• 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!

GM goes bankrupt and gets nationalised

Slippery Slope said:
Too bad the analogy is false.
Click to expand...

Hardly. You advocate raising costs on the other companies in a bid to make GM competitive. You've said this at least half a dozen times.

All that does is cripple the other companies. It doesn't make GM better.

This is exactly what was done in a Harrison Bergeron classroom -- the better students were literally dumbed down so that they wouldn't perform better than the poorer students. THAT'S what you want to do.

According to your reasoning, Tanya Harding was made a more competitive skater because her boyfriend piped Nancy Kerrigan.
 
phattonez said:
Unionizing Toyota? Are you kidding? The only reason the Big 3 wages aren't soaring is because they couldn't sell cars for any higher price. If you unionize all of them, then they will all raise their prices.
Click to expand...
The big 3 are already unionized so they wouldn't need to increase the price of their cars. Too bad if foreign auto makers can't compete after unionizing.

I'm fine with employers unionizing themselves, but I'm also fine with that union getting fired for demanding too much. As we're seeing with the American car companies, the unions demanding too much is now forcing them out of a job. Great job guys!
Click to expand...
No, unfair competition is forcing them to cut costs in order to compete and what's the easiest cost to control? Labor.

And you say that Toyota and other Japanese auto manufacturers are subsidized. So what? They still have to sell a good product to us.
Click to expand...
Yes but they can then sell it cheaper.

However, that just means that their other industries are that much weaker. If there are two industries A & B in countries C & D, and B subsidizes A in C, then D will not have a very strong A industry, but B will be booming in D because B from C cannot compete in D what with their profits being tapped to pay for A in C. In short, it doesn't matter that they're being subsidized.[/QUOTE]
:doh The problem is that our companies have tariffs placed on our goods and corporations (where foreign owned companies are even allowed to exist). :2wave:

In fact, there is an inherent inefficiency in subsidization and so we don't have to worry about another country doing that. You can't subsidize every industry. At some point, someone has to make money.
Click to expand...
This is untrue, especially given the answer above.
 
Slippery Slope said:
They have been asked and what do they say? The cons have convinced them that unions are bad.
Click to expand...

Oh, yes. Anyone who disagrees with you is a victim of those eeeeeeviiiillllll "cons."
 
Harshaw said:
Hardly. You advocate raising costs on the other companies in a bid to make GM competitive. You've said this at least half a dozen times.

All that does is cripple the other companies. It doesn't make GM better.
Click to expand...

It does not even make GM competitive. It's not salaries that are hurting GM much, it's the legacy costs associated with retirees. How do you balance that with Toyota?
 
Slippery Slope said:
The big 3 are already unionized so they wouldn't need to increase the price of their cars. Too bad if foreign auto makers can't compete after unionizing.
Click to expand...

But that's exactly what would happen. Once all are unionized under the same union, then they will demand higher wages. Well, that will lead to universal higher prices for cars.

No, unfair competition is forcing them to cut costs in order to compete and what's the easiest cost to control? Labor.
Click to expand...

:rofl What do you think competition is?

Yes but they can then sell it cheaper.
Click to expand...

And as I showed, other products that they sell must necessarily be more expensive. In the end it's a wash, except for inefficiency that is inherent to subsidization. In the end, it's our advantage.

:doh The problem is that our companies have tariffs placed on our goods and corporations (where foreign owned companies are even allowed to exist). :2wave:
Click to expand...

Tarrifs mean that the country will have less innovation. Again, better for us.

This is untrue, especially given the answer above.
Click to expand...

Government is nowhere near as efficient as the private sector at distributing the means of production.
 
Last edited:
Slippery Slope said:
They have been asked and what do they say? The cons have convinced them that unions are bad.
Click to expand...

Look over to the left a second:

<--------see where it says "liberal".

I voted against the UAW twice. I would have had to pay a union due and would not have gained much. Further, in a union, you have to follow your employers rules, and the rules of the union. I got enough rules to follow.
 
Slippery Slope said:
The big 3 are already unionized so they wouldn't need to increase the price of their cars.
Click to expand...

:rofl

Yeah. They wouldn't have to, because their current prices are bringing in enough money to cover costs.

:rofl
 
phattonez said:
If I'm a part of a union that demands too much, then I have to still go along with them and I risk getting fired.
Click to expand...
The union prevents you from being fired for not doing whatever the corporation wants in the area of compensation. If the company insists on trying to lower your compensation beyond what the union deems reasonable (via membership vote) then you go on strike.
Some wage is better than no wage.
Click to expand...
VIOLA, see how the cons get you with a specious argument. Some wage is NOT better than no wage when it can be avoided. Nonunionized works have this to fear because they either have to go along with what the corp wants or be fired.

But if a union gets a company to demand that new employees join the union, then that's their prerogative. However, if the competition has no union, then I wouldn't expect that company to last too long (barring government favoritism).
Click to expand...
VIOLA! Now you understand what is happening to GM.
 
Redress said:
Would you rather just have GM close it's doors? Then no one gets anything except a few creditors. GM loses, the retirees lose, the creditors lose, the workers lose. It is not in the workers best interest to not renegotiate.
Click to expand...
Renegotiating is fine, union busting so that employers can pay less is not.
 
Slippery Slope said:
The union prevents you from being fired for not doing whatever the corporation wants in the area of compensation. If the company insists on trying to lower your compensation beyond what the union deems reasonable (via membership vote) then you go on strike.
Click to expand...

Again, that leads to the weakness of the company. You demand too much and the company will go out of business.

VIOLA, see how the cons get you with a specious argument. Some wage is NOT better than no wage when it can be avoided. Nonunionized works have this to fear because they either have to go along with what the corp wants or be fired.
Click to expand...

You're refusing to see the big picture. Corporations are not a bottomless pit.

VIOLA! Now you understand what is happening to GM.
Click to expand...

Their union made them weak and now they're failing (for other reasons too).
 
Harshaw said:
Hardly. You advocate raising costs on the other companies in a bid to make GM competitive. You've said this at least half a dozen times.

All that does is cripple the other companies. It doesn't make GM better.

This is exactly what was done in a Harrison Bergeron classroom -- the better students were literally dumbed down so that they wouldn't perform better than the poorer students. THAT'S what you want to do.

According to your reasoning, Tanya Harding was made a more competitive skater because her boyfriend piped Nancy Kerrigan.
Click to expand...
No the analogy is bad because unionizing is not akin to decreased productivity which is basically the concept of the analogy and therefore it fails. You're not harming Toyota (except their profit margin which is PLENTY good) but you ARE benefiting the worker who can then afford OTHER goods and services thereby increasing the economy and standard of living. This is the history of our country since the great depression until Reagan. Now we see union busting and corporations unregulated and what have we had since Reagan? Bubbles and a decrease in the middle class.
 
The whole purpose of bankruptcy protection is to get a company (or person) out from under its crushing weight of obligations and become lighter, more efficient, and more competitive in order to have a chance at survival.
 
Redress said:
It does not even make GM competitive. It's not salaries that are hurting GM much, it's the legacy costs associated with retirees. How do you balance that with Toyota?
Click to expand...
Now you're getting somewhere. Legacy contracts decrease GM profits because GM has 100+ years of people retiring while foreign auto makers do not have that legacy cost associated. So perhaps we should do what other countries do... add a tariff to level the playing field.
 
I begining to wonder if slippery slope is a union spokesperson ;)


I remember people talking about unionizing the entire nation years ago. I cannot believe that anyone would think that would work in the favor of the labor force.
 
Slippery Slope said:
No the analogy is bad because unionizing is not akin to decreased productivity which is basically the concept of the analogy and therefore it fails. You're not harming Toyota (except their profit margin which is PLENTY good) but you ARE benefiting the worker who can then afford OTHER goods and services thereby increasing the economy and standard of living.
Click to expand...

You are in an unbelievable state of denial.

You raise operating costs on Toyota, you make it more expensive to operate, period.

This does not make GM better or more competitive in any way. It only makes things more expensive for Toyota.

Now, it may have the ancillary effect of causing Toyota to raise its prices and take the market up to a point where GM can bring in enough money to survive, but that's not because GM did anything better. It's only because you're putting an extra burden on Toyota.

That's as plain as day. That's basic math.

If you deny this, if you insist it isn't so, it's like arguing about why things fall and you insisting that there is no gravity. You're just babbling nonsense.


Now we see union busting and corporations unregulated and what have we had since Reagan?
Click to expand...

Where do we see any union busting here?
 
Slippery Slope said:
The big 3 are already unionized so they wouldn't need to increase the price of their cars. Too bad if foreign auto makers can't compete after unionizing.
Click to expand...

So you're saying the automakers or autoworkers unionized to avoid raising the price of the cars they make?

Doesn't that strike you as more than extremely strange?

Slippery Slope said:
No, unfair competition is forcing them to cut costs in order to compete and what's the easiest cost to control? Labor.
Click to expand...

What "unfair" competition? The fact that other countries now make much better cars? Or the fact that other countries aren't as stifled by unions as the Big Three were in the northern states?
 
Slippery Slope said:
Now you're getting somewhere. Legacy contracts decrease GM profits because GM has 100+ years of people retiring while foreign auto makers do not have that legacy cost associated. So perhaps we should do what other countries do... add a tariff to level the playing field.
Click to expand...

Where did those legacy cots come from? Bloated retirement deals made with the union...
 
Slippery Slope said:
Now you're getting somewhere. Legacy contracts decrease GM profits because GM has 100+ years of people retiring while foreign auto makers do not have that legacy cost associated. So perhaps we should do what other countries do... add a tariff to level the playing field.
Click to expand...

:roll: Take economics or learn history. Tariffs are terrible ideas.
 
Slippery Slope said:
Unionize Toyota. The Big 3 did just fine selling cars before foreign competition. Competition is good, but not unfair competition.
Click to expand...
I believe that is what is called 'building a better mouse trap'
better cars, lower costs, better profit margins
I do not keep up with these kind of things but i remember my father telling me that the Camry was the #1 stolen car for many years, because it was the #1 car sold in america
if you build a better product teh rest deserve to die
 
Slippery Slope said:
No the analogy is bad because unionizing is not akin to decreased productivity which is basically the concept of the analogy and therefore it fails. You're not harming Toyota (except their profit margin which is PLENTY good) but you ARE benefiting the worker who can then afford OTHER goods and services thereby increasing the economy and standard of living. This is the history of our country since the great depression until Reagan. Now we see union busting and corporations unregulated and what have we had since Reagan? Bubbles and a decrease in the middle class.
Click to expand...

Know that that means?

It means we need to go back to what Reagan did and repeat it. All the ills you're talking about came into being AFTER The Great One left office and the liberals resumed polluting the seats of power.
 
Slippery Slope said:
Now you're getting somewhere. Legacy contracts decrease GM profits because GM has 100+ years of people retiring while foreign auto makers do not have that legacy cost associated. So perhaps we should do what other countries do... add a tariff to level the playing field.
Click to expand...

I kinda figure that we can pretty much discount the cost impact of the first sixty years of those retirements.
 
Slippery Slope said:
No the analogy is bad because unionizing is not akin to decreased productivity which is basically the concept of the analogy and therefore it fails. You're not harming Toyota (except their profit margin which is PLENTY good) but you ARE benefiting the worker who can then afford OTHER goods and services thereby increasing the economy and standard of living. This is the history of our country since the great depression until Reagan. Now we see union busting and corporations unregulated and what have we had since Reagan? Bubbles and a decrease in the middle class.
Click to expand...
ask any union member
they pull the new guy to the side real quick if he works too fast
why is it, when i lived in NY every union worker was usually just standing around on the job site
did i just happen to drive by on one of their ridiculously negotiated coffee breaks despite it occuring at all hours of the day
 
Slippery Slope said:
From the arguments made in this thread it seems that:
1) GM has high production costs
2) GM has made bad product decisions

Seems like number one is related to labor costs. GM would be outselling Toyota if only they didn't have such high labor costs. The arguments seem to be that Toyota has a higher profit margin allowing them to sell a comparable car at a cheaper price.

Therefore you can either lower the wage for GM employees or raise the wage for Toyota employees. Toyota has it's healthcare costs subsidized by it's government and it pays a lower wage for the same job as a GM employee.
Click to expand...

GM is the number one in unit sales in the world; I don't think it is a bad product issue. This is purely the cost to do business; they sell TONS of cars and more units of pickups than most of the Toyota lines combined.

In addition, I keep hearing this absurd argument that “others” having their healthcare costs subsidized, as with many other European factories yet many have relocated plants here because it is CHEAPER to build the cars here.

There is NO such thing as "subsidized" healthcare unless you are an illegal alien or dirt poor; someone has to pay the bill therefore the society is taxed heavily for this convenience of Government mismanaged healthcare and as such, labor costs are HIGHER as are their healthcare costs.

Theirs are cheaper you say? Not really; why do you think there is a shortage of specialists and limitations on certain types of care and long waiting lines. Their Governments manage the skyrocketing costs of their inefficiencies by cutting services, specialization and research and development.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom