Car Buyers Spurn GM, Ford as Japan Brands Retain Aura (Update3)

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> > If employers are not free to hire replacement workers, if
> > replacement workers are not allowed free and unhindered access
> > to the workplace, then a true and fair equillibrium can not be
> > reached between what the employer wants to pay vs what people
> > are willing to work for.

> The problem with this approach is that what typically happens is
> that there is no equilibrium that is ever reached, and wages
> spiral lower and lower indefinitely - until the government steps
> in and starts creating labor laws that disallow stuff like child
> labor, mandatory overtime, etc.

I know of no non-unionized employer, in any market sector or job
classification, where salaries have fallen over time.

If you know of one, please describe it.

A job is worth what someone is willing to earn. If their work is
sub-standard then product quality will suffer and so will sales and
reputation. If you are a clever employer who can properly design your
parts and your assembly methods such that even a monkey can put the
product together reasonably well, then you can hire monkeys and pay them
bananas.

> That is also why laws were passed that disallow illegal
> immigrants from working.

Illegal immigrants should not be physically present in the country in
the first place. That you must rely on employers to act as immigration
police is a disgrace.

Why are you equating the right for someone, if offered, to take the job
of a striking worker with that of the illegal immigration situation?

Why can't you quote properly?

Licker wrote:

> > If employers are not free to hire replacement workers, if
> > replacement workers are not allowed free and unhindered access
> > to the workplace, then a true and fair equillibrium can not be
> > reached between what the employer wants to pay vs what people
> > are willing to work for."
>
> The employer is free to hire replacement workers but if the
> strike is deemed to be legal by the NLRB, then one the strike
> is over they most likely won't have a job.

Strikers should not have the legal ability to block the workplace or
hinder replacement workers from entering the workplace.

If a workforce goes on strike, then by definition they have ceased their
employment with the employer of their own free will. They have in face
terminated their own employment.

Any replacement workers that the employer hires are not really
replacement workers - they are the new workforce of the company.

Why can't you understand that simple, fair and equitable concept? If
the above situation can't happen because of labor laws, then the laws
are an ass.

> Under the NLRA replacement workers can not displace llegally
> striking workers permanently.

That is a huge flaw. What is the moral and logical reason for such a
law? There can be none.

If a workforce goes on strike (for more of something, more pay, more
benefits, more beneficial employment terms) then their demands can't be
tested fairly unless others are allowed access to those same jobs for
the same pay (or benefits, or employment terms).

> > Look what it took for US automakers to keep paying the high
> > wages and benefits that the unions extorted from them. The
> > automakers leveraged their operations with billions in debt.
> > This has been going on for decades. And with the credit-
> > crisis they could no longer roll-over that debt. The result
> > is bankruptcy."
>
> You are really clueless. The entire world economy is in a
> collapse all because of UAW workers. Get real.

You are the clueless one. I never said that the economy collapsed
BECAUSE of the UAW. I said that US auto makers have been held hostage
by artifically high wages and benefits given to UAW employees because
how the labor laws operate. And that left the auto companies
financially vulnerable to the current credit crisis (a crisis that had
it's roots in the collapse of billions of dollars of worthless mortgage
contracts in the US, UK and Europe). The auto companies have been
financing their operations by leveraging and rolling over huge amounts
of debt. That couldn't last, and the credit crisis brought down their
deck of cards earlier than they ever anticipated.

Ford borrowed a huge amount of money 2 or 3 years ago and that's the
only reason why they haven't declared bankruptcy yet. If credit markets
haven't recovered in a year and Ford can't get access to new loans, then
they'll be selling off assets and closing dealerships like GM and
Chrysler have just done.

MoPar Man wrote:

> ...Illegal immigrants should not be physically present in the country in
> the first place. That you must rely on employers to act as immigration
> police is a disgrace.
>
> Why are you equating the right for someone, if offered, to take the job
> of a striking worker with that of the illegal immigration situation?

Bravo!

And immigration officials are discouraged and threatened by the
government (ala Nancy Pelosi and others) if they enforce the laws on the
illegals. We are experiencing anarchy within our own government.

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

Bill Putney wrote:

> And immigration officials are discouraged and threatened by the
> government (ala Nancy Pelosi and others) if they enforce the laws on the
> illegals. We are experiencing anarchy within our own government.

Thats very true. Just look at what the left is doing attacking Sheriff
Joe Arapio in Arizona. He's extremely popular with the Arizona citizens
but the left has been trying to stop him like crazy from going after
illegals and the companies that hire them.

Of course, but then you gotta remember that consumers are by-and-large
STUPID. I still run into people who think "Japanese cars are better than
American cars" no matter how many seized Toyota engines there are out
there. But the pendulum will eventually swing the other way when enough
people get burned in the pocketbook.

Ford's going to come out of this the big winner, GM the big loser.
Chrysler? Who knows yet, but I give them better odds than GM right now.

Steve > wrote in
:

> Of course, but then you gotta remember that consumers are by-and-large
> STUPID. I still run into people who think "Japanese cars are better than
> American cars" no matter how many seized Toyota engines there are out
> there. But the pendulum will eventually swing the other way when enough
> people get burned in the pocketbook.. . . . .
>

>
My niece just bought a Toyota Matrix. She thought it was a better car than
the Pontiac Vibe since it was a Toyota. She didn't believe me when I told
her they came off the same assembly line in California.

MoPar Man wrote: "Why can't you quote properly?"

Last time I looked up how to quote someone is says use quation marks " nd
not greater than symbol >.

It's a question of Heducation...

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Licker" > wrote in message
...
> MoPar Man wrote: "Why can't you quote properly?"
>
> Last time I looked up how to quote someone is says use quation marks " nd
> not greater than symbol >.
>
>

Licker wrote:

> > Why can't you quote properly?
>
> Last time I looked up how to quote someone is says use
> quation marks and not greater than symbol.

You are the only person I've ever seen, in the 20 years that I've been
reading and posting to usenet, to quote previous material using "---"
instead of indenting quoted material using a standard character (like >
).

You seem to be using Outlook Express. I'm sure it has the ability to
properly construct usenet posts by using the > character to indicate
quoted material. Why don't you use it properly?

Don't you see how you're the only one quoting in that manner?

But don't you rmember "---" from your youth?

This > indendation business has only arisen because that's what happens in
e-mail replies. It's not actually a quote in the grammatically correct
English sense.

If I were to quote you, say, correctly and show that your brain has been
overwritten ( :-) ) by computerisation over a long period I would show the
evidence like this: "You are the only person I've ever seen, in the 20
years..."

Julius Caesar said "Et tu, Brute"

not

Julius Caeser said
> Et tu, Brute

In German they sometimes use << and >> if I am not mistaken, but this is
not a German discussion group...

Here endeth the lesson...


Best
DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
---
"MoPar Man" > wrote in message
...
[...]
>
> You are the only person I've ever seen, in the 20 years that I've been
> reading and posting to usenet, to quote previous material using "---"
> instead of indenting quoted material using a standard character (like >
> ).
[...]