Detroit Vs Japan

I think you're looking at it backwards. Education has everthing to do with
it. To stay employable, workers are going to have to get themselves
proficient at a whole new skillset, and more flexible in what they are able
to do, since assembly-line manufacturing jobs are being moved elsewhere.
That's where the education comes in.

"Ruel Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> Education has nothing to do with it. Here's the problem: For the US to
> compete globally, we need tangible goods to sell. Education does nothing
> to
> give us those tangible goods to sell to the world. Someone has to actually
> produce them. In the late 1980's, Pres. Bush declared that he wanted to
> push the transition of the US to a service oriented society, which is the
> last stage defined by Karl Marx in the evolution of a society's economy.
> This has been the fundemental shift that has been happening since the
> early
> 1980's, where we've gradually gone to making more and more goods outside
> the US. There has been a push to become more of a global marketplace and a
> global economy. The problem with this is that you have to have something
> to
> sell to the world. At first, you'd think that we'd sell our services of
> our
> expertise. Well, the shift of computer related jobs to India has shown
> that
> that type of work can be exported a lot easier than moving an entire
> production plant. Now, once that knowledge has been gained by foreign
> countries, what else do we have to sell to the world? If we've become a
> society that is too expensive to employ, we then don't have any hard goods
> to sell. We then face economic collapse. When it becomes too easy to
> replace you with someone on another continent for a lot less, then we're
> doomed.
>
> The US is something like 1/3 the entire world consumer market, and roughly
> the size of the entire european continent combined. However, if we keep
> trying to cut costs by eliminating jobs by sending them outside our
> borders, or replacing them with foreign immigrants who pay no taxes, and
> the government subsidizing such action, we'll find ourselves in desperate
> times. For too long, white collar and self-employed people have looked the
> other way because it didn't affect them. Well, it's beginning to. Again,
> they can ship white collar jobs outside the US far cheaper than they can
> move a plant. If the current trend continues, you'll find company
> accounting records kept in India, etc..
>
> Self-employed people need to be worried too. As more and more production
> of
> goods is outside the US, larger, more global companies are arising,
> stamping out the mom-and-pops and small businesses out of the market
> altogether. Witness Walmart. 80% of their goods are produced in foreign
> countries, typically in sweat shops. That enables them to sell cheaper,
> and
> runs smaller chains out. This is a disease that we all are catching
> because
> we like to pay less. Again, this country is becoming more out for
> themselves to a degree unprecedented. Everyone feels like they deserve
> $100,000+ a year, but the next guy gets paid too much for what he does.
> We're driving down our collective standard of living, as a result. This
> way
> of thinking is a sinking ship...
>
>> Big business loves this trend. Like all socioecononomic shifts, there
>> will
>> be some that will be left behind. You want to stay employed...the
>> emphasis
>> will be to stay employable.
>
> Yeah, and like lemmings, we're following this trend...
>
> And when all the tangible goods are made outside the US, accounting,
> computer related positions, and just about all white collar work is
> exported to India and management only needs a computer readout of the
> reports? What then? Is it even possible to stay employable? Doing what?
> When enough people can't find work, or cannot earn a decent enough living,
> then the market for goods collapses, sending the economy down the toilet
> with it to doomsday.
>
> For this country to survive, we need people earning good livings. I don't
> just mean a few with college educations, I mean the vast majority of
> everyday people. Then, they pay lots of taxes, the government has money to
> do its job, and the consumer market flourishes and fuels a booming
> economy.
> Instead, we're trying to rid this country of good paying jobs by exporting
> them somewhere else. I heard a local talk radio host claim that we export
> low paying jobs and gain high paying jobs in the process. However, I don't
> see those jobs lost by GM, Ford, and DC worker to Mexico as being low pay.
>
> I'm telling you...this trend is dangerous for the economy in the long run.
> It's good for corporate America, but bad for you and I.
>
>> I see your point...I think a lot of it was in the gas crunch of the 70's
>> people wanted smaller, fuel efficient cars, and the domestics really
>> didn't have much to offer, while almost every Japanese car was small and
>> fuel efficient, quality notwithstanding. That really opened the
>> floodgates
>> and the quality improvement perception came later as they built up market
>> share and the domestics' quality stagnated through the early 80's.
>
> Yes, it's like Ferrari, BMW, Porsche, Mercedes, etc... Look back into
> 1970's
> at their products. They're far inferior in most ways to American
> counterparts of the period. Ferrari's were beautiful cars with kit car
> build quality. Mechanically they were unreliable. They weren't all that
> impressive performance-wise either. Sure, the snobby will call their
> performance "balanced", but a common Chevelle SS would outgun most
> Ferraris
> in an acceleration contest. The one on Magnum PI had a 0-60 time of
> something like 9 seconds! The original VW GTi was capable of that. Even
> the
> Corvette during those poor performance years could go faster. Porsche
> never
> even made a fast car until the 1978 911 Turbo was released, and its
> performance would have been laughed at between 1967 to 1971. Have you even
> seen a 70's era Bimmer or Benz? Most were nothing to look at... There was
> nothing special about Mercedes vehicles back then, but somehow in the
> 1980's we began a love affair with them and that funded them to improve
> their product to be where they are now. Same goes for Honda, Toyota, and
> Datsun (Nissan). Our need for fuel efficiency provided them with the much
> needed funds, combined with their ambitition, led to the admittedly good
> products they have now. But back then, there was nothing special about
> them. I remember reading an article about a Toyota 2000GT, where they were
> so unreliable that the engine needed rebuilt every 60K or something like
> that. They got the reliability later, after we funded it.
>
>
> --
>
> Registered Linux user #378193

Hi Matt,
Would you like fries with that? Like pretty soon that's all that
sheep's skin will be worth in a service only economy, that's if you have
a buck to boot. Of couse, the buck will be worthless too with a product
to back it up. Thanks God for Krugerrands.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
http://www.billhughes.com/

Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>
> I think you're looking at it backwards. Education has everthing to do with
> it. To stay employable, workers are going to have to get themselves
> proficient at a whole new skillset, and more flexible in what they are able
> to do, since assembly-line manufacturing jobs are being moved elsewhere.
> That's where the education comes in.

Matt Macchiarolo wrote:

> I think you're looking at it backwards. Education has everthing to do with
> it. To stay employable, workers are going to have to get themselves
> proficient at a whole new skillset, and more flexible in what they are
> able
> to do, since assembly-line manufacturing jobs are being moved elsewhere.
> That's where the education comes in.

Again, when they also export accounts payable, accounts receivable,
accounting, data entry and all other computer related jobs, what's left?
What can you possibly get skilled at? Be lawyers? Doctors? Radio disc
jockeys? How many of those types of jobs are needed vs. the ever increasing
population of this country? Will we have a need for 300 million of these
jobs? The need for those jobs vs. the number of people needing work won't
add up. This kind of stuff has been preached to us until the point that
people believed it. However, if you really look into it, after we've
commoditized all of the jobs and sent them elsewhere, this country will be
in an economic disaster.


--

Registered Linux user #378193

Scotty wrote:

> I
> asked a real truck owner why he recently bought a Toyota Tundra and he
> told me that he had driven two Toyota cars to 200,000 miles without any
> problems and with nothing more than regular maintenance while his last
> Ford truck needed an engine at 95,000 miles and the interior and body
> started to deteriorate at 65,000 miles.

And I have a 1994 Jeep Wrangler Sport with 146,000 on the odometer, and it
has only needed a clutch @ 143,000 and a new header since a weld has now
cracked in the original. It's still going strong and driven everyday. This
inline 6 was designed by AMC, which was not known for reliability, and
redesigned by Chrysler to update it with fuel injection, etc.. So what does
that tell you? Any car can be driven to 200,000+ if treated right and
normal maintenance has been religious enough.

I'm in the construction trade and it's RARE to see a Toyota truck on the lot
of any construction site I've ever been on.


--

Registered Linux user #378193

SoK66 wrote:

> Interesting to note that our domestic auto mfrs, particularly GM & Ford,
> continue to lose market share (and, hence, jobs) to the Asians. GM, Ford &
> DC have shed over 130,000 jobs since 2000. Over the same period, however,
> the Asians & Europeans have continued to invest in the "high-cost" USA,
> opening new plants and employing thousands of workers. Unfortunately, due
> to the built-in inefficiencies of the UAW-bound domestics, they've only
> replaced about 30,000 jobs over the same period of time. It should be no
> mystery why the UAW has been unsuccessful in organizing the Asian plants,
> they simply have nothing to offer the workers but lost income and eventual
> unemployment.

How much do you know about the UAW? How do you figure it's inefficient?

Do you take into consideration that those companies build those plants in
areas where unions aren't strong, and support for unions is weak?

I'm curious why people have a beef with unions? Business people negotiate
contracts for a living. All a union has is a contract with the company
saying they'll provide labor under agreed conditions. If the unions have
done so well to negotiate unsatisfactory terms, then those business people
don't need to be in business because they can't negotiate squat.

European companies like Daimler-Benz (now DaimlerChrysler), BMW, Volkswagen
AG, etc. that produce cars in europe have unions in those plants. Those
unions are even stronger than the UAW. But, they still compete well. Why?
Because union help is not the blame. Poor management is. Poor design is.
Poor engineering is.

Companies like GM are suffering because with the exception of a few shining
stars like the Corvette and some Cadillac models, their cars are lack
luster. They don't offer the consumer what they're looking for in the
market segment they attempt to compete in. Also, GM has missed golden
opportunities. They killed of the Camaro and Firebird just in time for a
huge resurgence in desire for muscle cars. The Mustang was still selling
like hot cakes, but GM claimed that the market for such vehicles had all
but disappeared. Now we have a new Mustang, and you can't even find a V8
model on the lot, and they're selling over sticker. The Chrysler 300C and
Dodge Magnum RT are a huge success. Instead, GM is pushing a Solstice,
which looks to be a Miata competitor of some sort. The Miata came out in
1989, and it's market has dwindled a bit. It's on the downside of it's
product lifecycle. Even Honda is considering dropping the S2000. But GM
expects it to be a big enough hit to offer a second model sold by Saturn.
Good luck! Their other offering is a 1997 design of an Austrailian market
car they tried to pedal off as a GTO. It's obvious that this design was
dated as soon as it hit the market. It has no pop, and the market has
mostly ignored it. GM's other problem is lack of differentiation between
brands. They've badge engineered their models to death and there is little
to separate them. To make matters worse, instead of having a volume model
and a premium model by another brand, they have 4 to 5 versions of the same
thing accross different brands. Witness the Chevy Trailblazer, GMC Envoy,
Buick Ranier, Isuzu Ascender, and Saab 97x. How many variations of a poor
selling SUV do we need? Lastly, in typical GM fashion, they pump as many
cars as they can build into the market, and lack of public interest has
these things sitting on lots. Therefore, they have to incentivize them to
death to get them to sell. At least Ford has finally realized that the best
thing to do is cut production to a point that supply is more inline with
demand, instead of discounting as much. This has nothing to do with UAW
workers. The reliabiltiy of GM products isn't an issue, as GM is very much
in the higher rankings of the JD Power initial quality survey (Buick 4th,
Cadillac 5th, Toyota 7th, Honda 12th...), and GM plants also got all 3 nods
from JD Power for least problems per vehicle for US built vehicles.
However, the public doesn't seem to be getting that message, swearing a
Camry made in Georgetown, KY is more reliable. However the facts are
different. I guess those UAW workers are doing a horrible job...


--

Registered Linux user #378193

> Again, when they also export accounts payable, accounts receivable,
> accounting, data entry and all other computer related jobs, what's left?


Innovation. Read Tom Friedman's book.

Matt Macchiarolo wrote:

> Innovation. Read Tom Friedman's book.

Pie in the sky...

I'm not bothering to read Tom Friedman's book. What happens when something
is innovated? They can just ship those jobs elsewhere too. What's to stop
them?

Do yourself and everyone a favor and just look at how it all works. We're
commoditizing jobs in this country and shipping them to somewhere else
where we can exploit the labor force there. This doesn't save the consumer
except where price is the selling point, such as Walmart. Even they get as
much as they can out of the consumer while undercutting the competition.
However, most items sell for the same price when they move production to
some 2nd or 3rd world country as they did when they built it in the USA and
actually paid their workers a decent living. Anyone who contests this
obviously hasn't taken economics. All we're doing is making those foreign
economies stronger, while weakening our own. Since 1980, our trade deficits
have grown, jobs have fled the US, and this country is being stripped of
any goods to sell the rest of the world in order to compete.


--

Registered Linux user #378193

Your engine was designed by Nash in 1927:
http://www162.pair.com/nashram/nash/...onid= &carid=
They just added a water pump for today's lower radiators. A spin-on oil
filter for today's lazy people, Truckers still change the lubefiner,
like pictured on the '27.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
http://www.billhughes.com/

Ruel Smith wrote:
>
> And I have a 1994 Jeep Wrangler Sport with 146,000 on the odometer, and it
> has only needed a clutch @ 143,000 and a new header since a weld has now
> cracked in the original. It's still going strong and driven everyday. This
> inline 6 was designed by AMC, which was not known for reliability, and
> redesigned by Chrysler to update it with fuel injection, etc.. So what does
> that tell you? Any car can be driven to 200,000+ if treated right and
> normal maintenance has been religious enough.
>
> I'm in the construction trade and it's RARE to see a Toyota truck on the lot
> of any construction site I've ever been on.
>
> --
>
> Registered Linux user #378193

I've been thinking about this kind of stuff, trying to decide what to study
in college...
I'm great at computers and originally went in for a computer science degree,
but since I've been wrenchin on this jeep I have been getting more
interested in working on cars...

Do you think being a dealership mechanic is a safe bet?

Everything you say is true. But what you are describing is a the beginning
stages of a fundamental shift in global economics, and whining about how it
affects the US economy simply isn't going to help. Trying to understand what
to do to adjust to it *will* help. Because the world is no longer going to
adjust to us. If you can't be bothered to understand that, you will be one
of the ones left behind.

"Ruel Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>
>> Innovation. Read Tom Friedman's book.
>
> Pie in the sky...
>
> I'm not bothering to read Tom Friedman's book. What happens when something
> is innovated? They can just ship those jobs elsewhere too. What's to stop
> them?
>
> Do yourself and everyone a favor and just look at how it all works. We're
> commoditizing jobs in this country and shipping them to somewhere else
> where we can exploit the labor force there. This doesn't save the consumer
> except where price is the selling point, such as Walmart. Even they get as
> much as they can out of the consumer while undercutting the competition.
> However, most items sell for the same price when they move production to
> some 2nd or 3rd world country as they did when they built it in the USA
> and
> actually paid their workers a decent living. Anyone who contests this
> obviously hasn't taken economics. All we're doing is making those foreign
> economies stronger, while weakening our own. Since 1980, our trade
> deficits
> have grown, jobs have fled the US, and this country is being stripped of
> any goods to sell the rest of the world in order to compete.
>
>
> --
>
> Registered Linux user #378193