Quote Originally Posted by maladroit
i provided proof that automakers with unions can be successful
That's the straw man! We were never debating over automakers with unions as a whole, instead US companies. Unions seem to be working in Germany, mostly because they have a less competitive market.

You have yet to show proof that US automakers with Unions are successful. After all, this is what we were talking about, right??

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
Where is the proof? The only evidence put forth was a few articles that explicitly stated Toyota pays less in labor cost per hour. If a firm is able to spend less on labor cost, they have the ability to to produce a better quality car at an equal price. For example, if a firm has an annual labor cost advantage of $1 billion, they can either lower the overall costs of auto's giving that firm a price advantage, or spend that money on improving the quality at near equal costs.

"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 comparatively 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
You provided no evidence that suggests Toyota cars cost more on the average. BUt as far as demand, there is no evidence that suggests that foreign cars have a significantly higher demand than domestic cars overall.

Auto Sales - Markets Data Center - WSJ.com

Notice the significant difference in global presence?

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
Do you agree it would be much easier for Toyota to curtail production as opposed to any UAW represented company? Secondly, you offer no proof that the decreased price exceeds the savings Toyota benefits from with less labor input.



"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 would we bring up foreign auto Unions when we are debating the costs of US auto unions? You stated the Unions were stronger, more costly etc... Even if it were true, it has nothing to do with our debate. We are comparing non union companies who produce autos in the US, with UAW companies that produce autos in the US. Never once have i stated that auto unions in general kill the companies they represent. That is why it is a straw man...

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
Daimler no longer controls Chrysler. But when it did, why was their business model unable to turn a profit in the US? This is the same Daimler who produces vehicles at a profit in Germany. It must have been the management


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...
Right now, all the big auto firms are not making a profit. Is it me, or does the fact that ONLY UAW represented companies are going under in this recession prove my point. You have yet to address this! Try not to build a straw man when refuting this point.

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
On top of labor cost, you would have to include liabilities. Toyota slashed their profit forecast by more than half. GM has been forced to blow through cash for the last decade, as their cost gap with Toyota was a much as $4,000 in 2005 source.

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
In a competitive market, the firm who possesses a comparative advantage will be able to outperform their rivals. You are in no position to challenge that idea because their are far to many hypothetical's that need to be confirmed in order to do so. Are you able to prove that had GM and Toyota face similar input costs, and total business expenses, business models would remain static? Similarly, why is it GM buys out its employees?

The big three are failing not because of the mere presence of unions. They are failing because their competition does not face the same constraint. Also, it is invalid to compare

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
Please remember, my position has nothing to do with the existence of unions. It is that the big three's actual competition (BMW and Mercedes dominate the luxury car market) does not have to abide by the UAW. Therefore, the US firms face a higher opportunity cost.

this is a good discussion btw...i am learning a lot
Good:jointsmile: Me too!