Ford gets a clue

"elaich" > wrote in message ...
> "dwight" > wrote in
> :
>
>> You're looking back at a cheap little car built in the early 70's,
>> when all cheap little cars were CRAP.
>
>
> I'm going to tell my '75 Bobcat with 650,000 miles on it what you said.

My 1972 purple Pinto led directly to my long association with Mustangs.

dwight

"Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
...
> Big Al wrote:
>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> I have been blasting Ford for abandoning their long time model names
>>> like the Cougar, Thunderbird and, most of all, the Taurus. Now it
>>> appears that Alan Mulally (Ford's new CEO) is wondering the same thing I
>>> have been. This guy might be showing some promise.
>>>
>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070206/...urus_revived_5
>>
>> Ha-ha. Read this:
>> http://tinyurl.com/yqdtx3
>
> I am willing to bet they will sell far more Taurus' than 500s even though
> they are the same car.

I think you've got a pretty good handle on us American consumers. Ever
considered a career in the fascinating, fast-paced, deadline-driven world of
Marketing?

dwight

Brent P wrote:
> In article >, Michael Johnson wrote:
>> We still manufacture plenty of goods. The reality is we have
>> transitioned into a service economy from and industrial economy. It has
>> been this way since approximately 1980. It isn't a bad thing it is just
>> evolution. Other countries are doing the same thing. We were once an
>> agricultural based economy and then went industrial. I'm sure some
>> people thought it was the end at that time too.
>
> If we don't make anything, what good are we to the rest of the world?
> What value does our currency have? If we have nothing they want, if we
> are a 'service' economy, what good are we?

You have a very simplistic view. We contribute technology advances,
services and even export goods. Being a service based economy isn't a
bad thing.

>> We consume far more than any other country on earth. I just can't see
>> how we can manufacture this quantity of stuff economically.
>
> We did for a damn long time. Most of the factories aren't closing because
> they cannot meet demand, but that profit margins aren't high enough to
> satisify wall street.

We did because our consumption rate was far lower along with labor
costs. Profits margins aren't high enough because cost to produce the
goods in this country are too high. The public will gravitate toward
the lowest price and if the imported goods are lower priced that is what
they will buy. The quality between domestic and imported goods is the
same for nearly everything. The public is driving manufacturing out of
the country more than anyone or anything. If we all decided to buy
American then we would import far less. We don't.

>> The middle class is still alive and well here. The work force has to adjust to
>> changing economic times. Somtimes this adjustment is easy and other
>> times it is painful. It has always been this way.
>
> Just live on chinese wages and we'll be fine.

If we lived in China we would be fine. We don't and therefore we don't
live on Chinese wages.

>> Here are a few jobs: janitorial work, construction labor, migrant farm
>> labor, fast food positions, garment manufacturing.
>
> I've seen americans do everything in that list but farm labor. But when
> there were still farms around here, in my grandparents day, they did some
> of that.

They "did" it but do they want to do it if they have a choice? Hell no
they don't. Would you be a janitor or want your kids to be a janitor?

>> The unemployment rate is 4.5%. It can't get much lower.
>
> Check how it's calculated some time.

So now the number is no good? It is as accurate as it can be. It is
comparatively low, of that there is no dispute.

>>> Bull****. Wages where significant numbers have moved in to do the jobs at
>>> best remain flat as inflation marches on. Most go down.
>
>> The unemployment rate is 4.5%. If large numbers of American workers are
>> being displaced then this number would be much higher.
>
> Again, did I state unemployed, and still on the unemployment rolls? No.
> You keep trying to change what I wrote to suit an easy counter argument.

You seem to believe immigrants affect wages and I believe differently.

>>> In the terms of lowest bidder, sure. But there's someone left waiting in
>>> the home depot parking lot that doesn't work.
>
>> Around here if it wasn't for immigrant labor not much would get done.
>> They get paid minimum wage or what the market will bare. Just like
>> everyone else. Plus, we don't owe any of them a job.
>
> Then we are agreed, increased labor supply brings down wages. The market
> decides. Flood the market with illegal alien labor and wages drop.

Increased labor supply brings down wages when there is a scarcity of
jobs. This currently isn't the case. When the unemployment rate rises
substantially then it might be true.

>>> I didn't write low paying, I wrote work for less.
>
>> Less than who?
>
> Less than they did before.

Before what? Besides, wages can't drop below the set minimum no matter
how many illegals are here looking for jobs.

>> If there is no one competing with them except other
>> immigrants then who exactly is getting hurt?
>
> The guy who used to do meat packing for $15/hr who went on to some other
> job for $12/hr because meat packing now pays $8/hr because of the illegal
> aliens flooding the labor market at the meat packing plant.

Or maybe the guy left the meat packing job and now makes $18/hr in
another factory. Maybe the guy obtained a skill and is making $30/hr in
a high tech plant. It cuts both ways.

>> You seem to think they are here undercutting American workers which
>> isn't true most of the time. They are here doing jobs that Americans
>> won't do.
>
> Americans used to do those jobs. They used to pay enough money for
> americans to do them. Now they don't. That's why americans don't do them
> any more. It's not that they are 'dirty' or anything else, they just
> don't pay enough because the market, filled with illegal aliens on the
> labor supply side, doesn't bare the wages it once did.

You are making assumptions that wages are dropping. This isn't true.
Wages, on the whole, have increased. I would give your argument more
validity if the unemployment rate was high. It isn't so your view that
immigrants are taking away jobs isn't correct.

>>>> in the 4.5% range. Wages aren't going down at all.
>
>>> Then why hire an illegal alien? Illegal status alone carries a risk, abit
>>> a small one, to the employer. This is reflected in a lower pay rate.
>
>> Do you know what a low unemployment rate means? It is an indicator of
>> labor shortage.
>
> It's an indicator of political BS mostly.

Yeah, sure.

>> If you can't find a legal to fill a job then you will hire an illegal.
>
> Could just increase the wage so an american would take the job. But why
> do that, when mexicans have flooded the labor market and dropped the
> price.

So janitors should make as much as skilled labor? Do you think
Americans will go for increased inflation to overpay unskilled labor?

>>> Wages go down when labor supply increases. The reduction of wages due to
>>> illlegal aliens is well documented btw. Unemployment rate doesn't track
>>> reduced wages nor does it track unemployed illegal aliens.
>
>> The unemployment rate is 4.5%.
>
> This seems to be your mantra. You don't seem to grasp that it is
> irrelevant.

You don't seem to grasp its relevance.

>> illegals aren't depressing wages. they are filling a demand. They
>> aren't taking jobs from anyone. If they
>> were the unemployment rate would increase.
>
> You're not grasping it. Let's say you have a job that pays $20/hr. In
> your line of work illegals start coming in willing to work for $15/hr.
> Your employer tells you, you can work for $15/hr or take a hike. You find
> a job across town doing something else making $18/hr, where illegals
> haven't yet saturated because it requires a good english speaker or some
> form of experience they don't have. Have you been harmed by illegal
> immigration? Are you on the unemployment figures?

Wages aren't dropping. Your assumption is wrong.

>>> Spoken like someone who has never had to have product made over there. If
>>> you knew how many of the parts manufacturers operated, you won't want
>>> your brake calipers coming from china, let alone the engine block. Or the
>>> assembled engine for that matter.
>
>> I have many products that were made "over there".
>
> How many did you do the development work on?

None. What is the relevance?

>> The overwhelming majority work just fine.
>
> Try product development with the stuff made over there sometime, here's a
> hint, they don't. But if you're a typical throw it away buy a new one
> american, you probably don't even know enough to notice.

So do YOUR job and keep the quality up. That is why they pay you. If
you don't do your job then I'll buy my widgets from someone who is doing
theirs. The computer you are using to post was made everywhere but here
in the USA. It seems to be mumming along just fine. How may of its
components were made in China?

>> Funny that your attitude toward China is the
>> same as many had in the 1950s and 1960s regarding the Japanese.
>
> No, it isn't, and the two are not comparable. And I am tired of ignorant
> people trying to say it is the same. Japan was an industrialized nation
> long before it started sending product to the US. REmember, we fought a
> modern, industrial supported war against them. They started the war with
> one of the finest fighter aircraft of the time, of their own design.
> Their manufacturing and technology was as well advanced as anyone's at
> the outbreak of hostilities. Japan was not a tyranny in the 1950s or
> later. Japan didn't use slave labor in the 1950s or later. Japan acted to
> protect the environment, there is worker safety in Japan, labor wasn't
> really all that cheap either, land and other business costs were
> significant. Japan listened to _Americans_ that american companies
> wouldn't listen to. They applied those lessons. They developed products
> that american companies weren't interested in (VCRs, smaller cars, etc).
> Japanese companies competed to make a better product. All of that
> combined is their success.
>
> China, on the other hand is just cheap labor. US companies relocate
> manufacturing there and try to teach them how to make the products. The
> culture in China is to cheat every step of the process to maximize profit
> and send crap out the door hoping it would not be noticed. China's
> success is cheap labor, little-to-no environmental regulation, no
> pressure to meet CO2 targets, no labor safety rules to speak of, and fixed
> against the dollar currency.
>
> If you had the least bit of experience with either nation's companies
> with regards to developing a product or their histories you would know
> better than to say the two are the same.
>
> Japanese companies made better products and won in the market place from
> a more or less even footing. American companies move their facilities to
> China, putting american workers in wage competition with the chinese
> workers. American companies relocate to china and avoid costly
> environmental regulations, worker safety rules, and a whole host of other
> basics that cost money. It's complete apples to oranges.
>
>> Keep up
>> the whining and bitching instead of taking them seriously and your
>> industry will become irrelevant as they run circles around you.
>
> You have something made over there and don't watch them. Faster than I
> can write this post they'll be overheating a subsitute resin that you
> didn't approve and a few months later the field returns will roll in.
> That isn't changing any time soon. Actually that's one place there are
> some high paying jobs. Babysitting over in China.
>
>> I see
>> history repeating itself and you are going to sit there and let it
>> happen and blame everyone but yourself for getting beaten by them.
>
> There's nothing I can do to stop an employer moving manufacturing to
> China. Nothing. I learned by experience that adding millions of the
> dollars to the bottom line isn't even enough, because they'll still think
> they save more paying slave wages in China.

While you are bitching, moaning, complaining and ignoring reality the
Chinese are plotting how they are going to eat your lunch. You are not
going to get away from working with the them. If you're not careful
they will learn what they need to know and then they won't need YOU
anymore. Keep underestimating them and your company will be looking for
a new business model in the near future. History does repeat itself.

dwight wrote:
> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Big Al wrote:
>>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> I have been blasting Ford for abandoning their long time model names
>>>> like the Cougar, Thunderbird and, most of all, the Taurus. Now it
>>>> appears that Alan Mulally (Ford's new CEO) is wondering the same thing I
>>>> have been. This guy might be showing some promise.
>>>>
>>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070206/...urus_revived_5
>>> Ha-ha. Read this:
>>> http://tinyurl.com/yqdtx3
>> I am willing to bet they will sell far more Taurus' than 500s even though
>> they are the same car.
>
> I think you've got a pretty good handle on us American consumers. Ever
> considered a career in the fascinating, fast-paced, deadline-driven world of
> Marketing?

I don't have the stomach for it.

In article >, Michael Johnson wrote:

> You have a very simplistic view. We contribute technology advances,

This won't last. Engineering goes where the manufacturing goes.

> We did because our consumption rate was far lower along with labor
> costs. Profits margins aren't high enough because cost to produce the
> goods in this country are too high.

Not 'high enough' to satisify arbitary standards of greed. But more than
enough to be profitable and stable.

> The public will gravitate toward
> the lowest price and if the imported goods are lower priced that is what
> they will buy.

And that's the sad thing, the first one to move, forces all to eventually
move.

> If we lived in China we would be fine. We don't and therefore we don't
> live on Chinese wages.

But the competition is between us in the USA and them in China. They can
eeek out a living in the company dorm. We can't. Who wins the race to the
bottom?

> Would you be a janitor or want your kids to be a janitor?

It's honest work, and I've had jobs close to as 'bad' as that. There are
large numbers of citizens who could benefit from jobs like that, well at
least at what they used to pay.

>> Then we are agreed, increased labor supply brings down wages. The market
>> decides. Flood the market with illegal alien labor and wages drop.

> Increased labor supply brings down wages when there is a scarcity of
> jobs. This currently isn't the case. When the unemployment rate rises
> substantially then it might be true.

That's why the meat packing plant that was raided and it's illegal alien
employees sent back to where they came from was flooded with applications
after it hit the news..... nobody needing a job...

>> The guy who used to do meat packing for $15/hr who went on to some other
>> job for $12/hr because meat packing now pays $8/hr because of the illegal
>> aliens flooding the labor market at the meat packing plant.

> Or maybe the guy left the meat packing job and now makes $18/hr in
> another factory. Maybe the guy obtained a skill and is making $30/hr in
> a high tech plant. It cuts both ways.

Maybe he did go the other way, the job he had still pays less than it did
before.

> You are making assumptions that wages are dropping. This isn't true.
> Wages, on the whole, have increased.

I didn't argue on the whole. I argued in jobs where illegal aliens have
flooded the labor market.

> I would give your argument more
> validity if the unemployment rate was high. It isn't so your view that
> immigrants are taking away jobs isn't correct.

The unemployment rate is irrelevant to my argument.

I grow tired of this, you don't get it and won't get it, and I believe
we've been through this before. It's a waste of my time.

<snip, unread>

Joe wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote in
> :
>
>> In article >, dwight
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, a 2008 Pinto, built with all of the technological advances
>>> of the past 30+ years, might not be a bad little machine...
>>> Hatchback would be nice.
>> I would love to see modern, quality, rear wheel drive sub compacts. Be
>> they japanese or domestic. Just those early 70s small car 'themes'
>> with good guts.
>
> The closest things now are the S2000 and Miata. Unfortunately, both are
> considered "upscale" now.

I'm surprised one of the automakers hasn't capitalized on the drifting
crowd. They would buy a small RWD car in a second.

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 13:36:49 -0500, "Michael Johnson, PE"
> puked:

>Joe wrote:
>> (Brent P) wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> In article >, dwight
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Actually, a 2008 Pinto, built with all of the technological advances
>>>> of the past 30+ years, might not be a bad little machine...
>>>> Hatchback would be nice.
>>> I would love to see modern, quality, rear wheel drive sub compacts. Be
>>> they japanese or domestic. Just those early 70s small car 'themes'
>>> with good guts.
>>
>> The closest things now are the S2000 and Miata. Unfortunately, both are
>> considered "upscale" now.
>
>I'm surprised one of the automakers hasn't capitalized on the drifting
>crowd. They would buy a small RWD car in a second.

Is there a drifting crowd? Maybe it's just not big down here...
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?

"lab~rat >:-)" > wrote in
news
> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 13:36:49 -0500, "Michael Johnson, PE"
> > puked:
>
>>Joe wrote:
>>> (Brent P) wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> In article >, dwight
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Actually, a 2008 Pinto, built with all of the technological
>>>>> advances of the past 30+ years, might not be a bad little
>>>>> machine... Hatchback would be nice.
>>>> I would love to see modern, quality, rear wheel drive sub compacts.
>>>> Be they japanese or domestic. Just those early 70s small car
>>>> 'themes' with good guts.
>>>
>>> The closest things now are the S2000 and Miata. Unfortunately, both
>>> are considered "upscale" now.
>>
>>I'm surprised one of the automakers hasn't capitalized on the drifting
>>crowd. They would buy a small RWD car in a second.
>
> Is there a drifting crowd? Maybe it's just not big down here...
> --
> lab~rat >:-)
> Do you want polite or do you want sincere?

Not many places to drift, at least in Broward. Now take a trip down Old
Cutler at 4am and that's another story...

Michael Johnson > wrote in
:

> dwight wrote:
>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Big Al wrote:
>>>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> I have been blasting Ford for abandoning their long time model
>>>>> names like the Cougar, Thunderbird and, most of all, the Taurus.
>>>>> Now it appears that Alan Mulally (Ford's new CEO) is wondering the
>>>>> same thing I have been. This guy might be showing some promise.
>>>>>
>>>>>
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070206/...taurus_revived
>>>>> _5
>>>> Ha-ha. Read this:
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/yqdtx3
>>> I am willing to bet they will sell far more Taurus' than 500s even
>>> though they are the same car.
>>
>> I think you've got a pretty good handle on us American consumers.
>> Ever considered a career in the fascinating, fast-paced,
>> deadline-driven world of Marketing?
>
> I don't have the stomach for it.

I think we're inherently on one side or the other: tech or sales. Not
many people can handle both effectively.

Brent P wrote:
> In article >, Michael Johnson wrote:
>
>> You have a very simplistic view. We contribute technology advances,
>
> This won't last. Engineering goes where the manufacturing goes.

Maybe and then again maybe not. Neither one of us knows.

>> We did because our consumption rate was far lower along with labor
>> costs. Profits margins aren't high enough because cost to produce the
>> goods in this country are too high.
>
> Not 'high enough' to satisify arbitary standards of greed. But more than
> enough to be profitable and stable.

One man's greed is another man's reasonable profit. I'm not going to
judge what a person should consider reasonable. I let my feelings be
known with my wallet.

>> The public will gravitate toward
>> the lowest price and if the imported goods are lower priced that is what
>> they will buy.
>
> And that's the sad thing, the first one to move, forces all to eventually
> move.

Sad? If I can buy a widget made in China for 1/2 the cost of one made
here then the decision is simple. There are just some goods that aren't
practical to manufacture here. There is no right or wrong about it. It
is just economics.

>> If we lived in China we would be fine. We don't and therefore we don't
>> live on Chinese wages.
>
> But the competition is between us in the USA and them in China. They can
> eeek out a living in the company dorm. We can't. Who wins the race to the
> bottom?

Who says we are racing to the bottom? That is just a plain wrong
assumption. What China is going through is nearly the same as what this
country went through in the past.

>> Would you be a janitor or want your kids to be a janitor?
>
> It's honest work, and I've had jobs close to as 'bad' as that. There are
> large numbers of citizens who could benefit from jobs like that, well at
> least at what they used to pay.

You dodged the question. Would you want that job for yourself or your
children?

>>> Then we are agreed, increased labor supply brings down wages. The market
>>> decides. Flood the market with illegal alien labor and wages drop.
>
>> Increased labor supply brings down wages when there is a scarcity of
>> jobs. This currently isn't the case. When the unemployment rate rises
>> substantially then it might be true.
>
> That's why the meat packing plant that was raided and it's illegal alien
> employees sent back to where they came from was flooded with applications
> after it hit the news..... nobody needing a job...

Probably because the people in the area won't move to where the decent
jobs are located.

>>> The guy who used to do meat packing for $15/hr who went on to some other
>>> job for $12/hr because meat packing now pays $8/hr because of the illegal
>>> aliens flooding the labor market at the meat packing plant.
>
>> Or maybe the guy left the meat packing job and now makes $18/hr in
>> another factory. Maybe the guy obtained a skill and is making $30/hr in
>> a high tech plant. It cuts both ways.
>
> Maybe he did go the other way, the job he had still pays less than it did
> before.

Maybe he won the lottery too.

>> You are making assumptions that wages are dropping. This isn't true.
>> Wages, on the whole, have increased.
>
> I didn't argue on the whole. I argued in jobs where illegal aliens have
> flooded the labor market.

So now we are being selective?

>> I would give your argument more
>> validity if the unemployment rate was high. It isn't so your view that
>> immigrants are taking away jobs isn't correct.
>
> The unemployment rate is irrelevant to my argument.

I can't help your lack of understanding.

> I grow tired of this, you don't get it and won't get it, and I believe
> we've been through this before. It's a waste of my time.

This is where we typically end up, isn't it?