"It has nothing to do with my satisfaction, you have not offered one bit of proof. "

- i provided proof that automakers with unions can be successful


"Care to explain why Toyota is not facing the same consequences? "

- toyota is not facing the same consequences because they make better cars that are in better demand despite being more expensive, and they have better management in general



"While this may be a serious mistake, it was made on behalf of cost analysis because there is no way to compete with both the price and quality at which Toyota can. Again, this is due to what????? Repeat after me, Toyota having less overhead."

- american cars were of comparitively lower quality before toyota was a serious competitor or made cars in america...american auto manufacturers have proven that they are more than capable of competing with the price that toyota can...repeat after me: toyota cars cost more...as for overhead, toyota plants operate at near 100% capacity while GM has to bear the overhead cost of idled plants and employee buyouts



"Regardless of whether or not Toyota gained market share, GM would still have been able to make a profit the last few years if their input labor costs were %20 less."

- at $73/hour for 30 hours of labour per vehicle, a 20% savings would be $440...in 2005, GM lost over $1270 per vehicle sold, and stupidly continued to make large gas chugging vehicles while oil prices were doubling...in 2006, GM cut that loss to $150 per vehicle...in 2007, GM lost $38 billion or about $4000 per vehicle sold...i don't think GM was ever in a position to make a profit because 1) they aren't operating at high enough capacity to overcome fixed costs, and 2) they offer price incentives/reductions that are greater than the difference in health care costs among non-unionized toyota plants



"Instead of facing up, you attempted to distort my position on the grounds of German auto unions, probably because you believed them to be larger, more costly, nice."

- that does not distort your position at all because it is my position that foreign automakers make a profit despite unions, not yours...again, you just used a straw man fallacy by distorting my position that i *probably* believe german auto unions are larger, nice...here is what i believe: unions aren't the problem, and the US big three auto industry would still be in the dumper if it was not unionized



"Why was Daimler able to make a profit in Germany, but take a major loss in the US??? Similarly, why is Toyota able to make a profit in the US, but Daimler unable? Afraid to answer?"

- i must admit that i am daunted by your logic IED's, but i enjoy a challenge...daimler makes quality expensive cars in germany, and even makes a profit exporting them to the usa in increasing numbers even while US auto sales were slumping...daimler also owns a mercedes car factory in alabama that has been making a profit for years, and cut production by 10% for the first time in july 2008...unfortunately, daimler owns chrysler which makes much less expensive lower quality cars that don't sell as well (on a year-over-year basis) compared to higher quality more expensive mercedes and toyota cars...therefore, daimler has been taking a loss on it's chrysler holdings which they are trying to unload



"Your position is that foreign auto companies are better! What does that have to do with anything?"

- finally! you have accurately summarized my position...despite having unions and more expensive vehicles, foreign auto companies are able to make a profit shipping cars across the ocean to the usa because they are better at making and marketing cars that people want to buy...if murkan cars cost $750 less per vehicle in union benefits, US big three auto sales would still have slumped...if toyota's US factories were paying $73/hour instead of $48/hour, toyota would still have made a profit...therefore unions aren't the main problem



"Why is it that only the auto companies in the US market that are UAW represented are facing losses?"

- the US auto companies were saddled with the UAW decades before foreign auto companies were serious competition or built cars in the usa...by the time the superior foreign manufacturers built factories in america, unions were not as politically or socially influential as they were back in the 50's and 60's so foreign automakers could open non-unionized plants...the UAW contributes to higher labour costs, but that doesn't explain why car sales are declining or why big three auto management stubbornly sticks to wrongheaded manufacturing and distribution/marketing policies...i see a lot of blame on union benefits, and there is an additional cost there, but benefits/unions are not responsible for the significant slump in big three auto sales beginning in 2004 that wasn't happening to the more expensive foreign vehicles sold in north america



"Given the history of your POV, your position is a tad bit subjective wouldn't you say?"

- given the history of your pov, i am starting to think you might have an ideological knee jerk opposition to unions...NOW you can rightfully accuse me of employing the straw man fallacy...ha ha?
seriously though: it sounds like your objection is benefits rather than the UAW (which has accepted significant benefit reductions that will affect a majority of their members over the next few years)...you could help to level the playing field by supporting universal health care in the US...then the cost difference between union/non-unionized, and private/public health care regimes would be reduced to the point where a corporation's success would have to be based on product and management rather than health care benefits...unless of course you have a subjective POV that will never accept universal health care


this is a good discussion btw...i am learning a lot