent nor did we decide to tariff those imports to bring them inline with true costs. Were the unions to blame for these macro-econ choices? I don't think so.

The other big issue is that even with the new, much lower pay and benefits scheme forced through (without govt benefits making up for the reduced industry provided compensation) is that the reasons why people turned away from the big 3 still exist....the product does not hold up to imports, whether this is warranted or not....the perception remains. It is born out in resale values.

So were unions to blame for this? No, as previously discussed, unions did not do engineering.

Why would anyone who has an interest in keeping manufacturing in the US want an easier time for imports? How does that counter what I am arguing?

I'm still waiting for you to show that exact point.
Click to expand...


You are grossly uninformed about the auto industry and the relationship of the UAW and the auto makers. Evidence of that is the statement regarding the new lower pay and benefits plan "forced" through.

If you were informed, you'd know the 2007 GM-UAW North American labor contract was carried over when GM went into bankruptcy. This two tier system also required workers laid off to be the first hired, which meant very little was done to lower labor costs.

GM and UAW reach first labor deal since bankruptcy | Reuters

Going farther back in history, you'd know one of the biggest sticking points in labor contracts was pay and bonuses to line workers based on productivity and quality.

The UAW resisted efforts to streamline production, and to create multi-model assembly plants similar to those run by the Japanese. Where Toyota can assemble multi models on one production line, US auto makers are primarily forced to have one assembly plant assemble one model of vehicle. If that model doesn't sell well, the entire plant is impacted, rather than a single model within the production mix.

How is it that Honda can build cars in the United States with better quality than GM could? Do they have better engineers? When GM has the largest pension liability of any company in the United States, how much money do you think they have to engineer a car?

You keep posting from emotion, rather than from facts. You should try to limit the former and enhance the latter.
 
ocean515 said:
You are grossly uninformed about the auto industry and the relationship of the UAW and the auto makers. Evidence of that is the statement regarding the new lower pay and benefits plan "forced" through.

If you were informed, you'd know the 2007 GM-UAW North American labor contract was carried over when GM went into bankruptcy. This two tier system also required workers laid off to be the first hired, which meant very little was done to lower labor costs.

GM and UAW reach first labor deal since bankruptcy | Reuters
Click to expand...
I know that the pensions/legacy costs going forward have been dramatically reduced, bringing the direct costs to GM/Ford inline with the foreign builders operating in the US.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html?_r=1&


Going farther back in history, you'd know one of the biggest sticking points in labor contracts was pay and bonuses to line workers based on productivity and quality.
Click to expand...
No chit....and your point is what...that wasn't discussed in my previous point?

The UAW resisted efforts to streamline production, and to create multi-model assembly plants similar to those run by the Japanese. Where Toyota can assemble multi models on one production line, US auto makers are primarily forced to have one assembly plant assemble one model of vehicle. If that model doesn't sell well, the entire plant is impacted, rather than a single model within the production mix.
Click to expand...
You bring nothing forward to support this claim, further the NUNNI program in CA was very successful, union workers had no problem adapting and wanted to be able to input assembly modifications that standard GM line work did not allow.

How is it that Honda can build cars in the United States with better quality than GM could? Do they have better engineers?
Click to expand...
I would imagine that the brain pool is probably slightly ahead in many of Japan's builders, the issue is the design choices, what on the draft actually gets into the car. Again, the line workers do not decide this.

When GM has the largest pension liability of any company in the United States, how much money do you think they have to engineer a car?
Click to expand...
I think I addressed that in the previous post, which you seemed to have nearly completely ignored. If the US builders and govt decide not to work together as the foreign companies have, is that the fault of the unions? No, I don't think so.

You keep posting from emotion, rather than from facts. You should try to limit the former and enhance the latter.
Click to expand...
Your stupid little quips don't amount to anything, this along with your "get an education" are the same kind of crap that got Conservative lots and lots of infractions. Resorting to this personal ad hominums will come back to get you too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom