tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20024595.post6123277783300665064..comments2023-08-19T01:52:21.530-07:00Comments on Right View from the Left Coast: A Case Against An American Automaker BailoutRighty64http://www.blogger.com/profile/09732939643534694274noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20024595.post-55939694651526399082008-11-23T09:30:00.000-08:002008-11-23T09:30:00.000-08:00Go ahead, take a stab at answering them.Just the s...<I>Go ahead, take a stab at answering them.</I><BR/><BR/>Just the sound of crickets chirping.Rightwingsnarklehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00008057973658098952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20024595.post-6662889261508938992008-11-21T05:02:00.000-08:002008-11-21T05:02:00.000-08:00Why don't auto manufacturers in other industrializ...Why don't auto manufacturers in other industrialized countries (Japan, South Korea, Germany, Canada, etc.) offer healthcare benefits to their empoyees and retirees? <BR/><BR/>What about pensions?<BR/><BR/>How do they escape those substantial costs? How does that enhance their competitive position?<BR/><BR/>Really, they're simple questions. Go ahead, take a stab at answering them.Rightwingsnarklehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00008057973658098952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20024595.post-50630856897864986532008-11-20T16:18:00.000-08:002008-11-20T16:18:00.000-08:00Mr. Snarkle, no it would not. It is not just "on t...Mr. Snarkle, no it would not. It is not just "on the backs" of the workers. If you read the Romney piece, he suggested that ALL have to suck it up. NO company can expect to survive in a competitive, global market giving the kind of health care and retirement benefits that Chrysler, Ford and General Motors give their employees. As well as the compensation to management. It is a nice attempt to push for socialized medicine though, Mr. Snarkle!Righty64https://www.blogger.com/profile/09732939643534694274noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20024595.post-46621751476526105882008-11-20T13:27:00.000-08:002008-11-20T13:27:00.000-08:00So, you're saying that auto manufacturers need to ...So, you're saying that auto manufacturers need to realign their business models on the backs of the people who do the work, by paying them less money and scaling back on their benefits?<BR/><BR/>Hmmmmm.<BR/><BR/>What if the U.S. auto manufacturers, and American businesses in general, were able to get out from under the cost of providing employee health insurance, a cost that their foreign competitors do not have to meet? Would that improve their competitive position?Rightwingsnarklehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00008057973658098952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20024595.post-56454600888501260232008-11-20T10:56:00.000-08:002008-11-20T10:56:00.000-08:00"That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2..."That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car. Think what that means: Ford, for example, needs to cut $2,000 worth of features and quality out of its Taurus to compete with Toyota’s Avalon. Of course the Avalon feels like a better product — it has $2,000 more put into it. Considering this disadvantage, Detroit has done a remarkable job of designing and engineering its cars. But if this cost penalty persists, any bailout will only delay the inevitable."<BR/><BR/> Seems Romney has fallen hook-line-and-sinker for one of Detroit's lies. A new Avalon sells for 27-35 thousand dollars, the Taurus for 24-31 thousand dollars.<BR/><BR/> The Avalon appears to be a better car because it has (at least) three-to-four-thousand dollars worth of extra content, content that is reflected in the price, before factoring in any "disadvantage."<BR/><BR/> Ford has not only wrung out that two-thousand-dollar disadvantage, they went and wrung out ANOTHER three-to-four-thousand dollars worth of content to keep their prices lower than Toyota's.<BR/><BR/> Three thousand dollars PER CAR would make a TREMENDOUS difference in quality, but Ford simply won't go for it. For whatever reason they prefer to say, "Our car is three thousand dollars crappier than theirs."<BR/><BR/> How much better would the Taurus be, and it's already one of the finest cars Ford has ever produced, if they added enough content to simply MATCH the Avalon's price?<BR/><BR/> Will they sell fewer Tauruses (Tauri?) at that higher price? Maybe, probably. But Toyota sells fewer Avalons than Ford sells Tauruses, and who's more profitable? The one selling the better car, that's who.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com