Big 3 blows it again, Japs eating their lunch

Bill Putney wrote:
>
> Robbie and Laura Reynolds wrote:

> > Now I suppose it's your turn to quote some drivel about Iaccoca from his
> > book, unless you have me in your killfile, in which case you'll have to
> > wait until somebody replies to me, and then you can tell me how stupid I
> > am.
>
> GO ROBBIE!!
>
> Bill Putney


Aren't you in the kill-file, too?

In article >,
Robbie and Laura Reynolds > wrote:

> DeserTBoB wrote:
>
> >> You ever wonder what
> >> happened to the real American dream? That's the one where if you don't
> >> like the way things are you take the initiative to build a better
> >> company and a better product yourself. Why is it that laborers would
> >> prefer to make rules that say somebody else has to pay them a fortune,
> >> rather than build their own car factory and do it the way they think it
> >> should be done? <snip>
>
> > A truly stupid statement. Ever hear of "division of labor?"
>
>
> Yeah I've heard of it. What about it? I think it's a great idea to run
> one's own business. I'm starting one now myself, because I think it
> would be stupid to wait for somebody else to get me where I want to go
> in life. Referring to "division of labor" as if it were some treasured
> way of life is stupid, in my opinion.
>
> Here's an even more interesting take on the subject of stupidity and
> division of labor. You go on and on about how stupid everybody else is,
> which is an intriguing thing in itself. How did you get to be so much
> smarter than the rest of us? Was it nutrition, or superior genetics, or
> what? One way or another, you seem to think you're several times
> smarter than everybody else in America. But you just might be
> mistaken. What most hardheaded folks like you don't understand is that
> those who disagree with you are not actually stupid, they just don't
> agree. But back to the point at hand, regarding stupidity and the
> division of labor. A division of labor promotes ignorance. People who
> are so stupid that they don't know what a spark plug is are generally
> very good at something else, which is generally what they do for a
> living. In other words, they aren't really stupid. It is obvious to me
> that a nation of renaissance men and women would be much more healthy,
> wealthy and wise than a nation of drones who are all good at one thing
> each. Naturally, I have done my share of single specialty jobs, but I
> wouldn't want to stay with any of them for more than a few years.
> Division of labor and specializing has given rise to our current
> culture, wherein you are not supposed to question "experts". Hence, a
> silly bureaucrat at the DFS can take your children away from you based
> on their assessment of your parenting qualifications, many otherwise
> intelligent people are at the mercy of the car mechanic and his $60/hr
> shop rate, we're not supposed to question our expert "leaders" in the
> White House (funny how they used to be called public servants), and
> you're not supposed to be able to get a good job unless you cough up
> thousands of dollars to give to the expert intellectuals at the
> university for a diploma. Just do your job and don't ask any
> questions. That's what the division of labor is all about. Or would
> you rather people be better informed? Generally it doesn't tend to
> happen both ways at the same time.
>
> Now I suppose it's your turn to quote some drivel about Iaccoca from his
> book, unless you have me in your killfile, in which case you'll have to
> wait until somebody replies to me, and then you can tell me how stupid I
> am.

Excellent post.

Best of luck on your new business venture.

In article .com>,
"jailhouserock" > wrote:

> 3. Ford Motor Company (United States) - 6,418,416 vehicles
> Ford Motor Company United States Division Mainstream Global


> Aston Martin United Kingdom Subsidiary Luxury / Performance Global
> Jaguar United Kingdom Subsidiary Luxury Europe/North America
> Land Rover United Kingdom Subsidiary Luxury Truck Global
These three BIG losers are for sale.
Please someone relieve Ford of the bleeding here.

> Lincoln United States Division Luxury North America
> Mercury United States Division Near-Luxury North America
Soon to drop these two losers.

> Volvo Cars Sweden Subsidiary Near-Luxury
> Mazda
These two are rays of hope for Ford. Smart designers.

Robbie and Laura Reynolds wrote:
>
> Bill Putney wrote:
>
>>Robbie and Laura Reynolds wrote:
>
>
>>>Now I suppose it's your turn to quote some drivel about Iaccoca from his
>>>book, unless you have me in your killfile, in which case you'll have to
>>>wait until somebody replies to me, and then you can tell me how stupid I
>>>am.
>>
>>GO ROBBIE!!
>>
>>Bill Putney
>
>
>
> Aren't you in the kill-file, too?

There was a reply to a post the other day, so maybe I've been downgraded
to "non-kill-filed". It doesn't matter.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

Bill Putney wrote:
> Robbie and Laura Reynolds wrote:
> >
> > Bill Putney wrote:
> >
> >>Robbie and Laura Reynolds wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>Now I suppose it's your turn to quote some drivel about Iaccoca from his
> >>>book, unless you have me in your killfile, in which case you'll have to
> >>>wait until somebody replies to me, and then you can tell me how stupid I
> >>>am.
> >>
> >>GO ROBBIE!!
> >>
> >>Bill Putney
> >
> >
> >
> > Aren't you in the kill-file, too?
>
> There was a reply to a post the other day, so maybe I've been downgraded
> to "non-kill-filed". It doesn't matter.
>
> Bill Putney
> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> address with the letter 'x')


When Boob puts you in his "killfile", what that means is, he ignores
one post, then he actually reads every single one of your following
posts, and replies twice to each one. The signs of a true obsessive
compulsive disorder on his part.

On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 06:12:36 GMT, Just Facts >
wrote:

>> Volvo Cars Sweden Subsidiary Near-Luxury
>> Mazda
>These two are rays of hope for Ford. Smart designers. <snip>

Volvo had a lot of reliability problems back in the '70s, from which
they seem to have recovered. It seems that Ford is using Volvo as a
"brain bank," since Ford seems to not have any engineering talent of
its own anymore.

Mazda and Ford have been allied for a long time, from the days when
Toyo-Kogo and Ford teamed up on the Courier/B1600 mini truck project.
Mazda has managed to come up with a new "crossover" SUV that seems to
be selling very well, which is good for Ford, since they can't seem to
design one of their own.

>
> I've had lots of Caravans that went well over 200,000 miles.
>
> I think that this is just another case of brand loyalty and the natural
> but irrational human desire to be better than the other guy. History is
> full of good cars, bad cars, and in between cars. I don't think any
> company or nation has a monopoly on good or bad cars. I wouldn't take a
> Neon if you gave it to me because it's a piece of crap. But I like the
> Caravan. So is Chrysler a bad car maker or a good one?
>
> I think that people just like to complain.

i agree totally with your comments with the exception of one jarring
point...you say a Neon is "a piece of crap"...firstly i don't completely
agree with you but my main concern is that you state it as a fact rather
than opinion and don't support it with any evidence.

you may have very good reason for your view but i find that one comment bugs
me for some reason.

"Bill Putney" > wrote in message
...
> DeserTBoB wrote:
>> On 24 Oct 2006 14:59:32 -0700, "
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The Japanese manufacturers now build a lot of cars for the U.S. market
>>>on U.S. soil. They don't have to contend with the labor problems that
>>>the big three do. <snip>
>>
>>
>> ...meaning they predatorily take advantage of weak, unenforce labor
>> laws in the US to their own advantage...and the disadvantage of US
>> workers. How nice.
>
> My b.s. detector just went off.
>
> No, TrollBobSquarepants - it means that they don't do suicidal things like
> GM did years ago like sign agreements with unions that say that if a
> supplier or someone within GM comes up with an idea on a subassembly that
> will save GM money by eliminating a warm body on GM's existing production
> line, the idea could *not* be implemented, whereas a competitor could
> realize those cost savings on their line if similar types of efficiency
> improvements were identified. Search my past posts on GM's PICOS program
> which I had first-hand experience with.
>
> Bill Putney
> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address
> with the letter 'x')

i'm new here Bill but have observed you are a prolific and informed poster
but i think you've got it wrong with this one...Toyota in particular are
known to be a brutal employer, driving their employees to exhaustion with
forced overtime and restrictive practices. there are dozens of suicides in
which employment at Toyota is implicated.

not only that, they are systematically reducing the "unseen" quality in
their vehicles to maximize profits.

i suppose you can argue that all of that is just smart business but if you
make your living as an auto worker i suspect you wouldn't agree.

Simon wrote:

>> ...No, TrollBobSquarepants - it means that they don't do suicidal things like
>> GM did years ago like sign agreements with unions that say that if a
>> supplier or someone within GM comes up with an idea on a subassembly that
>> will save GM money by eliminating a warm body on GM's existing production
>> line, the idea could *not* be implemented, whereas a competitor could
>> realize those cost savings on their line if similar types of efficiency
>> improvements were identified. Search my past posts on GM's PICOS program
>> which I had first-hand experience with.
>>
>> Bill Putney
>> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address
>> with the letter 'x')
>
> i'm new here Bill but have observed you are a prolific and informed poster
> but i think you've got it wrong with this one...Toyota in particular are
> known to be a brutal employer, driving their employees to exhaustion with
> forced overtime and restrictive practices. there are dozens of suicides in
> which employment at Toyota is implicated.
>
> not only that, they are systematically reducing the "unseen" quality in
> their vehicles to maximize profits.
>
> i suppose you can argue that all of that is just smart business but if you
> make your living as an auto worker i suspect you wouldn't agree.

You're equating two things that are not equivalent. I don't know if
what you said about Toyota is true or not (sounds like union mentality
propaganda) - first I've heard of that. But let's assume it is true for
a moment. What does that have to do with GM allowing themselves to be
boxed in to where they can't exercise good business practices in that if
they find a more efficient way to do a process, they can take one or
more workers off that less efficient old process and put them to new
tasks that help productivity - helps the company and helps long-term job
stability.

I don't see re-assigning workers to more productive jobs as
suicide-inducing practices. I see companies not being able to compete
by exercising good business practices as being suicidal for the company.
Ultimately - yeah that is cruel to the employee when he loses his job
because the company is going bankrupt - except the employee forced them
to go to that.

OK - so you just showed up here. Great - but why are you picking up on
old discussions that stopped months ago and carrying on as if they are
current discussions. One of your recent posts starts off "lol...beat me
to it..." in response to a post in a thread that dropped off the radar
screen several months ago. Are you a troll?

--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

Bill,

no, i'm not a troll. i actually didn't notice how old the threads were that
i was replying to and have already posted an apology for that.

as for your specific arguments below, i don't have time to respond fully
right now but my general concern is that there seems to be a general mindset
developing that auto manufacturing in the "western" world can only be
sustained by returning employees to "third world" levels of compensation and
working conditions. and before you ask, i am not a production worker nor a
union member, i own my own business, and i own two older Dodge vans, so i
have no vested interest whatsoever in the welfare of blue-collar workers.

so my question to Americans (just for the record I am British but live in
Canada) is; do you want your auto industry to survive by creating difficult
or impossible working conditions for the employees? do you want more
Wal-Mart level of employment in your country?

at the end of the day there may not be much choice but i just get the sense
that there is a bit of an "i'm all right jack, i'm a white-collar guy" kind
of mentality developing where people want "somebody else" to do all the hard
work and live in ghettos for their trouble while they (we) carry on serenely
in our suburbs.

now, i am not a "leftie" and i know society will always be somewhat
stratified but i am just concerned that we shouldn't be taking deliberate
steps to make things worse than they are.

well, that is a very simplified version of my viewpoint. it is a complex
issue for sure and the greatest minds on the planet may well not solve the
conundrum.

Have a nice day.

Simon.


"Bill Putney" > wrote in message
...
> Simon wrote:
>
>>> ...No, TrollBobSquarepants - it means that they don't do suicidal things
>>> like GM did years ago like sign agreements with unions that say that if
>>> a supplier or someone within GM comes up with an idea on a subassembly
>>> that will save GM money by eliminating a warm body on GM's existing
>>> production line, the idea could *not* be implemented, whereas a
>>> competitor could realize those cost savings on their line if similar
>>> types of efficiency improvements were identified. Search my past posts
>>> on GM's PICOS program which I had first-hand experience with.
>>>
>>> Bill Putney
>>> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>>> address with the letter 'x')
>>
>> i'm new here Bill but have observed you are a prolific and informed
>> poster but i think you've got it wrong with this one...Toyota in
>> particular are known to be a brutal employer, driving their employees to
>> exhaustion with forced overtime and restrictive practices. there are
>> dozens of suicides in which employment at Toyota is implicated.
>>
>> not only that, they are systematically reducing the "unseen" quality in
>> their vehicles to maximize profits.
>>
>> i suppose you can argue that all of that is just smart business but if
>> you make your living as an auto worker i suspect you wouldn't agree.
>
> You're equating two things that are not equivalent. I don't know if what
> you said about Toyota is true or not (sounds like union mentality
> propaganda) - first I've heard of that. But let's assume it is true for a
> moment. What does that have to do with GM allowing themselves to be boxed
> in to where they can't exercise good business practices in that if they
> find a more efficient way to do a process, they can take one or more
> workers off that less efficient old process and put them to new tasks that
> help productivity - helps the company and helps long-term job stability.
>
> I don't see re-assigning workers to more productive jobs as
> suicide-inducing practices. I see companies not being able to compete by
> exercising good business practices as being suicidal for the company.
> Ultimately - yeah that is cruel to the employee when he loses his job
> because the company is going bankrupt - except the employee forced them to
> go to that.
>
> OK - so you just showed up here. Great - but why are you picking up on old
> discussions that stopped months ago and carrying on as if they are current
> discussions. One of your recent posts starts off "lol...beat me to it..."
> in response to a post in a thread that dropped off the radar screen
> several months ago. Are you a troll?
>
> --
> Bill Putney
> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address
> with the letter 'x')