What about these gifts to Toyota

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 09:25:42 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

>> To the contrary; we know that it's better to have people working than to
>> be asking the government for money.
>>
>> The L00ney Left can't seem to grasp that WORK is better than Welfare.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> You can't generalize. When you read about state or local government giving
> some sort of incentive to a business in return for building a facility, it
> doesn't mean you have enough information to say it's a good idea.
>
> Locally, we've had a couple of projects that have gone bust in big ways. In
> one instance, a project created 30 jobs here and 200 in Mexico, but of
> course the sales pitch initially said 200-300 jobs would be created. Now,
> all such plans are being looked at with extreme scrutiny. In another, my
> town announced the construction of a 300 slip marina to address the needs of
> transient boaters. There was just one problem: No business plan of any kind.
> No need for the marina whatsoever. So, what made the town council so goofy
> about the project?
>
> Bribes.


Seems to me you just generalized.

We were talking about Toyota here. Toyota didn't have a layoff in
Evansville even though they *stopped* the Tundra line for a couple months.
They spent the time doing maintenance and cleaning the facility.

Notice, they aren't asking the government for money, either.

Your bass guitar question is attracting a myriad of interesting responses
over in a.g.b.

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 21:23:03 -0800, wrote:

>> To the contrary; we know that it's better to have people working than to
>> be asking the government for money.
>>
>> The L00ney Left can't seem to grasp that WORK is better than Welfare.
>
> You want work at slave labor ages. The only purpose of the republican
> filibuster is to break the UAW union.

You don't think the union is part of the problem?
I can understand the Right's reason for wanting to bust the union. Unions
tell the rank and file to vote Democrat.

But, we were talking about Toyota here. No unions. And I don't think
anyone is working at a US Toyota plant for slave wages, do you?

Looks to me like it has more to do with management issues than politics.

Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒ*ク wrote:

> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 08:11:43 -0500, News wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒ*ク wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 23:07:26 -0500, News wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>How do you figure?
>>>>>
>>>>>Toyota is still turning a profit even though sales are down.
>>>>>
>>>>>GM shows a loss on the auto business when cars are selling. They make
>>>>>their money on financials.
>>>>>
>>>>>Toyota keeps people employed even when the plant is shutdown.
>>>>>
>>>>>All that adds up to taxes coming in.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yes, and less taxes, less services, less disposable income, less
>>>>charity, less, less, less, less.
>>>
>>>
>>>Huh? Why am I even discussing this with you?
>>>
>>>In some areas, all there were were minimum wage jobs. Toyota came in and
>>>started paying wages competitive with some Union scale jobs.
>>>
>>>So, rather than making $6.75 an hour, Joe Blow is now making $19 an hour.
>>>
>>>And he doesn't have disposable income?
>>>
>>>Please...explain this one to me. I *REALLY* want to hear how you came up
>>>with this.
>>>
>>
>>
>>I know this is difficult for you, but some other Joe Blow USED TO BE
>>making $40/hr. Hence the race to the bottom.
>
>
> And not selling the cars he was making. I don't support welfare, public or
> corporate.
>
> Of course, very little of the fault falls on Joe the Wrench Turner. Part
> of it is the union, and a large part of it is on management.
>
> But Toyota opened plants in areas where there was no auto industry. I
> mean, Evensville IN wasn't exactly the heartbeat of the auto industry, was
> it?
>
> The problem lies more with management wanting to keep up high profits than
> having satisfied customers.
>
> That's not really Joe's scope. He just installs lug nuts.
>
> Do I have a lot of sympathy for someone in Detriot possibly having to
> give up a few $$$ an hour? Don't count on it. I do high tech work for ~$20
> an hour. YEARS of training. Do I feel sorry for someone with a high school
> education making $32 an hour?
>
> Don't count on it. I mean, good for him, but it's not going to break my
> heart if he loses $10 an hour.
>
> And if he doesn't like it, I'll take his job, since I don't get benefits
> or a pension with this job.
>


Don't confuse your politics and sensibilities with the underlying
economics of a race to the bottom in which you, too, will eventually be
snagged.

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 08:11:43 -0500, News wrote:

>
>
> Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒ*ク wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 23:07:26 -0500, News wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>How do you figure?
>>>>
>>>>Toyota is still turning a profit even though sales are down.
>>>>
>>>>GM shows a loss on the auto business when cars are selling. They make
>>>>their money on financials.
>>>>
>>>>Toyota keeps people employed even when the plant is shutdown.
>>>>
>>>>All that adds up to taxes coming in.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, and less taxes, less services, less disposable income, less
>>>charity, less, less, less, less.
>>
>>
>> Huh? Why am I even discussing this with you?
>>
>> In some areas, all there were were minimum wage jobs. Toyota came in and
>> started paying wages competitive with some Union scale jobs.
>>
>> So, rather than making $6.75 an hour, Joe Blow is now making $19 an hour.
>>
>> And he doesn't have disposable income?
>>
>> Please...explain this one to me. I *REALLY* want to hear how you came up
>> with this.
>>
>
>
> I know this is difficult for you, but some other Joe Blow USED TO BE
> making $40/hr. Hence the race to the bottom.

And not selling the cars he was making. I don't support welfare, public or
corporate.

Of course, very little of the fault falls on Joe the Wrench Turner. Part
of it is the union, and a large part of it is on management.

But Toyota opened plants in areas where there was no auto industry. I
mean, Evensville IN wasn't exactly the heartbeat of the auto industry, was
it?

The problem lies more with management wanting to keep up high profits than
having satisfied customers.

That's not really Joe's scope. He just installs lug nuts.

Do I have a lot of sympathy for someone in Detriot possibly having to
give up a few $$$ an hour? Don't count on it. I do high tech work for ~$20
an hour. YEARS of training. Do I feel sorry for someone with a high school
education making $32 an hour?

Don't count on it. I mean, good for him, but it's not going to break my
heart if he loses $10 an hour.

And if he doesn't like it, I'll take his job, since I don't get benefits
or a pension with this job.

News wrote:
>
>
> Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒ*ク wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 23:07:26 -0500, News wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> How do you figure?
>>>>
>>>> Toyota is still turning a profit even though sales are down.
>>>> GM shows a loss on the auto business when cars are selling. They make
>>>> their money on financials.
>>>>
>>>> Toyota keeps people employed even when the plant is shutdown.
>>>> All that adds up to taxes coming in.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, and less taxes, less services, less disposable income, less
>>> charity, less, less, less, less.
>>
>>
>> Huh? Why am I even discussing this with you?
>>
>> In some areas, all there were were minimum wage jobs. Toyota came in and
>> started paying wages competitive with some Union scale jobs.
>>
>> So, rather than making $6.75 an hour, Joe Blow is now making $19 an hour.
>>
>> And he doesn't have disposable income?
>> Please...explain this one to me. I *REALLY* want to hear how you came up
>> with this.
>>
>
>
> I know this is difficult for you, but some other Joe Blow USED TO BE
> making $40/hr. Hence the race to the bottom.

If Joe Blow is making $40/hr to work on an assembly line, that is a
problem. That's $83,200 a year. That's certainly unsustainable when
plenty of people more skilled/educated aren't making that much. Hell, I
don't make that much, and housing prices etc. here are at least 4x here
what they are in Detroit. I didn't make that much as an engineer at a
Michigan-based auto industry supplier, either.

Surely you are not suggesting that basically anyone with a high school
education and a little mechanical aptitude is *entitled* to 80K a year
plus benefits? Sure, it'd be sweet if we could do that, but we just
can't afford to. So you have a choice - get a living wage, or nothing
for the workers.

Your "argument" has done nothing but bias me *against* the UAW, assuming
your numbers are factual...

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 08:16:45 -0500, News wrote:

>> Wow. Usually I dont; have trouble with Pretzel Logic, but this one is
>> giving me a headache. Raising people's wages causes lower bottom line?
>>
>
> When the jobs and tax base are taken from a traditionally higher wage
> and services area, yes. A lower municipal bottom line. A race to the
> bottom. You didn't bite on it, apparently.

And who's fault is that? If Detriot wanted Toyota plants, they should have
bid on them. They didn't, they lost.

The real bottom line is that another area is enjoying prosperity, and an
area with a lower cost of living as well. Quality of life took a big
increase.

But these aren't things GM is really concerned about. They are far more
concerned about the bottom line.

Toyota actually has some interest in it's workers, and has for years. Long
before they came to the US

"Hachiroku ????" > wrote in message
news
> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 08:16:45 -0500, News wrote:
>
>>> Wow. Usually I dont; have trouble with Pretzel Logic, but this one is
>>> giving me a headache. Raising people's wages causes lower bottom line?
>>>
>>
>> When the jobs and tax base are taken from a traditionally higher wage
>> and services area, yes. A lower municipal bottom line. A race to the
>> bottom. You didn't bite on it, apparently.
>
> And who's fault is that? If Detriot wanted Toyota plants, they should have
> bid on them. They didn't, they lost.
>
> The real bottom line is that another area is enjoying prosperity, and an
> area with a lower cost of living as well. Quality of life took a big
> increase.
>
> But these aren't things GM is really concerned about. They are far more
> concerned about the bottom line.
>
> Toyota actually has some interest in it's workers, and has for years. Long
> before they came to the US

http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=562
Yeah, Toyota really cares...

Nate Nagel wrote:
> News wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒ*ク wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 23:07:26 -0500, News wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> How do you figure?
>>>>>
>>>>> Toyota is still turning a profit even though sales are down.
>>>>> GM shows a loss on the auto business when cars are selling. They make
>>>>> their money on financials.
>>>>>
>>>>> Toyota keeps people employed even when the plant is shutdown.
>>>>> All that adds up to taxes coming in.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, and less taxes, less services, less disposable income, less
>>>> charity, less, less, less, less.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Huh? Why am I even discussing this with you?
>>>
>>> In some areas, all there were were minimum wage jobs. Toyota came in and
>>> started paying wages competitive with some Union scale jobs.
>>>
>>> So, rather than making $6.75 an hour, Joe Blow is now making $19 an
>>> hour.
>>>
>>> And he doesn't have disposable income?
>>> Please...explain this one to me. I *REALLY* want to hear how you came up
>>> with this.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I know this is difficult for you, but some other Joe Blow USED TO BE
>> making $40/hr. Hence the race to the bottom.
>
>
> If Joe Blow is making $40/hr to work on an assembly line, that is a
> problem. That's $83,200 a year. That's certainly unsustainable when
> plenty of people more skilled/educated aren't making that much. Hell, I
> don't make that much, and housing prices etc. here are at least 4x here
> what they are in Detroit. I didn't make that much as an engineer at a
> Michigan-based auto industry supplier, either.
>
> Surely you are not suggesting that basically anyone with a high school
> education and a little mechanical aptitude is *entitled* to 80K a year
> plus benefits? Sure, it'd be sweet if we could do that, but we just
> can't afford to. So you have a choice - get a living wage, or nothing
> for the workers.
>
> Your "argument" has done nothing but bias me *against* the UAW, assuming
> your numbers are factual...
>
> nate
>

Your bias is showing....

The "race to the bottom" is a general theme. Applies widely, outside
the auto industry. You see it everywhere outsourcing is involved. You
see it when New Jersey subsidizes the move of Wall Street jobs across
the river.

Howe about YOUR job? Is it immune?

Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒ*ク wrote:

> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 08:16:45 -0500, News wrote:
>
>
>>>Wow. Usually I dont; have trouble with Pretzel Logic, but this one is
>>>giving me a headache. Raising people's wages causes lower bottom line?
>>>
>>
>>When the jobs and tax base are taken from a traditionally higher wage
>>and services area, yes. A lower municipal bottom line. A race to the
>>bottom. You didn't bite on it, apparently.
>
>
> And who's fault is that? If Detriot wanted Toyota plants, they should have
> bid on them. They didn't, they lost.

Why cut their own throats?

>
> The real bottom line is that another area is enjoying prosperity, and an
> area with a lower cost of living as well. Quality of life took a big
> increase.

Tell it to Flint, Michigan.

>
> But these aren't things GM is really concerned about. They are far more
> concerned about the bottom line.

True, that's part of the quarterly results dance with Wall Street.

>
> Toyota actually has some interest in it's workers, and has for years. Long
> before they came to the US
>

You sure about that?