DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: BT on December 12, 2008, 03:28:17 AM
-
Powell: GOP 'polarization' backfired in election
Posted: 07:01 PM ET
(CNN) ? The Republican party must stop "shouting at the world" and start listening to minority groups if it is to win elections in the 21st century, former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Thursday.
In an interview with CNN's Fareed Zakaria for Sunday's "GPS" program, President Bush's former secretary of state said his party's attempt "to use polarization for political advantage" backfired last month.
"I think the party has to take a hard look at itself," Powell said in the interview, which was taped Wednesday. "There is nothing wrong with being conservative. There is nothing wrong with having socially conservative views ? I don't object to that. But if the party wants to have a future in this country, it has to face some realities. In another 20 years, the majority in
this country will be the minority."
Powell, who crossed party lines and endorsed President-elect Barack Obama just weeks before the election, said the GOP must see what is in the "hearts and minds" of African-American, Hispanic and Asian voters "and not just try to nfluence them by? the principles and dogma."
"I think the party has to stop shouting at the world and at the country,"Powell said. "I think that the party has to take a hard look at itself, and I've talked to a number of leaders in recent weeks and they understand that." Powell, who says he still considers himself a Republican, said his party should also stop listening to conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh.
"Can we continue to listen to Rush Limbaugh?" Powell asked. "Is this really the kind of party that we want to be when these kinds of spokespersons seem to appeal to our lesser instincts rather than our better instincts?"
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/12/11/powell-gop-polarization-backfired-in-election/ (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/12/11/powell-gop-polarization-backfired-in-election/)
-
No.......because I believe he gives far too much credit to talk radio, while largely ignoring the pink elephant in the room, that being the MSM.
-
I can see his point about Limbaugh, who believes himself to be the voice of mainstream conservatism. And because he makes himself heard, the left has come to believe that he is representative of all conservatives.
He doesn't speak for me, as I'm sure some of the far left radio show hosts I listen in astonishment don't speak for the mainstream liberals.
At least I hope not. Gawd.
-
No.......because I believe he gives far too much credit to talk radio, while largely ignoring the pink elephant in the room, that being the MSM.
And how does "MSM" cause the Republican party to sound like a hooting mob of rightwing baboons?
Powell understands that Rush was hired to do what he does, and is suggesting that he be given less exposure. If the GOP wants to succeed in any way, they will have to do this. I doubt they will.
At the moment, the GOP wants to trash the contracts of the UAW, and remove its members forever from the middle class. A union member would have to be a total moron to vote for these Fascisti.
-
>>Powell, […], said the GOP must see what is in the "hearts and minds" of African-American, Hispanic and Asian voters "and not just try to “influence them by” the principles and dogma."<<
So know we know Powell still sees the world as White’s versus everybody who isn’t White. That’s a pity. He has obviously forgotten who made him Secretary of State, National Security Advisor, and Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff. Those evil White Republican presidents. So like the rest of the hyphenated Americans, he voted for Barrack Hussein Obama because he’s Black. Well, half Black. I guess Powell doesn’t mind half a White person. Unless of course that White person is giving him a job.
So what’s different about the hearts and minds of the un-White people in America? What do they want that white folks don’t want? don’t they want a decent job, a warm place to live, and three hots a day?
Before we can say Powell is correct about the Republican Party, we have to answer that question. What are democrats giving the un-White that Republicans aren’t?
-
Juniorbush and the GOP made a fool of Powell. He was told lies, and obeyed when they made him retell the same lies to the UN. He was greatly humiliated by the most incompetent fool that has ever been president.
One thing that the Democrats gave Black people was a functioning government that did not monger wars with lies. How many Black soldiers joined the military because it was the best job they could get? How many have died because of Juniorbush's mistakes and lies? Right now, Mitch McConnell and Richard Shelby are willing to let the entire auto industry go down in smoke and flames rather than allow the Black and White members of the UAW continue to earn the wages they negotiated for. They are putting no such restrictions on other workers, dealers or anyone else. They just can't stand seeing workers earn a decent living.
-
Thank you for that load of libtard crap.
Anybody else?
-
No.......because I believe he gives far too much credit to talk radio, while largely ignoring the pink elephant in the room, that being the MSM.
And how does "MSM" cause the Republican party to sound like a hooting mob of rightwing baboons?
When the MSM fails to report the endless hooting mob of LW baboons
At the moment, the GOP wants to trash the contracts of the UAW, and remove its members forever from the middle class. A union member would have to be a total moron to vote for these Fascisti.
At the moment, the GOP wants to TRY to repair the likely irreparable damage caused to US Auto makers, by the contracts put in place by the "UAW"
This tact by the Democrats & unions is about as transparent as it can get. Rather than fix the problem, by starting over with new contracts, the UAW and Dems want to appoint some cockamamie car czar, get tax payer $$$$, and be able to promise SQUAT ability to repay. All in the effort of having the Fed largely running the U.S. auto industry thru their czar, by claiming how we can't risk any more unemployment, while the unions can keep their fat contracts that largely put the U.S. auto industry into it's current financial mess to begin with..........................which of course will bring them full circle for the need for more tax $$$$$, as the failures continue, so the cycle can start all over again.
And here I thought the left decried fascism, when it's precisely what they're advocating now
-
The GOP seems incapable of introspection. The GOP seems to believe that any form of self-awareness or even theoretical self-doubt (even just for double-checking themselves) is a form of weakness. It seems to me the GOP (or perhaps those who run it and have the most face time) has assumed a number of inflexible positions for so long and the Dems have allowed those GOP positions to be the starting points for dialogue for so long, those NOW running the GOP think that if they take inflexible positions that they will always get what they want.
And since the auto bailout failed, I think that is true.
For years, I've said that Pelosi and Reid are worthless and have to spines. Now, those two are waking up to hearing the base talking about replacing them in the next elections.
Back to the GOP though, while there are those of us on the left here who will immediately jump on any GOP negative and trying going for the jugular every time, there are also those of here, who, of late, have at least ATTEMPTED to upgrade our questions or have declined to crow over GOP failures while trying to find out what consensus can be found between the left and the right.
There has been little success there but old habits die hard.
If the GOP should have learned anything from the last election it is that the nation is very tired of the politics of strategy and division. They are also very tired of politicians with ideological goals like union-busting.
-
The unions held fast to renegotiating in 2011.
The GOP wanted 2009.
Seems like 2010 should be the year.
-
So far, so much libtard bullshit.
This is obviously the wrong place for intelligent left wing discussion on this subject.
-
The unions held fast to renegotiating in 2011.
The GOP wanted 2009.
Seems like 2010 should be the year.
That will work if there is still a GM in 2010.
Imigine trying to sell GM to a hypothetical buyer who has got the scratch to heal the present problem, what would you sell him on ? Potential for sales? Potential for profits ? Well seasoned and productive workforce?
It will not matter what Congress does for the carmakers unless they sell the cars they make for more than it costs to make them.
-
It will not matter what Congress does for the carmakers unless they sell the cars they make for more than it costs to make them.
BINGO ------> thus no guaranatee, what-so-ever, they can pay any bailout back or even survive financially
-
The unions held fast to renegotiating in 2011.
The GOP wanted 2009.
Seems like 2010 should be the year.
It is my understanding that the unions have taken pay cuts already.
-
t is my understanding that the unions have taken pay cuts already.
When?
-
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,461607,00.html (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,461607,00.html)
UAW Makes Concessions in Bid to Help Automakers
Thursday , December 04, 2008
AP
ADVERTISEMENT
DETROIT —
Worried about their jobs and warned that the cost of failure could be a depression, hundreds of leaders of the United Auto Workers voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to make concessions to the struggling Detroit Three, including all but ending a much-derided program that let laid-off workers collect up to 95 percent of their salaries.
"Everybody has to give a little bit," said Rich Bennett, an official for Local 122 in Twinsburg, Ohio, representing Chrysler workers. "We've made concessions. We really feel we're doing our part."
Union leaders also agreed to let the cash-starved automakers delay billions of dollars in payments to a union-administered trust set to take over health care for blue-collar retirees starting in 2010.
In addition, they decided to let the Detroit leadership begin renegotiating elements of landmark contracts signed with the automakers last year, a move that could lead to wage concessions.
The vote came on the eve of congressional hearings on as much as $34 billion in loans that General Motors and Chrysler say are critical to their survival. Ford has said it may be able to hang on through 2009 without additional credit.
Democratic congressional leaders say they want to act to prevent one or more of the automakers from collapsing, but they have made no commitments to approve an unpopular bailout at a time of economic peril.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said a Democratic plan to tap the Wall Street rescue fund to save U.S. automakers does not have the votes to pass.
UAW President Ron Gettelfinger said the union must help persuade Congress to offer the loans or risk destroying what he said is the country's economic spine.
"Let's look at the backbone and the millions of jobs lost if we lost this industry," he said.
Earlier in the day, Chrysler Vice Chairman Jim Press went a step further, warning of a depression if even one automaker runs out of cash.
"We're on the brink with the U.S. auto manufacturing industry," Press told The Associated Press in an interview. "If we have a catastrophic failure of one of these car companies, in this tender environment for the economy, it's a huge blow. It could trigger a depression."
Both Chrysler LLC and General Motors Corp. are so perilously low on cash that the companies may not be able to pay all their bills by the end of the year. GM wants a total of $18 billion in loans. Chrysler is seeking $7 billion, and both manufacturers say they need cash this month.
Ford Motor Co., which borrowed billions before credit markets tightened, says it can survive through 2009 and may not need to tap the $9 billion credit line it requested.
As a further sign of the companies' dire straits, Moody's Investors Service on Wednesday downgraded its ratings for GM and Chrysler, sending them further into non-investment, or "junk," status. Moody's affirmed its ratings for Ford, but said the outlook for the three automakers is "negative," implying further downgrades are possible.
Sent home empty-handed last month, executives from all three companies knocked on doors on Capitol Hill and made television appearances Wednesday, hoping the detailed plans they submitted Tuesday would convince hostile lawmakers to help. CEOs from all three, plus Gettelfinger, will appear before Senate and House committees Thursday and Friday.
Fritz Henderson, GM's president and chief operating officer, stressed on NBC's "Today" show that bankruptcy isn't a viable option.
Choosing bankruptcy, he said, would further erode consumer confidence in the automaker and "we want them to be confident in their ability to buy our cars and trucks."
All three executives took hybrid cars from Detroit to Washington after enduring harsh criticism last month for using corporate jets for the trip.
The automakers' plans were being scrutinized by legislators, the White House and the Treasury and Commerce departments.
"It sounds to me like the companies have given this a lot of thought and are willing to make some tough decisions," White House press secretary Dana Perino said. "We just need a little more time to pore through the documents."
President-elect Barack Obama said it appeared that the CEOs were returning to Congress with a "more serious set of plans" for how their companies are going to survive.
The plans painted the most dire portrait yet of the industry's woes — including the prospect of shuttered factories and massive job losses if Congress does not act quickly.
The much-derided "jobs bank" that permits laid-off workers to receive most of their pay was created in the mid-1980s as a trade-off to the UAW for increased factory automation. But the system became a symbol for the union's largess when workers were paid for years after their factories closed.
Gettelfinger said the union will suspend the bank, but he did not give specifics or a timetable.
"We're going to sit down and work out the mechanics," Gettelfinger said. "We're a little unclear on some of the issues."
Members of Congress criticized the automakers last month for paying laid-off workers, saying it's one reason why their labor costs are higher than competitors. About 3,500 workers from all three companies are now in the jobs bank.
Until the 2007 contract, workers could stay in the jobs bank indefinitely, but the new pact imposes time limits. Workers in the bank must report to local union halls. Sometimes they do charity work, but other times they do nothing.
Gettelfinger stopped short of saying the union would reopen its contracts but said it would return to the bargaining table to change some terms. Modifications would have to be ratified by members.
Delaying the health care trust payments will help the companies survive their cash shortages, which they say were brought on by the severe economic downturn and the worst U.S. sales in more than a quarter century.
The delay will have to be approved by federal courts, which already have blessed the trusts' formation.
Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she hopes Congress acts to help the automakers. Reid said he would advance a bill Monday in preparation for a possible auto bailout vote later in the week.
The automakers, humbled by criticism from their last visit, gave lengthy plans with minute details about how they plan to repay the government money.
Ford CEO Alan Mulally and GM CEO Rick Wagoner both said they would work for $1 a year if their firms took any government loan money. Chrysler chief Robert Nardelli already works for $1 a year.
Per the UAW's constitution, Gettelfinger receives an annual salary of about $145,000 per year, plus insurance, retirement and other benefits.
Ford offered to cancel management bonuses and salaried employees' merit raises next year, and GM said it would slash top executives' pay. Ford and GM both said they would sell their corporate aircraft.
Nevertheless, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, said the mood in Congress "is not supportive" of the automakers, although he called the consequences of just one of them failing "cataclysmic."
-
But this is what I was really thinking about.
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20080317/005259.html (http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20080317/005259.html)
UAW locals resisting new GM wage deal
Plant level union leaders say automaker pushing through more second-tier jobs than contract allows.
Sharon Terlep The Detroit News Monday, March 17, 2008
Some of General Motors Corp.'s local unions are pushing back against the automaker's plan to implement lower-wage jobs at its factories, a key part of GM's new labor deal with the United Auto Workers union.
At least three UAW local leaders have sent out notices to their members in recent weeks accusing GM of trying to push through more second-tier jobs than the company and union agreed to under the national contract, and several say those talks have been a point of contention in local contract talks.
GM's labor deal with the UAW, signed more than five months ago, allows the automaker to usher out senior workers with retirement incentives and replace many of those veterans with new hires who will be paid the lower wage.
GM will begin officially rolling out retirement offers today and expects workers to be gone by July 1.
But before the shift can happen, GM and UAW locals that represent dozens of plants across the country must agree on which factory jobs will command an hourly rate about half the current wage of $28 an hour. Under the national contract, lower wages will go to workers not directly involved in building an automobile.
The agreement laid out general job descriptions for the lower-tier workers and rough numbers -- negotiating the specifics is up to each factory.
"It's bound to be a contentious issue because there are large financial stakes for the company and the workers involved," said labor expert Harley Shaiken of the University of California-Berkeley. "There are conflicts and suspicions at the local level. It's not a permanent roadblock, it just requires negotiation."
GM and the UAW almost certainly will manage to hammer out deals on two-tier wages, union leaders and industry watchers say.
But, for now, the snags are preventing the automaker and its union locals from putting in place virtually any local contracts, most of which expired in September.
The lack of agreement on wages likely wouldn't cause major problems until later this summer, when GM will need to bring in new employees to fill spots vacated by workers who took retirement incentives or buyout offers.
GM went into the 2007 contract talks determined to get its labor costs more in line with leaner foreign-based rivals such as Toyota Motor Corp.
Most of the savings generated from the deal won't begin until 2010 when a union-run, company-funded trust will take over responsibility for GM's massive retiree health care tab. The second-tier jobs are a more immediate cost-cutting measure for the automaker. The UAW also stands to benefit because the new hires will mean additional members for the union's waning ranks.
Under the labor deal, GM and the union agreed to reclassify about 16,000 jobs as "noncore" automotive work that would command the lower wage. The union and company agreed that those noncore jobs will include work such as moving material, managing chemicals and working in the paint shop.
Setting an exact number Through much of February, teams of representatives from the company and union visited each of GM's factories to better understand the nature of each job.
Now the hard work remains of setting a number of core and noncore jobs at each plant.
In one online posting to members, Dwayne Humphries, a UAW Local 276 shop chairman who represents workers in Arlington, Texas, said the local contract called for 296 jobs at the factories to be designated as noncore. The company, he said, is looking to designate more than 400 jobs as noncore.
"We have taken exceptions to some of the assessments and number of jobs that they recommend to be marked as 'Non-Core,' " Humphries wrote in his message late last month. "The shop committee is working diligently to convince Management and the International UAW that some of the jobs that they are recommending be 'Non-Core' be removed from that list."
Local 5960 shop chairman Mike Dunn, representing workers at GM's Orion plant, wrote in a posting to members that GM would like to have about 580 noncore jobs at the plant, while local leaders think something like 300 is a more fair number.
"There was a set number for each location," as part of the national contract, said Pat Sweeney, president of the Orion local. "And, for every one of them, the number got raised. That's what's being talked about now."
Some say figure is fair
Not all locals are upset by the two-tier issue. Several local presidents have said GM presented them with a fair figure for the lower-wage jobs.
"We're actually going to have less than we thought," said George McGregor, president of UAW Local 22 in Hamtramck.
GM spokesman Dan Flores declined to comment on details of the local talks.
"GM and the UAW continue to work together to implement the national contract," he said.
Ford Motor Co. took a different approach to implementing two-tier wages, which also were a part of its labor deal with the UAW.
Ford and the union agreed 20 percent of workers eventually will be assigned lower wages, rather than creating two different job categories.
-
The Union leaves out all the retirement money they take from the company. That's the real problem. Nobody should get paid that much for doing nothing.
-
Nobody should get paid that much for doing nothing.
=============================================
How little can you get by on in your retirement?
Or are you planning on working until you drop?
-
this is a different era
alot of people don`t want to retire and live with the kids. they remember what`s it`s like when they took care of thier parents.not a pretty scene.
one of the point of retirement is to enjoy the remaining time .
remember the waltons?
even grandpa got feedup with john`s nonsense in one episode and took grandma and left.
family is not always naturally close
-
>>How little can you get by on in your retirement? Or are you planning on working until you drop?<<
How little can I get by with? Let's see ... I've gotten by with considerable less than I do now. I've planned ahead so I can do things I want to do after I retire. When that will be, I can't really say. I doubt I'll drop everything when I reach 65. My father was an attorney. He would have kept working until he simply couldn't do it anymore had he not died at 65. Unlike the liberal fantasy, small business folks don't just drop everything, close the business, and retire. Taking all the money and throwing employees out on the street. We don't have that luxury.
Two of my closest friends work for GM. I had a discussion about this with one last night. They don't like to admit they receive retirement benefits that are far more than your average retiree. He complained about a possible reduction of perhaps 30 percent in his hourly wage. I would to, but given the circumstances I'd rather have some hard times than be out of work. I think all of us have had it too easy. We don't know what hard times mean. Not like our parents did anyway. People need a dose of reality. Maybe this is it.
-
Two of my closest friends work for GM. I had a discussion about this with one last night. They don't like to admit they receive retirement benefits that are far more than your average retiree. He complained about a possible reduction of perhaps 30 percent in his hourly wage. I would to, but given the circumstances I'd rather have some hard times than be out of work. I think all of us have had it too easy. We don't know what hard times mean. Not like our parents did anyway. People need a dose of reality. Maybe this is it.
My dad is a GM retiree, as was my grandfather. The retirement benefits were stunning, wonderful, for both of them. The thing is with these retirees, they worked their entire lives KNOWING that they would have the best benefits on earth. Having been given that expectation, no one can blame the old guys.
I would have to say that right now my father is pissed, as he was notified a few months back that his retiree medical insurance will be cut on January 1st. And I really don't blame him; again, this was an expectation that he was given for the 45 years he worked at GM, that he wouldn't have to worry about health insurance when he retired. It's a damn shame.
Times are changing, though, and I think the whole system needs to be re-evaluated for the future. One thing that gets me about the auto companies is that as times were changing, they didn't budge. For example, the cost of medical care has been rising for years and years now (never mind the reasons), and they continued to promise the same things. What's more, people are living a lot longer. Just those factors alone should have given them reason to think these things through a long time ago, IMO.
-
>>Times are changing, though, and I think the whole system needs to be re-evaluated for the future. One thing that gets me about the auto companies is that as times were changing, they didn't budge. For example, the cost of medical care has been rising for years and years now (never mind the reasons), and they continued to promise the same things. What's more, people are living a lot longer. Just those factors alone should have given them reason to think these things through a long time ago, IMO.<<
I agree 100 percent with that statement. I also understand that workers were promised certain things and feel betrayed when they don't receive what they were promised. As you say, the union won't budge. So where does that leave them? To be fair, I also believe management should receive similar cuts and some of the top management should resign. It's just as much their fault as it is the unions.
-
What's more, people are living a lot longer. Just those factors alone should have given them reason to think these things through a long time ago, IMO.<<
I agree 100 percent with that statement. I also understand that workers were promised certain things and feel betrayed when they don't receive what they were promised. As you say, the union won't budge. So where does that leave them? To be fair, I also believe management should receive similar cuts and some of the top management should resign. It's just as much their fault as it is the unions.
==================
I imagine that you would prefer that ex-auto workers not live longer, so that it would not be so expensive to maintain them in their old age. Too many of them ignore Rush and vote Democratic, anyway.
If people do not buy GM or Chrysler cars, it is not the fault of the line workers. It is not the fault of the workers that a Cavalier, Escort or Neon is not as appealing to people as a Sentra, Corolla or Accord. It is also not the fault of the workers that the US companies insisted on producing and marketing huge gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs, knowing that a surge in fuel prices would cause sales to plummet.
-
What's more, people are living a lot longer. Just those factors alone should have given them reason to think these things through a long time ago, IMO.<<
I agree 100 percent with that statement. I also understand that workers were promised certain things and feel betrayed when they don't receive what they were promised. As you say, the union won't budge. So where does that leave them? To be fair, I also believe management should receive similar cuts and some of the top management should resign. It's just as much their fault as it is the unions.
==================
I imagine that you would prefer that ex-auto workers not live longer, so that it would not be so expensive to maintain them in their old age. Too many of them ignore Rush and vote Democratic, anyway.
If people do not buy GM or Chrysler cars, it is not the fault of the line workers. It is not the fault of the workers that a Cavalier, Escort or Neon is not as appealing to people as a Sentra, Corolla or Accord. It is also not the fault of the workers that the US companies insisted on producing and marketing huge gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs, knowing that a surge in fuel prices would cause sales to plummet.
Are Designers , engineers , and product researchers a diffrent class , or are they workers too?
Somewhere in the organisation there are people whose job it is to find out what the buying public wants to see when they are buying a car, how did this group get so badly turned around?
I wonder if anyone would want to buy a Model T , it would be underpowered by modern standards . When it was the best selling car it was almost the only availible choice and production could concentrate on effeciency and cost without worrying about whether a compeditor with more crome might out sell it, you could not even get colors because diffrent colors would slow down production. Henry Ford could get away with that sort of thing because no compeditor was trying to sell to the common folk at the time.
-
Are Designers , engineers , and product researchers a diffrent class , or are they workers too?
Somewhere in the organisation there are people whose job it is to find out what the buying public wants to see when they are buying a car, how did this group get so badly turned around?
I wonder if anyone would want to buy a Model T , it would be underpowered by modern standards . When it was the best selling car it was almost the only availible choice and production could concentrate on effeciency and cost without worrying about whether a compeditor with more crome might out sell it, you could not even get colors because diffrent colors would slow down production. Henry Ford could get away with that sort of thing because no compeditor was trying to sell to the common folk at the time.
--------------------------------------------------
These people are of course, workers in the broadest sense. However, they are not under a union contract, and their salaries are not normally guaranteed by management.
The Model T would hit about 45 mph at most, though it was not very safe at that speed.
By 1925, Chevrolet was outselling the Model T, and there were many more advanced competitors, like the Maxwell and the Essex. Most of these cost more than the Model T, but they were more comfortable, powerful and faster. Ford was forced to shut down the factories and retool for the Model A.
The trucks and SUVs were easier to market because they did not have to get the lower mileage figures imposed by the CAFE standards. The Expedition was so huge that it was exempt from even the small truck standards. According to the government, all SUVs and crossovers are really trucks.
The decision to push trucks was due to the fact that designing and making them required much less new technology. You could just sit a different body on the same chassis and you would have somethig that looked like a totally differnt product. (Hummer H3's and Chevy pickups are a prime example of this.) Trucks and SUVs are cheaper to make by far. This is why the Japanese also entered the market with Tundras, Titans and Ridgerunners.
Basically, the goal was to try to snare the quick buck with minimum cost and maximum profit. The future was mostly ignored.
-
Are Designers , engineers , and product researchers a diffrent class , or are they workers too?
Somewhere in the organisation there are people whose job it is to find out what the buying public wants to see when they are buying a car, how did this group get so badly turned around?
I wonder if anyone would want to buy a Model T , it would be underpowered by modern standards . When it was the best selling car it was almost the only availible choice and production could concentrate on effeciency and cost without worrying about whether a compeditor with more crome might out sell it, you could not even get colors because diffrent colors would slow down production. Henry Ford could get away with that sort of thing because no compeditor was trying to sell to the common folk at the time.
--------------------------------------------------
These people are of course, workers in the broadest sense. However, they are not under a union contract, and their salaries are not normally guaranteed by management.
The Model T would hit about 45 mph at most, though it was not very safe at that speed.
By 1925, Chevrolet was outselling the Model T, and there were many more advanced competitors, like the Maxwell and the Essex. Most of these cost more than the Model T, but they were more comfortable, powerful and faster. Ford was forced to shut down the factories and retool for the Model A.
The trucks and SUVs were easier to market because they did not have to get the lower mileage figures imposed by the CAFE standards. The Expedition was so huge that it was exempt from even the small truck standards. According to the government, all SUVs and crossovers are really trucks.
The decision to push trucks was due to the fact that designing and making them required much less new technology. You could just sit a different body on the same chassis and you would have somethig that looked like a totally differnt product. (Hummer H3's and Chevy pickups are a prime example of this.) Trucks and SUVs are cheaper to make by far. This is why the Japanese also entered the market with Tundras, Titans and Ridgerunners.
Basically, the goal was to try to snare the quick buck with minimum cost and maximum profit. The future was mostly ignored.
How did the public reject cafe standard cars?
-
The decision to push trucks was due to the fact that designing and making them required much less new technology. You could just sit a different body on the same chassis and you would have somethig that looked like a totally differnt product.
Ditto for automobiles. My Five Hundred is a Volvo with a different body. So are the new Taurus.
-
Ditto for automobiles. My Five Hundred is a Volvo with a different body. So are the new Taurus.
-----------------------------------
But the Taurus and Volvo share the same platform. They were designed to be variations on the same platform. It is not just a matter of plunking a different body down and bolting it to a chassis, which might have been designed in 1977.
Every platform involves a detailed design of steering gear, suspension and a unitary body. This is why your Volvo handles better than any truck. It is more expensive to design a unitary body car than a pickup truck or SUV that sits on a pickup chassis.
I think that Ford just changed the name of the Five Hundred to Taurus because the Taurus name sounded better to prospective customers.
http://www.stangbangers.com/News_FordFiveHundred.htm (http://www.stangbangers.com/News_FordFiveHundred.htm)
-
I think that Ford just changed the name of the Five Hundred to Taurus because the Taurus name sounded better to prospective customers.
Taurus was a "known" name. They stopped production on the original Five Hundreds back in the '60s, so hardly anyone remembers the name.
The chassis, suspension, and most of the drive train are designed by Volvo, the eCVT transmission was designed originally for Audi by a German manufacturer. Ford mated their 3.0l engine from the Taurus and built a new body to fit the chassis. Unfortunately, they dropped the eCVT from the Taurus offerings, it is their best transmission.
-
>>I imagine that you would prefer that ex-auto workers not live longer, so that it would not be so expensive to maintain them in their old age. Too many of them ignore Rush and vote Democratic, anyway.<<
If you are were an ex-auto worker, sure. Feel free to rid the world of your stench ASAP.
Of course reality isn't your strong point so business practices and cost are way above your pay grade. Pointing out the tremendous stupidy in the above quote would be a total waste of time.
Then there's the continuing obsession with Rush Limbaugh. Come on BO, you can admit it. You love him. You want to kiss him. You can't get enough of El Rushbo.
Freak.
-
Yea, what is this obsession Xo has with Rush?? Brass has a similar one to the show 24, but not near as pathological as Xo has with Limbaugh
-
What's more, people are living a lot longer. Just those factors alone should have given them reason to think these things through a long time ago, IMO.<<
I agree 100 percent with that statement. I also understand that workers were promised certain things and feel betrayed when they don't receive what they were promised. As you say, the union won't budge. So where does that leave them? To be fair, I also believe management should receive similar cuts and some of the top management should resign. It's just as much their fault as it is the unions.
==================
I imagine that you would prefer that ex-auto workers not live longer, so that it would not be so expensive to maintain them in their old age. Too many of them ignore Rush and vote Democratic, anyway.
If people do not buy GM or Chrysler cars, it is not the fault of the line workers. It is not the fault of the workers that a Cavalier, Escort or Neon is not as appealing to people as a Sentra, Corolla or Accord. It is also not the fault of the workers that the US companies insisted on producing and marketing huge gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs, knowing that a surge in fuel prices would cause sales to plummet.
I hardly think that's the point, XO. Thing is, no one is going to be "maintained" if the Big 3 go under, let alone retirees.