Toyota blames costs, not UAW, for NUMMI pullout
in [Toyota]
|
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 7 Sep 2009 10:47 On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 01:32:38 -0400, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >>> Same misty-eyed memories which also keep certain political unrealities >>> alive, in other words. >> >> Not any more. Kennedy's dead. > > > So is Ray-gun. Ronaldus Maximus only had 8 years, and used them to the best of his ability. The Massachusetts Murderer occupied a chair 40 years too long. Should have gotten a 'chair' alright, but Mass did away with it in 1963.
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 7 Sep 2009 10:48 On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 08:05:19 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote: > > "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message > No. This is: >> >> http://img2.netcarshow.com/Subaru-Impreza_WRX_STI_2006_1024x768_wallpaper_01.jpg >> >> These are cool: >> >> http://blogs.cars.com/photos/mother_proof_april_08/miata.jpg > > But we were talking cars that lasted from the 60's and 70's. Not much > from Japan was exciting then. LOL! I concede!
From: Mike on 7 Sep 2009 12:31 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. "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly(a)my-deja.com> wrote in message news: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. > > >
From: Mike on 7 Sep 2009 12:38 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. "Jeff" <jeff.utz(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 7 Sep 2009 12:41
What part of "Look at ANY survey of buyers and they will reveal they all make around 2% that are not up the manufacturers build quality, that is why they ALL offer a warranty even Rolls Royce," did you not understand? Do a search and see for yourself, WBMA > "Jeff" <jeff.utz(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:3f4831a4-e114-47e3-883a-8109a23485ae(a)j4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... On Sep 5, 3:00 pm, "Mike" <mikehu...(a)lycos.com> wrote: > The fact is every manufacturer is building great cars today. The only real > difference is style and price. It seems to me one should be more concerned > about how well the dealership takes care of them and what they charge for > parts and service because they all, at some point need parts and service. > > Look at ANY survey of buyers and they will reveal they all make around 2% > that are not up the manufacturers build quality, that is why they ALL > offer > a warranty even Rolls Royce. > > Why anyone pays more money hoping they do not get one of the 2% makes no > since. Where do you get your 2% figure? What does that mean? 2% of vehicles have any problems? 2% of vehicles have a problem that is severe enough to cause it to be returned under the lemon law? Only 2% of your brain is working? Jef > "Jeff" <jeff....(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:a0babb3c-4b50-423e-8e9f-d782786e3d1a(a)j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 1, 7:01 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstr...(a)frontiernet.net> > wrote: > > > > > "Vic Smith" <thismailautodele...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > > >news:ll8r95p9iaf56vs1j55stikuv5b35t0qe0(a)4ax.com... > > > > On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 12:57:04 -0400, "80 Knight" <nos...(a)nospam.com> > > > wrote: > > > >>"JoeSpareBedroom" <newstr...(a)frontiernet.net> wrote in message > > > >>> My experience was the direct opposite of yours. From 1975 through > > >>> 1982, > > >>> I > > >>> had nothing but hideous luck with Fords & GM cars. Please tell me > > >>> what > > >>> factor (advertising, faith, etc) would make someone try again with > > >>> products which sucked in the past. I've had things go wrong with > > >>> foreign > > >>> cars, but never anything so stupid that it could only have been > > >>> caused > > >>> by > > >>> complete incompetence in the design department. > > > >>If you haven't owned a Ford or GM since 1982, how can you claim newer > > >>models > > >>are garbage? I can *kind of* understand why you would be hesitant to > > >>purchase a brand new one, based on your previous experience, but > > >>seriously. > > > > He's an old guy with old ways of thought. When he's gone a new > > > generation of car owners will be ascendant. > > > Sort of reminds me of those who remember Pearl Harbor as an excuse to > > > be anti-Jap. > > > Just a generation later, but the same way of thinking. > > > Tells the kids, "Back in '82, when you were just a twinkle in your > > > dad's eye, I had an altercation with a Chevy Citation......" > > > So sad. > > > > --Vic > > > If you'd owned a hideous product which now costs $20K to $40K, would you > > risk that money just to see if the product had improved 20 years later? > > > Yes or no? Don't lie. > > Just to see if it's better? There are other ways to find out if a car > company is making better models, like consumer reports and cars owned > by friends. People do share information about cars, read reviews in > the paper (although one must be careful because many of the reviews > are poorly-disguised ads), and read car magazines. Car companies do > get reputations for quality of cars. > > BTW, when I buy a Ford Fusion, I don't buy an newer version of an old > Mustang, but a totally different car. Ford makes some great cars and > some cars that are not so good. Ditto GM, Chrysler, Mercedes, Toyota, > Honda, Kia and all the rest (at least those sold now in the US - some > like Yugo were never good). > > Jeff |