FedEx TA and Right to Work changes
03-14-2011, 02:10 PM
#111
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 95
All that low spending per resident doesn't keep them from coming does it? State and County QuickFacts
03-14-2011, 02:58 PM
#112
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
And yet again, your argument shifts. Are we talking about population growth now? I guess you are giving up talking about how fiscally sound Texas is. Yes it's true that Texas is growing mostly in the Hispanic and African America communities. The growth is much larger in urban areas vs rural. What is your point? A few hundred thousand new Texas residents is the direct result of hurricane Katrina migration. I'll take Texas over 20 ft of flood water too. I think Texas ranks 3 in population growth which definitely supports your statement. However, I think the large minority growth will definitely change state demographics and have a major impact on the right leaning state political system. Who knows, a Democrat might even take the state in a presidential race. So brag on about Texas population group, but that doesn't change the fact they are one of "brokest" states in the nation and they don't even have any unions to scapegoat for their financial irresponsibility.
Moving Out Of California - A state in the rearview mirror - Los Angeles Times
I just figured it was pointless to talk budget deficits. Texas does not have a budget yet. They cant have a deficit. When they do have a budget it will be balanced. And it wont be by raising taxes so they can spend more per resident. Which unlike you, I am not proud that my state spends more per resident then TX.
03-14-2011, 05:26 PM
#113
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Posts: 355
"After decades of decline" hmmmm. There is no doubting what pushed GM over the edge. The question is how did they get to the cliff? You refuse to acknowledge that a $5K per vehicle surcharge put GM at a competitive disadvantage during their decades of decline. Was it solely due to the UAW no. I am sure US tax code had something to do with it.
My source for the SUV sales had to do with your post that said that SUV sales were destroyed.
My source for the SUV sales had to do with your post that said that SUV sales were destroyed.
In the 50's an American man named Ed Deming tried to introduce statistical proces control to US automakers. Not wanting any of that mamby pamby math crap- they sent him packing.
Ed worked in the Japan re-building effort & eventually introduced statistical quality control to many Japanese engineers, managers, to include a few executive sessions with what was to become the sony corp, as well as their auto biz. His message was that improving quality will reduce expenses while increasing productivity and market share.
A number of Japanese manufacturers applied his techniques widely, and experienced theretofore unheard-of levels of quality and productivity. The improved quality combined with the new process controls lowered costs creating new international demand for Japanese products. Toyota & Datsun (no Nissan) were early adopters, and fully embraced his methods, and began their ascension in building quality in their brands.
Between 1979 and 1982, Ford had incurred $3 billion in losses as consumers began choosing Japanese cars over US due to quality. So Ford recruited Deming to help jump-start a quality movement.
Deming questioned the company's culture and the way its managers operated. To Ford's surprise, Deming talked not about quality but about management. He told Ford that management actions were responsible for 85% of all problems in developing better cars. (note- he did not say labor is your problem).
In 1986 Ford came out with a profitable line of cars, the Taurus-Sable line. In a letter to Autoweek Magazine, Donald Petersen, then Ford Chairman, said, "We are moving toward building a quality culture at Ford and the many changes that have been taking place here have their roots directly in Dr. Deming's teachings." By 1986, Ford had become the most profitable American auto company.
In the end, if a company has a quality product that provides value, it will be successful. It's not always just the taxes, or just the labor. It's the quality of the product that the company manages, and labor produces to that managed standard. This lack of quaity control, and the Japanese embracement of it had exponentially more effect on the demise of the US auto-industry, but the "media" likes to blame labor & taxes (get that emotional reaction for the news), and for the most part ignores the root causal factors- (hard to get folks fired up process control, stochastic methods and the like)
Last edited by olly; 03-14-2011 at 05:36 PM. Reason: spelling
03-14-2011, 05:52 PM
#114
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 95
Look back it is the same argument I had in earlier post. It is the same argument about why the auto industry in America has moved from the UAW states to the non UAW states. The argument is the migration from the Non RTW states to the RTW states. Where taxes and regulations encourage business and growth.
Moving Out Of California - A state in the rearview mirror - Los Angeles Times
I just figured it was pointless to talk budget deficits. Texas does not have a budget yet. They cant have a deficit. When they do have a budget it will be balanced. And it wont be by raising taxes so they can spend more per resident. Which unlike you, I am not proud that my state spends more per resident then TX.
Moving Out Of California - A state in the rearview mirror - Los Angeles Times
I just figured it was pointless to talk budget deficits. Texas does not have a budget yet. They cant have a deficit. When they do have a budget it will be balanced. And it wont be by raising taxes so they can spend more per resident. Which unlike you, I am not proud that my state spends more per resident then TX.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/stran...ry?id=11325933
03-14-2011, 06:00 PM
#115
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
A big part of what destroyed GM, Chrysler & Ford was their degradation in quality. If you're old enough to remenber, the joke was, made in Japan=junk.
In the 50's an American man named Ed Deming tried to introduce statistical proces control to US automakers. Not wanting any of that mamby pamby math crap- they sent him packing.
Ed worked in the Japan re-building effort & eventually introduced statistical quality control to many Japanese engineers, managers, to include a few executive sessions with what was to become the sony corp, as well as their auto biz. His message was that improving quality will reduce expenses while increasing productivity and market share.
A number of Japanese manufacturers applied his techniques widely, and experienced theretofore unheard-of levels of quality and productivity. The improved quality combined with the new process controls lowered costs creating new international demand for Japanese products. Toyota & Datsun (no Nissan) were early adopters, and fully embraced his methods, and began their ascension in building quality in their brands.
Between 1979 and 1982, Ford had incurred $3 billion in losses as consumers began choosing Japanese cars over US due to quality. So Ford recruited Deming to help jump-start a quality movement.
Deming questioned the company's culture and the way its managers operated. To Ford's surprise, Deming talked not about quality but about management. He told Ford that management actions were responsible for 85% of all problems in developing better cars. (note- he did not say labor is your problem).
In 1986 Ford came out with a profitable line of cars, the Taurus-Sable line. In a letter to Autoweek Magazine, Donald Petersen, then Ford Chairman, said, "We are moving toward building a quality culture at Ford and the many changes that have been taking place here have their roots directly in Dr. Deming's teachings." By 1986, Ford had become the most profitable American auto company.
In the end, if a company has a quality product that provides value, it will be successful. It's not always just the taxes, or just the labor. It's the quality of the product that the company manages, and labor produces to that managed standard. This lack of quaity control, and the Japanese embracement of it had exponentially more effect on the demise of the US auto-industry, but the "media" likes to blame labor & taxes (get that emotional reaction for the news), and for the most part ignores the root causal factors- (hard to get folks fired up process control, stochastic methods and the like)
In the 50's an American man named Ed Deming tried to introduce statistical proces control to US automakers. Not wanting any of that mamby pamby math crap- they sent him packing.
Ed worked in the Japan re-building effort & eventually introduced statistical quality control to many Japanese engineers, managers, to include a few executive sessions with what was to become the sony corp, as well as their auto biz. His message was that improving quality will reduce expenses while increasing productivity and market share.
A number of Japanese manufacturers applied his techniques widely, and experienced theretofore unheard-of levels of quality and productivity. The improved quality combined with the new process controls lowered costs creating new international demand for Japanese products. Toyota & Datsun (no Nissan) were early adopters, and fully embraced his methods, and began their ascension in building quality in their brands.
Between 1979 and 1982, Ford had incurred $3 billion in losses as consumers began choosing Japanese cars over US due to quality. So Ford recruited Deming to help jump-start a quality movement.
Deming questioned the company's culture and the way its managers operated. To Ford's surprise, Deming talked not about quality but about management. He told Ford that management actions were responsible for 85% of all problems in developing better cars. (note- he did not say labor is your problem).
In 1986 Ford came out with a profitable line of cars, the Taurus-Sable line. In a letter to Autoweek Magazine, Donald Petersen, then Ford Chairman, said, "We are moving toward building a quality culture at Ford and the many changes that have been taking place here have their roots directly in Dr. Deming's teachings." By 1986, Ford had become the most profitable American auto company.
In the end, if a company has a quality product that provides value, it will be successful. It's not always just the taxes, or just the labor. It's the quality of the product that the company manages, and labor produces to that managed standard. This lack of quaity control, and the Japanese embracement of it had exponentially more effect on the demise of the US auto-industry, but the "media" likes to blame labor & taxes (get that emotional reaction for the news), and for the most part ignores the root causal factors- (hard to get folks fired up process control, stochastic methods and the like)
03-14-2011, 06:16 PM
#116
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
No argument, but every vehicle made has a cost associated with producing it. Quality, safety, reliability, and utility all add to the cost of a vehicle. When you are competing to sell vehicles and yours starts with a 5K price disadvantage due to retiree labor costs you might have to give up something in quality to compete in price. Same goes for taxes.
Bad management. Plenty of blame to go around.
P.S. I haven't purchased a non UAW/American Corp car in the past 22 years. (Although, it's getting harder to figure out exactly where the thing is made) The quality improvements are quite impressive. YMMV
This helps: UAW Car Buying Guide
Last edited by Busboy; 03-14-2011 at 06:30 PM. Reason: Added link
03-14-2011, 10:47 PM
#117
Banned
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Position: 727
Posts: 78
No argument, but every vehicle made has a cost associated with producing it. Quality, safety, reliability, and utility all add to the cost of a vehicle. When you are competing to sell vehicles and yours starts with a 5K price disadvantage due to retiree labor costs you might have to give up something in quality to compete in price. Same goes for taxes.
You seem to think that prosperity will come via lower wages for the working class. By your logic, if we cut our wage/benefit package in half...then we'd be twice as wealthy. If we gave it ALL back...by your logic, we'd all be wealthier than bill gates!
To some extent, this "trickle down" effect does work; the question is knowing when it actually makes society wealtheir and when it makes it poorer. I simply believe that allowing middle class wages to drop will do the later. And it is a slippery slope-once you go after the lower middle class, it isnt hard to go after the upper middle class, which of course includes YOU.
Have a nice evening!
03-15-2011, 09:08 AM
#118
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
well then, perhaps you should give up YOUR retirement.
You seem to think that prosperity will come via lower wages for the working class. By your logic, if we cut our wage/benefit package in half...then we'd be twice as wealthy. If we gave it ALL back...by your logic, we'd all be wealthier than bill gates!
To some extent, this "trickle down" effect does work; the question is knowing when it actually makes society wealtheir and when it makes it poorer. I simply believe that allowing middle class wages to drop will do the later. And it is a slippery slope-once you go after the lower middle class, it isnt hard to go after the upper middle class, which of course includes YOU.
Have a nice evening!
You seem to think that prosperity will come via lower wages for the working class. By your logic, if we cut our wage/benefit package in half...then we'd be twice as wealthy. If we gave it ALL back...by your logic, we'd all be wealthier than bill gates!
To some extent, this "trickle down" effect does work; the question is knowing when it actually makes society wealtheir and when it makes it poorer. I simply believe that allowing middle class wages to drop will do the later. And it is a slippery slope-once you go after the lower middle class, it isnt hard to go after the upper middle class, which of course includes YOU.
Have a nice evening!
03-15-2011, 03:06 PM
#119
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 95
How many of them were union? Case closed. Support anti-union right to work politics and be prepared for the consequences and that pie won't seem so small when you're not getting a piece. But this is pointless trying to debate with you. I have better things to do and I'm sure you do too. Perhaps you and Fred can talked anti- union politics next time he has you over for dinner.
03-15-2011, 03:29 PM
#120
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
How many of them were union? Case closed. Support anti-union right to work politics and be prepared for the consequences and that pie won't seem so small when you're not getting a piece. But this is pointless trying to debate with you. I have better things to do and I'm sure you do too. Perhaps you and Fred can talked anti- union politics next time he has you over for dinner.
Either that, or reduce the $152,000,000/yr they hand out in dividends. Or, the $30,000,000 they pay to just the top 5 execs.
