Philip wrote:

Lying, disgusting, pig-headed, greedy, foul REPUBLICAN LIARS WHO pay
themselves salaries in THE MILLIONS WHILE THEY DONATE TO FUCKERS LIKE
TOM DELAY AND STOMP THE MIDDLE CLASS INTO SLAVERY.

"Learning Richard" <learningrichard (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

So, unlearned dick, why did you drop out of Grade 6?

Hachiroku wrote:
How many times has an owner or manager of a poorly operated small
business been quoted as saying "The economy killed my business"? <G>

GM's management must have gone to the same schools as those managing
many airlines, phone companies, etc...

Economies don't kill businesses, managers do.

Exactly. In my father's 2004 Saturn, the hood release feels it will break
off just about the point when the hood finally opens. I'm sure someday it
will. Of course the engine has no low end torque, the cooling fans make the
engine sound like a truck and theres plenty more. Makes my Avalon look and
feel like the best car on the road.

"Hachiroku" <Trueno (AT) ae86 (DOT) GTS> wrote

"Learning Richard" <learningrichard (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote


There are MORE and RICHER Democrats in Congress having achieved that wealth
at the public trough than Republicans. :^)

"Art" <begunaNOSPAMPLEASE (AT) mindspring (DOT) com> wrote

Actually I think many executives for old line manufacturing companies, like
GM, were all for the government taking over health care exactly because it
would have helped bail them out. The groups against it were the one who
profit from out current national health care system - Hospitals, HMOs,
Insurance Companies, Pharmaceutical Companies, Trial Lawyers. I still
haven't figured out how these groups managed to pull the wool over "our"
eyes. And for any of you who think we don't have a National Help Care
system, you are dreaming. We have a system, almost the worst one that could
be concocted if your goal was delivering decent health care efficiently and
economically. However it serves the interests of the Insurance and Drug
companies nicely.

Here is food for thought - Who's going to take care of all those US Toyota
workers when they turn 65?

Ed

"Philip" <1chip-state1 (AT) earthlink (DOT) net> wrote

I know I feel a lot better funding Pharmaceutical Companies, Insurance
Companies, HMO's, Trial Lawyers, etc.

So when the US Toyota workers retire, who'll be finding their medical plans?

Ed

"C. E. White" <cewhite (AT) mindspring (DOT) com> wrote

--
Ray O
correct the return address punctuation to reply

"Ray O" <rokigawa (AT) tristarassociatesDOT (DOT) com> wrote


I like the answer. But why won't Toyota have the same sort of problems as
GM? I know how my company is handling the cost of health care for retirees-
they are screwing the people who are retired. They increase the co-pay every
year and force them into HMOs that make the worst Government system you can
imagine look good.

Ed

"C. E. White" <cewhite (AT) mindspring (DOT) com> wrote

I am not a market analyst so this is pure speculation on my part, based on
business articles and personal experience meeting with Toyota's upper
management.

AFAIK, the Toyota's only UAW assembly plant is NUMMI and so they are not
saddled with above-market benefits. In other words, the pay and benefits
for the markets where the assembly plants are located are in line with local
conditions and not with a national contract.

Toyota's sales, service, and parts operations in the U.S. are much leaner
than GM, Ford, and Chrysler operations. Many of my former co-workers came
from GM, Ford, & Chrysler and they were all amazed Toyota's offices were
staffed with much fewer people. If that is true, then Toyota has a much
lower overhead and fewer people with retirement liabilities per vehicle sold
than GM & Ford.

I've heard complaints in the past that Toyota's assembly operations are too
automated and that Toyota should hire more people instead of letting robots
do the work. The problem with that argument is that not only do those
people cost more today than a robot because of salaries and benefits, they
continue to cost more even after they are done working because of retirement
benefits.

According to this article
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/BUSINESS....results.reut/
Toyota is the world's most valuable car maker at $165 billion. Toyota just
reported that their 3rd quarter 2005 operating profit was down to $3.45
billion, with net profits of $2.59 billion because of heavy investment in
new plants. If you annualize the net profit and round down to $10 billion
net profit. Not only are Toyota's vehicle sales trending upward, so are
their net profits.

IMO, Toyota's biggest long-term advantage over GM and Ford is that Toyota's
sales come from a much broader global market. According to that article,
60% of Toyota's sales come from areas outside of Japan, and as you probably
know, Toyota invests heavily in assembly plants is their major markets.
They have 52 overseas manufacturing plants in 26 different countries and
sell through 160 importers/distributors. I do not know what the percentage
of overseas sales are for GM and Ford, but my impression is that the ratio
of domestic vs. overseas sales is the opposite and so an increase or
downturn in business in their home market has a proportionately bigger
effect on their bottom line. In other words, Toyota has done a better job
of hedging its bets by entering multiple markets.

Toyota does not have the corporate arrogance that GM, Ford, and Chrysler
once had. When the Hyundai Excel and Yugo were introduced and became the
poster boys for poor quality, Toyota still studied their competition and I
heard predictions from upper management that the Korean brands would one day
vie for the same customers as Toyota. Toyota was also aware that their
customer base was aging and that they were in danger of becoming the favored
brand of retired folks like Buick. Toyota introduced the Scion to make sure
they found new customers and were able to compete at the entry level as well
as the upper levels.

Toyota has a business plan that goes out 20 years, and they share their
plans with their employees. Toyota's current sales are well ahead of what
was projected when I left the company in 1993.

I've heard the argument that Japan's automotive market is very protected,
and I agree. On the other hand, GM and Ford did not have left-hand drive
vehicles for the Japanese market. Ironically, Japan's import barriers and
right-hand drive vehicles made GM and Ford cars a status symbol among the
yakuza. Since the yakuza favored GM and Ford, the average mainstream
Japanese citizen wouldn't be caught dead driving one.

--
Ray O
correct the return address punctuation to reply