- Joined
- Nov 8, 2010
- Messages
- 3,747
- Reaction score
- 1,260
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Oh, the mayor of Detroit (02-08) is responsible for the industrial decline of the city.....wow.....
That's what got him hired.
The governor wanted an experienced welcher.
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.
From Kilpatrick? Oh, you are just throwing crap against the wall to see what sticks.High Taxes, Oppressive Unions, Urban Blight, Profligate Public Spending... who wouldn't want to start a business there?!
I see you have brought nothing to support your previous claim that unions prevented the Big 3 from modernizing their designs.The Auto Workers Unions brought down the American auto industry the exact same way that municipal unions throw city and local governments into the massive debt ditch.
Can you imagine if Municipal governments had to compete ?
Really? How did the unions stop innovative modern design...say...in the early 70's....when we had the gas crises and the rise of below cost imports into the US?
You can't pay debt with pocket lint.
I see you have brought nothing to support your previous claim that unions prevented the Big 3 from modernizing their designs.
All you have is empty rhetoric shifting to city govt workers causing lower city revenues.
Next up: Soup Kitchens Caused the Great Depression!
I see you have brought nothing to support your previous claim that unions prevented the Big 3 from modernizing their designs.
All you have is empty rhetoric shifting to city govt workers causing lower city revenues.
Next up: Soup Kitchens Caused the Great Depression!
Oh, so you are saying the the Big 3 had no money to develop modern designs for the US.....even though GM and Ford were international corporations with complete designs already in production in Europe?That's called competition and businesses must be able to at least temporarily adjust wages and benefits to react to the new pressure. That's what I mean by salad days and the unions are precisely why they didn't have the flexibility to adjust and build through those times.
Look, I've never been a fan of the Detroit designs, they've never been designed with anyone under 6' in mind. But it wasn't the design that sank them - it was the gas mileage. Auto manufacturers all over the US had the same problem and yet they survived. Some of them with little to no immediate design changes.
As I said initially, it wasn't just the unions, though they were a huge part of it. It was also the corrupt local political environment that wortked with the unions ensuring they paid each other off.
Psst....material is DESIGN......the build (workmanship) is DESIGN. MPG....is DESIGNIt wasn't their designs that stopped me from buying American. It was their chintzy interior workmanship and materials. One would climb into a Cadillac and compare that to the $10K less Lexus and there was/is absolutely no comparison. Rattles. Vinyl. Cheap-assed plastic. Why is that? That's not design. That's a need to economize. Why?
Oh, and yes, their gas mileage. My 2007 Lexus gets 25 mpg in town; 34-35 highway. It's not advertised as economical on gas. What's that about? It's certainly not about technology.
Psst....material is DESIGN......the build (workmanship) is DESIGN. MPG....is DESIGN
From Kilpatrick?
Oh, you are just throwing crap against the wall to see what sticks.
After all, we know too that unions ruined the US steel industry.....they are to blame for EVERYTHING....ER!
You are talking about the styling. I am talking about the mechanical DESIGN of the vehicle. Unions had little to nothing to do with the designing of Detroit's vehicles, that was all done in the executive. It was their poor design choices that directly lead to the decline of the US auto industry....along with the absolute lack of industrial planning....that lead to the subsequent decline of Detroit.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.
Psst....material is DESIGN......the build (workmanship) is DESIGN. MPG....is DESIGN
The wonderful mileage of your Lexus is all a matter of technology...ie DESIGN.
You are talking about the styling. I am talking about the mechanical DESIGN of the vehicle. Unions had little to nothing to do with the designing of Detroit's vehicles, that was all done in the executive. It was their poor design choices that directly lead to the decline of the US auto industry....along with the absolute lack of industrial planning....that lead to the subsequent decline of Detroit.
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.
You are talking about the styling. I am talking about the mechanical DESIGN of the vehicle. Unions had little to nothing to do with the designing of Detroit's vehicles, that was all done in the executive. It was their poor design choices that directly lead to the decline of the US auto industry....along with the absolute lack of industrial planning....that lead to the subsequent decline of Detroit.
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.No, it's not. If you're wondering why Detroit didn't react with smaller engines and thus greater gas mileage, well, power vehicles were their schtick. They did change body styles (design), which added some small mileage increases, but it would have never have been enough to compete in the high gas mileage market without sacrificing what they were known for - power vehicles.
And the market for power vehicles returned. Detroit did not have the flexibility (because of the unions) to ride out the temporarily weak market for their vehicles.
This is just stupid, it was not "worries about pensions" that curbed the designs out of the Big 3. It wasn't pensions limiting their transition to modern designs. Unions did not cause their market share losses. It was the lousy cars created.Fine, tomato/tomatoe. I'm telling YOU that the reason I won't buy a GM/Ford/Chrysler is because the interior design/style/WHATEVER is cheap-assed when compared to Volvo, Lexus and others. When the Big Three are more concerned with managing their employees' pension plans and reining in union demands, it's not a bit surprising the whole industry suffered. They had/have a 900# gorilla on their backs -- only now are they recovering from their mistaken largess.
In 2010, Germany produced more than 5.5 million automobiles; the U.S produced 2.7 million. At the same time, the average auto worker in Germany made $67.14 per hour in salary in benefits; the average one in the U.S. made $33.77 per hour. Yet Germany’s big three car companies—BMW, Daimler (Mercedes-Benz), and Volkswagen—are very profitable.Competitiveness requires cost effectiveness, and that requires cost considerations when designing...
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.
This is such a stupid argument....what were the Big 3 supposed to do through this "market swing" (the 70's thru 1990)? Sit on their hands? Only produce big cars that no one would buy?You've just re-worded what I said without acknowledging it. Yes, their vehicles did remain heavier, and because of this they were more powerful. Power vehicles were their forte. The market for power vehicles returned. They were not able to have the flexibility to make it through the market swing (again, due to the unions).
Who said that you could?
You are projecting and answering unasked questions.
A lot of people on the right would like to see America fail, so that they could claim that President Obama failed.
America will not fail.
But a lot of out of touch losers on the right will.
"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?