"You were unable to refute my claim, so instead of fessing up to it, you compared them to German auto makers and their union because you believed it to be an easy target."

- i will never be able to refute your claim to your satisfaction, just as you will never be able to convince me that US automakers wouldn't be in trouble if it weren't for unions...the US automakers were making money when car sales were increasing, and they were losing money when car sales were decreasing...unions have little or nothing to do with car sales...since north american workers have superior productivity, $73 per hour isn't much of a disadvantage when only 15 - 30 hours of labour goes into making a car...japanese and german made cars cost more and americans are still buying them because they are better cars...i might agree with you if you could blame the US automakers management decisions and vehicle quality on unions



"The reduction of pay to those 16,000 workers amounts to a reduction of 12$/hr on all GM factory employees. This is still noticably more than the $48/hr Toyota pays. Care to respond to this?"

- if us autoworkers average wage dropped to $48 per hour tomorrow morning, and the us automobile manufacturers pass the entire $750 labour savings along to the consumer (based on 30 hours labour per car), people would still be buying more expensive japanese and german cars because they're better...THAT is the main problem with the US auto industry, not unions



"Instead of refuting my point, you built an weak target to attack. That is a straw man! "

- what target did i attack? germany's unions? i did not distort your position...i refute your assertion that unions are the problem and provide an alternate example...that's not a straw man
Fallacy: Straw Man


here is a better example of a straw man fallacy:
i claim that unions aren't the problem, and you claim that i am distorting your position with a straw man fallacy...you are distorting my position