Toyota blames costs, not UAW, for NUMMI pullout
in [Toyota]
|
From: Mike on 8 Sep 2009 10:49 Of course know the Job banks was ended by the parties but that has northing to do with what I said in that post. Are you really that slow? LOL "Jeff" <jeff.utz(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:7a1c6a21-d9fb-4a16-96d8-57c609bf2e9a(a)v2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com... On Sep 7, 12:38 pm, "Mike" <mikehu...(a)lycos.com> wrote: > I guess that means you too did not try to find the source of the funding > for > the "jobs bank," > set up by Detroit automakers and Delphi Corp. as part of an extraordinary > job security agreement with the United Auto Workers union? > > The fact that the parties eliminated the job bank has nothing to do with > the > facts as stated in my post. That the job bank was eliminated was not a minor detail. One is supposedly so intune (sic) with the auto industry would know this. Jeff > "Jeff" <jeff....(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:05892523-5585-413b-b0b2-f95fc38682e6(a)c37g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 5, 3:42 pm, "Mike" <mikehu...(a)lycos.com> wrote: > > > > > Who is Ken Pool? LOL > > > Have you ever tried to find the source of the funding for the "jobs > > bank," > > set up by Detroit automakers and Delphi Corp. as part of an > > extraordinary > > job security agreement with the United Auto Workers union? > > > Every UAW members and the companies both have each been paying sixty > > five > > cents and hour into the "Jobs Bank Fund," since the auto companies and > > the > > Union agreed to the contact clause! Jobs bank workers are paid from that > > interest bearing fund. > > > In addition the companies saved millions of dollars by not having to pay > > unemployment benefits and higher state unemployment taxes, dummy! > > > "Joe$#itForBrains" > > Old man, the jobs bank was suspended. Try to keep up. > > <http://www.autonews.com/article/20081203/ANA01/812039981/1128>
From: Mike on 8 Sep 2009 10:59 That is one Jap car one sees on occasion, as well as a RX7, but even they are rare. The fact is Jap cars of the day rusted away and parts are expensive IF you can find parts. The type of buyer that buy Jap cars are not the type to keep them, anymore they would keep their refrigerator or washing machine. "Joe$#itForBrains"<newstrash(a)frontiernet.net> wrote in message news:bwBom.9033$nP6.7028(a)newsfe25.iad... > "Ed Pawlowski" <esp(a)snet.net> wrote in message > news:9ZydnVQ3utj7Qj_XnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> >> "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstrash(a)frontiernet.net> wrote in message >>>>>> >>>>>> There are more '65 Chevy and Fords there than '65 Datsuns, even as a >>>>>> percentage of sales in that years. Older Toyota bodes never lasted >>>>>> that long in spite of the drivetrain running about forever. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What percentage of show cars have 100% original bodywork? In other >>>>> words, what percentage have had no body work done at all? >>>>> >>>> >>>> That's impossible to know. >>> >>> In that case, Ed P's comment about "bodes" is meaningless, unless he has >>> data about original body work. There might be rules about that in >>> certain car shows. I don't know. I'll wait for his response rather than >>> guess. >> >> You'd have to clarify the category. There are shows specific to certain >> makes, certain year ranges, and original versus custom. In a custom >> category original body makes no difference. I don't know the rules of >> restorations. I do know that if a car is 100% original, it is valued far >> more than a better looking car that has a lot of replacements. >> >> My brother won quite a few shows with a Model A that was 100% original >> (except for tires) and had the bill of sale and bills from service in the >> 1920's. He sold it because once you show it, not much else to do with it >> aside from prevent deterioration. His Mustangs had replacement parts as >> needed, but his Pony convertible was all original. It was so pristine, >> Ford bought it back from him. >> >> Getting back on point, one reason you don't find older Japanese cars in >> shows is because no one really wanted to bother keeping them. They had >> bland style, bland performance, needed a lot of body upkeep, little >> appeal to a collector. >> > > > A 240Z was bland? :-) >
From: Ray O on 8 Sep 2009 14:51 "Mike" <mikehunt2(a)lycos.com> wrote in message news:4aa66d6b$0$26538$ce5e7886(a)news-radius.ptd.net... > You can cut the pie in as many pieces you choose and you will find GM > still sells more vehicle than any other manufacturer in the US, and Ford > is just behind GM. ;) > > According to Automotive News: August YTD U.S. car and light truck sales: GM 1,381,224 Toyota Motor Sales 1,170,407 Ford Motor Co. 1,119,863 -- Ray O (correct punctuation to reply)
From: Jeff on 8 Sep 2009 20:01 On Sep 8, 10:38 am, "Mike" <mikehu...(a)lycos.com> wrote: > What part of "selling more VEHICLES at 25%, when the market was at > 19,000,000 than they did back when they had nearly 50% of the market," did > you not understand? The last time GM had nearly 50% of the market was NOT > in the seventies Funny thing is that their peak market share was about 51% in 1962, when they sold over 3,900,000 vehicles, compared to about 2,933,000 cars last year. So, when GM had its peak market share, it sold more cars than it is selling now. In fact, every year in the sixties, they sold more vehicles than last year. So, as usual, you're incorrect. Jeff http://www.nytimes.com/1999/12/24/business/gm-official-gives-upbeat-review-of-year.html > "Jeff" <jeff....(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:2794a7d6-c44a-4ca2-9bd3-53205826e9f6(a)e34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 7, 8:42 pm, "80 Knight" <nos...(a)nospam.com> wrote: > > > > > "Jeff" <jeff....(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:b53e1cbb-98eb-4dc2-b095-b6d7b6bd7a82(a)z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com.... > > On Sep 7, 3:27 pm, "80 Knight" <nos...(a)nospam.com> wrote: > > > > "Jeff" <jeff....(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >news:610f8e30-4f92-4756-ba50-d05d833c4d66(a)g6g2000vbr.googlegroups.com.... > > > On Sep 7, 12:31 pm, "Mike" <mikehu...(a)lycos.com> wrote: > > > > > Lower market share of an ever growing market, you mean. The fact is GM > > > > was > > > > selling more vehicles at 25%, when the market was at 19,000,000 than > > > > the > > > > back when they had nearly 50% of the market, dummy. > > > > First, there is no need for name-calling. Not even kids on my soccer > > > team do that. OF course, being in first and second grade, they are > > > smarter than Mike. > > > > Second, the market is not "ever growing." The market has been > > > shrinking each year since 2006. > > > > Further, if GM cars are so great, there is no reason why they should > > > have a smaller market share, unless they can't keep up with demand. > > > Yet, with all the plant closings, that is hardly the case. > > > > Jeff > > > ================================================= > > > > Be serious Jeff. Yes, Mike is an idiot, but in this case, he is right.. > > > Regardless of market share, GM still sells more vehicles then *any* > > > other > > > auto maker in the USA. GM also sells more vehicles now with its small > > > market share, then it did when it had almost half of the market years > > > ago. > > > As for "greatness", some of you ToyoNuts think Toyota builds vehicles > > > directly from God, so tell me, why don't they have the highest market > > > share > > > in the USA, and why don't they sell more vehicles then GM? > > > First, I don't think Toyota builds cars directly from God. > > > Second, Toyota sold twice as many cars in 1978 (it highest selling > > year ever) than last year. In fact, the last time GM had a year with > > as few sales as last year was 1959. So, no, GM did not sell more cars > > per year recently compared with the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s. > > >http://www.autonews.com/article/20090601/ANA01/905279962 > > > Jeff > > ============================================= > > > GM sells more vehicles in the USA *now* then any other manufacturer, that > > is > > my point. > > You also said, "GM also sells more vehicles now with its small market > share, then it did when it had almost half of the market years ago." > > GM sold fewer cars last year than any other year since before man has > been going into space. I was pointing out that GM is selling fewer > cars, despite the larger total size of the market. > > Jeff
From: Jeff on 8 Sep 2009 20:03
On Sep 8, 10:45 am, "Mike" <mikehu...(a)lycos.com> wrote: > You can cut the pie in as many pieces you choose and you will find GM still > sells more vehicle than any other manufacturer in the US, and Ford is just > behind GM. ;) Actually, Toyota is just behind GM. Last year and this year (so far) Toyota has sold more vehicles than Ford. Jeff > "Jeff" <jeff....(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:610f8e30-4f92-4756-ba50-d05d833c4d66(a)g6g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 7, 12:31 pm, "Mike" <mikehu...(a)lycos.com> wrote: > > > Lower market share of an ever growing market, you mean. The fact is GM was > > selling more vehicles at 25%, when the market was at 19,000,000 than the > > back when they had nearly 50% of the market, dummy. > > First, there is no need for name-calling. Not even kids on my soccer > team do that. OF course, being in first and second grade, they are > smarter than Mike. > > Second, the market is not "ever growing." The market has been > shrinking each year since 2006. > > Further, if GM cars are so great, there is no reason why they should > have a smaller market share, unless they can't keep up with demand. > Yet, with all the plant closings, that is hardly the case. > > Jeff > > > "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencu...(a)my-deja.com> wrote in > > messagenews:5b519423-c677-4e5c-9e64-7e5f7579dea4(a)u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com... > > > > Mike wrote: > > > >> That may be your opinion but it defies logic. The fact is GM has been > > >> the > > >> number one seller in the US since the fifties. > > > > Has been or had been? > > > >> Do think all the millions of buyers, continue to chose to buy GM cars > > >> had > > >> problems, but bought from GM again and again be because they liked bad > > >> cars? > > > > Do you think GM's market share shrunk from 50% to 25% (before > > > bankruptcy) because so many people stayed loyal to GM? Or did that > > > happen because GM started making cars that looked like furniture and > > > had to be sold at lower prices than Japanese products? I'm sure you > > > remember when the situation was just the opposite, when the Japanese > > > couldn't sell cars in the US except at lower prices than what the Big > > > Three charged. |