The Revolt Against Obama: Convergence from the Left and Right

[B_VinylBoy]

Oh, one more point. The OP isn't fooling anyone by using the term "third world". That is simply code for ethnic or non white.

It's such a tell, isn't it?
Thesaurus ridden statements, carefully scripted to appear like intellectualized insight don't mean a damn thing when the context is more gutter than George Carlin saying the 7 words you can't say on TV on infinite loop. What good is your ideologies if it embraces a time where Blacks, Latinos, Jews, Gays, Women, or ANYONE who wasn't white and male weren't worth a damn in everyday society?

NickyBigot should just scream the word "niggar", bolded and italicized at font size 8 and get it the fuck over with.

 

[StormfrontFL]

It's such a tell, isn't it?
Thesaurus ridden statements, carefully scripted to appear like intellectualized insight don't mean a damn thing when the context is more gutter than George Carlin saying the 7 words you can't say on TV on infinite loop. What good is your ideologies if it embraces a time where Blacks, Latinos, Jews, Gays, Women, or ANYONE who wasn't white and male weren't worth a damn in everyday society?

NickyBigot should just scream the word "niggar", bolded and italicized at font size 8 and get it the fuck over with.

He'll never do that. IMO some of the people who go on these rants are clearly racist and others are racist but don't realize it. They hide it behind a supposed anger at health care reform or the bank bailouts. If the economy was the best it has ever been, health care reform was a success, and the wars were ended the haters would just find something else to blame their hatred on. The people who scream nigger are less threatening than the people who smile in our faces and use the word behind our backs.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

He'll never do that.

You and I both know this.
It also explains why they maintain their ironclad grasp on anonymity on this board too.

IMO some of the people who go on these rants are clearly racist and others are racist but don't realize it. They hide it behind a supposed anger at health care reform or the bank bailouts. If the economy was the best it has ever been, health care reform was a success, and the wars were ended the haters would just find something else to blame their hatred on. The people who scream nigger are less threatening than the people who smile in our faces and use the word behind our backs.

Truer words can't be said. But let's not just stop at the n-word either. Like you said before... it's everything that doesn't look or talk like them.

 

[B_starinvestor]

That's because the products they made were not on par with the competition. With oil prices skyrocketing, it became apparent that the public needed automobiles that either provided better gas mileage or ran on alternative sources. Instead of preparing for a changing market, they whined and bitched about how things were changing... and were not willing to keep up with evolving demand and technologies.

You're supposed to be all for Capitalism, right? How come the evil, "blind liberal Socialist" knew this and you didn't... or are acting as if you didn't know?

All of the American autos had fuel efficient options. Escort, Cavalier, Neon, etc., etc.,

The fact that the quality of their vehicles was sub-par to Japanese and German autos has NOTHING to do with jobs being sent overseas. If they put out a poor product, they put out a poor product. Either way, the reasons they collapsed were many, but the labor costs ran them into the ground. They were paying 50% more for labor than Toyota and Honda.

Cost gap vs. Japan issue in auto labor - Washington Times

Perhaps "restriction" isn't the word here, but incentive to keep the jobs in their own native country?

I have no problem with this.

No corporation that provides a service or product goes out of business unless they provide one that the consumer doesn't want. It's up to them to keep up, or step aside so that others can fill in the void.

I don't agree with this. There have been countless products which the consumer loves, but the company can't figure out how/is unable to make a profit in order to stay in business.

Bullshit to the Nth degree. Although it doesn't surprise anyone that you'd want to blame it on the co-workers trying to make $50K a year, instead of the CEOs who cut the corners, alter the books, and penny pinch just so they can maintain their lavish lifestyles and award themselves million dollar bonuses. What was that buzzword you made up during the real estate & credit fiascos? "Predatory Borrowing"? LOL... yeah, too many people "begging for money" caused the financial collapse of our nation.

CEOs definitely took advantage in many cases. But auto workers were making upwards of $100k/yr. The cost to produce, in the end, was much too high. According to the attachment, the labor costs are now in line with the Japanese autos - so we will see if our autos can recover. Ford seems to be performing well.

Don't bring your ideologies to a battle where the numerical data doesn't support it.

Huh?

 

[B_starinvestor]

American automakers lost the sales battle because of years of selling low quality product. Quality is a result of good design and manufacturing systems, It has little to do with the number of labour hours spent assembling the goods.

Agree, but i'm talking about labor costs, not # of labor hours. Many of the American labor costs were legacy costs (pension, insurance in retirement, etc.)

The prices of American cars are competitive. A few hundred bucks one way or the other doesn't influence buying decisions. I've bought enough new cars to know that.

Agree.

Labor costs in Germany and Japan are not low. But they have better design, more efficient assembly procedures and better marketing.

Yep.

I don't think you should blame the American worker or their wages. The BMWs and Toyotas they build in Alabama or wherever, are nearly indistinguishable from those built in Osaka and that's because of design and engineering.

I'm not blaming quality of labor at all.

Weak kneed labour contracts and shit design are what sunk GM. Ford has the same labour problems (crazy pensions), .)

In a word - unions.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

All of the American autos had fuel efficient options. Escort, Cavalier, Neon, etc., etc.,

But just HOW fuel efficient? Also, where were the hybrids?
When gas was closing in on $4 a gallon, which car gave the better performance overal? The Escort? The Cavalier? The Prius?

The fact that the quality of their vehicles was sub-par to Japanese and German autos has NOTHING to do with jobs being sent overseas.

If you can't draw the connection to see how jobs being sent overseas harmed our economy, then you shouldn't even be having this discussion.

If they put out a poor product, they put out a poor product. Either way, the reasons they collapsed were many, but the labor costs ran them into the ground.

If they didn't make a poor product, they would have been able to afford the labor necessary to produce it. Why do you fail to play "connect the dots" here? ALL OF THIS STUFF is related to some degree. Stop trying to find the one thing that caused the strife... it was a series of factors.

I don't agree with this. There have been countless products which the consumer loves, but the company can't figure out how/is unable to make a profit in order to stay in business.

If a company can't figure out how to get their product to the consumer to make a profit, it's THEIR problem and their loss. Consumers are not obligated to buy anything just because someone makes it. That's Capitalism 101. GM & Chrysler did not have a promotion campaign geared to promote their products properly. I honestly see and more ads for Toyota, Hyndai and Nissan than I do for GM, Ford & Chrysler.

Also, when it comes to fuel efficiency companies like Honda are on the list repeatedly. In a recent study by Popular Mechanics (which BTW is much more reputable than any "news column"), two of the 5 cars that were voted the most fuel efficient over the last 34 years were from Honda - The Insight (49mpg City / 61mpg / Highway) and the Civic (42mpg city / 51mpg Highway). Retro Fuel Efficient Cars - Classic Mega MPG Economical Car - Popular Mechanics

Even if the Chevy got that one nod with the Sprint, Honda was first with a product everyone needed. They're going to get the business, and it's not up to a single person who needed a car to wait a few years down the road for Chevy to get their acts together. This is more Capitalism 101. Simple need & demand. Why couldn't GM & Chrysler be first to make the affordable, fuel efficient car of the last 3+ decades?

Here's another list, this time from Consumer Reports regarding the most fuel efficient cars for January of this year. Honda, Toyota and other foreign car companies dominate this list. Most fuel-efficient cars

This is starting to sound like one of those pathetic, "we should only buy American car" rants. Please don't go there.

CEOs definitely took advantage in many cases. But auto workers were making upwards of $100k/yr.

If certain auto workers had the experience and the credentials to get $100K/year, then they deserved it. Period. You pay for quality all the way through and it generates a better product in the end. Besides, the average auto worker makes $29 an hour. Doing the math, that's roughly $60K a year. Please don't tell me that you're distorting figures by adding in their benefits to the total, in order to inflate the hourly wage? That was already exposed a while back. FactCheck.org: Do auto workers really make more than $70 per hour?

The cost to produce, in the end, was much too high.

In translation... American car companies, with their rabid desires to pay their CEOs and their misguided attitudes about how consumers purchased cars, were too greedy & too cheap. They sat on their laurels and allowed outside competition to catch up and ultimately surpass them.

According to the attachment, the labor costs are now in line with the Japanese autos - so we will see if our autos can recover. Ford seems to be performing well.

Who cares if they can cut costs to be like the Japanese. Until they can make an affordable car that can compete with their rivals and be willing to spend what's necessary to promote it, they'll fail again.

 

[B_starinvestor]

But just HOW fuel efficient? Also, where were the hybrids?
When gas was closing in on $4 a gallon, which car gave the better performance overal? The Escort? The Cavalier? The Prius?

I agree; but you don't need the #1 market position to have a successful/profitable company. If that were the case, there would only be one company in each industry.

If you can't draw the connection to see how jobs being sent overseas harmed our economy, then you shouldn't even be having this discussion.

I'm not saying that; I'm saying it is unavoidable.

If they didn't make a poor product, they would have been able to afford the labor necessary to produce it. Why do you fail to play "connect the dots" here? ALL OF THIS STUFF is related to some degree. Stop trying to find the one thing that caused the strife... it was a series of factors.

I've already stipulated that there were a number of factors. Labor costs were just the biggest factor.

If a company can't figure out how to get their product to the consumer to make a profit, it's THEIR problem and their loss. Consumers are not obligated to buy anything just because someone makes it. That's Capitalism 101. GM & Chrysler did not have a promotion campaign geared to promote their products properly. I honestly see and more ads for Toyota, Hyndai and Nissan than I do for GM, Ford & Chrysler.

Capitalism 101 is also - if your costs/expenses are more than your revenue - you lose money. The labors costs represented too much expense - you need look no further than the labor costs of the successful autos. US labor cost was 50% higher - a competitive disadvantage.

Also, when it comes to fuel efficiency companies like Honda are on the list repeatedly. In a recent study by Popular Mechanics (which BTW is much more reputable than any "news column"), two of the 5 cars that were voted the most fuel efficient over the last 34 years were from Honda - The Insight (49mpg City / 61mpg / Highway) and the Civic (42mpg city / 51mpg Highway). Retro Fuel Efficient Cars - Classic Mega MPG Economical Car - Popular Mechanics

No argument here. They were better/more reliable products than the U.S. products.

This is starting to sound like one of those pathetic, "we should only buy American car" rants. Please don't go there.

I'm not going there. However, I don't see how this is any different than complaining about shipping jobs overseas. It stands to reason that if you are a proponent for not sending jobs overseas, you would also be vigilant about not buying products from overseas. It is essentially the same thing. Money is leaving the country.

If certain auto workers had the experience and the credentials to get $100K/year, then they deserved it. Period. You pay for quality all the way through and it generates a better product in the end. Besides, the average auto worker makes $29 an hour. Doing the math, that's roughly $60K a year. Please don't tell me that you're distorting figures by adding in their benefits to the total, in order to inflate the hourly wage? That was already exposed a while back. FactCheck.org: Do auto workers really make more than $70 per hour?

No, I'm saying that with modest amounts of overtime there were a great many auto factory workers earning W-2 income exceeding $100k.

In translation... American car companies, with their rabid desires to pay their CEOs and their misguided attitudes about how consumers purchased cars, were too greedy & too cheap. They sat on their laurels and allowed outside competition to catch up and ultimately surpass them.

Perhaps. But also add in the greed and lack of flexibility from the unions.

Who cares if they can cut costs to be like the Japanese. Until they can make an affordable car that can compete with their rivals and be willing to spend what's necessary to promote it, they'll fail again.

Time will tell. The U.S. autos are getting a lot better; and labor costs are now manageable.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

I agree; but you don't need the #1 market position to have a successful/profitable company. If that were the case, there would only be one company in each industry.

As demonstrated in the lists I provided by Consumer Reports and Popular Mechanics. The market is set up so that many companies can succeed at doing the same thing. But there's always going to be a finite number of success stories, especially if they're all aiming for the same people with similar products and only measure their success by way of profit.

Capitalism 101 is also - if your costs/expenses are more than your revenue - you lose money.

At first... but if the product you design is worth the investment, over time it generates more revenue. You have to spend money in order to make money. Very few companies make profit immediately. Sometimes, it takes years before an actual investment is out of the red and actually makes a profit.

The labors costs represented too much expense - you need look no further than the labor costs of the successful autos. US labor cost was 50% higher - a competitive disadvantage.

That's a disingenuous argument.
Their hourly wage placed the mass majority of workers firmly in the middle class. Their additional benefits, such as health insurance, raised overall labor costs. But is that the fault of the workers?

I'm not going there. However, I don't see how this is any different than complaining about shipping jobs overseas. It stands to reason that if you are a proponent for not sending jobs overseas, you would also be vigilant about not buying products from overseas. It is essentially the same thing. Money is leaving the country.

No, it's not.
Even if I spend money on an imported product overseas, I still live here. I pay my taxes here. My everyday living expenses, which is more than any car a person could buy from Japan, are still accounted for here. American companies would never have to worry about money leaving the country if CEOs weren't so obsessed about having the largest profit margin every year.

No, I'm saying that with modest amounts of overtime there were a great many auto factory workers earning W-2 income exceeding $100k.

Before taxes, of course. Beyond that, the average wage for auto factory workers was $29/hour. In order to make the $100K a year, one would have to work almost double the shifts for an entire year. Makes no sense.

Time will tell. The U.S. autos are getting a lot better; and labor costs are now manageable.

Considering the recent results from Consumer Reports, I won't hold my breath. :biggrin1:

 

[B_starinvestor]

At first... but if the product you design is worth the investment, over time it generates more revenue. You have to spend money in order to make money. Very few companies make profit immediately. Sometimes, it takes years before an actual investment is out of the red and actually makes a profit.

I agree; but the American autos already been around for decades.

That's a disingenuous argument.
Their hourly wage placed the mass majority of workers firmly in the middle class. Their additional benefits, such as health insurance, raised overall labor costs. But is that the fault of the workers?

No - workers will gravitate towards better paying jobs/benefits. It was the fault of the unions; and the fault of management for succumbing to the unions.

No, it's not.
Even if I spend money on an imported product overseas, I still live here. I pay my taxes here. My everyday living expenses, which is more than any car a person could buy from Japan, are still accounted for here. American companies would never have to worry about money leaving the country if CEOs weren't so obsessed about having the largest profit margin every year.

Yes, it is. If GE has a plant in Chili, GE is still paying corporate taxes on all profits generated from the Chilean plant. Thus, it is still accounted for here.

Before taxes, of course. Beyond that, the average wage for auto factory workers was $29/hour. In order to make the $100K a year, one would have to work almost double the shifts for an entire year. Makes no sense.

No they wouldn't. Overtime/holiday pay is as much as 3X normal = meaning $87/hr.

$29/hr * 2080 hrs = $60,300

$87/hr * 460 hrs = $40,200

Total $100,500 by simply working 50/hrs per week.

Considering the recent results from Consumer Reports, I won't hold my breath. :biggrin1:

I'm not holding my breath. I'm holding my wallet since this regime is going after everything in it.

 

[Thedrewbert]

Considering the recent results from Consumer Report have upheld Toyota's unsinkable quality until about 2 weeks ago, I'd take Consumer Report's results with a grain of salt.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

I agree; but the American autos already been around for decades.

And if they want to be around for more, they have to adjust to the changing standards in consumer demand and technology.

No - workers will gravitate towards better paying jobs/benefits. It was the fault of the unions; and the fault of management for succumbing to the unions.

This is something we will never agree on.
Unions do nothing more but try to sustain a level of adequate pay to make sure their workers maintain a reasonable quality of life. The needs of any worker, part of a Union or not, would not go up if the cost of necessity didn't constantly rise. All of these factors are controlled by their own respected corporations driven by their desires to make more profit.

No they wouldn't. Overtime/holiday pay is as much as 3X normal = meaning $87/hr.

In what world, and what field of work does this exist?
The mass majority of regular jobs pay time and a half for overtime, plus limit the number of hours most employees can work at that rate. I've seen in shutdowns, or in cases where people have to work on Christmas it may happen. But on a regular basis? Absolutely not.

$29/hr * 2080 hrs = $60,300

$87/hr * 460 hrs = $40,200

Total $100,500 by simply working 50/hrs per week.

Nice math if it actually applied to most Americans, and it simply doesn't. That is, unless you or someone else knows where the 3X overtime jobs are. I always put in extra hours at my job(s). :wink:

 

[ZOS23xy]

American automakers lost the sales battle because of years of selling low quality product. Quality is a result of good design and manufacturing systems, It has little to do with the number of labour hours spent assembling the goods.

The prices of American cars are competitive. A few hundred bucks one way or the other doesn't influence buying decisions. I've bought enough new cars to know that.

Labor costs in Germany and Japan are not low. But they have better design, more efficient assembly procedures and better marketing.

I don't think you should blame the American worker or their wages. The BMWs and Toyotas they build in Alabama or wherever, are nearly indistinguishable from those built in Osaka and that's because of design and engineering.

Weak kneed labour contracts and shit design are what sunk GM. Ford has the same labour problems (crazy pensions), but their designs and engineering is much better. (I think they have more Germans working for them.)

Working with an auto auction place, I'm not surprised to see a ten year Toyota sell for more than a five year old Ford. And the guys who buy these cars are Mexicans. They want that Toyota, not the Detroit shit.

And why, when gas was costing more and more, did the US car makers bring out Hummers?

 

[maxcok]

Working with an auto auction place, I'm not surprised to see a ten year Toyota sell for more than a five year old Ford. And the guys who buy these cars are Mexicans. They want that Toyota, not the Detroit shit.

Living on the border I can testify to this. Southern California is one giant used car/truck lot for Mexicans to buy or steal and take across the border. (Sorry if that doesn't sound 'PC', but them's the facts.) And all they want are Toyotas and Nissans - for their reliability and fuel economy. Even the Federales drive them. Sadly, that's where my mint '87 Nissan pickup went, the best little truck ever.

And why, when gas was costing more and more, did the US car makers bring out Hummers?

I dunno, maybe cause that's what people wanted? Maybe as compensation for something?? Hmm . . . scientific studies have shown that the vast majority of people make car buying decisions in their amygdala, the reptilian remnant of the brain that controls base emotions i.e. fear and aggresion.

 

[BF2K]

The debate has absolutely nothing to with racism Vinyl Boy - admit it. Bush was not a REAL Republican and Obama is NOT a real Democrat. Let's get the country back to the principles it was founded upon - small Federal government, most power locally, or at least at the State level and the freedom to be gay, bi, socialist, conservative, black or asian without the interference of D.C. where they think THEY know best. Only in the US could we have the State of Utah existing next to the State of Nevada without one trying to impose their values on the other. Those that don't agree can move. What a concept.

 

[maxcok]

I see you've moved to France. Unless you mean Paris, Texas. That would make more sense.

 

[houtx48]

Ooooooooooh.... Nicky has a friend. LOL!!.....................Nicky has a BOYFRIEND fixed that.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

The debate has absolutely nothing to with racism Vinyl Boy - admit it. Bush was not a REAL Republican and Obama is NOT a real Democrat.

LOL!!!
Real Republican? Real Democrat? Kinda like how some people speak about "Real Americans"? As if there's some set rule or guidelines to go by that aren't based on anything but stereotypical definitions?

Make it a point to contradict yourself so quickly?

Let's get the country back to the principles it was founded upon

Yeah, let's go back to a time when only white men had rights. When minorities & women had no rights, and the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution without any future concept of ever making these rights available to anyone else that was different from themselves.

The smartest thing the Founding Fathers did when creating the Constitution was making sure that it can be amended. Even if they never thought that black people would ever be anything else beyond a slave or if a woman would ever have the right to vote, at least this document is written in such a way where we can analyze and adjust it to coincide with the ever changing social norms in our society. Even they didn't assume that they knew it all, unlike so many of the so-called Constitution humpers on this board who misinterpret it like the Bible.

small Federal government, most power locally, or at least at the State level and the freedom to be gay, bi, socialist, conservative, black or asian without the interference of D.C. where they think THEY know best.

Are you just spewing random talking points at will in hopes that something sticks here?

Only in the US could we have the State of Utah existing next to the State of Nevada without one trying to impose their values on the other. Those that don't agree can move. What a concept.

I'm not trying to force people to see things my way nor am I trying to convert people either. This is an open forum where people are open to put up their beliefs, and I exercise that right... and I'm willing to defend my beliefs whenever necessary. When you decide to quote me, you call me out directly. That's your time to challenge me with your beliefs in the ultimate goal to find a middle ground. Above all, if you're going to do this... make it good. I don't care how articulate or ghetto the scribe, give me something that makes me think.

So far, you've yet to do this. Your latest response is yet another example. Right now, all you're doing is mouthing off a bunch of rhetorical garbage, defunct of any original thought or idea. I can turn on Fox News right now and in the process of 2 hours hear almost every single sentiment you just stated. Think for yourself for a change, and perhaps... JUST PERHAPS... I may be a little more civil.

 

[maxcok]

LOL!!!
Real Republican? Real Democrat? Kinda like how some people speak about "Real Americans"? As if there's some set rule or guidelines to go by that aren't based on anything but stereotypical definitions? . . .

Well actually . . . . there is such a thing as a "Real Republican", with 'a set of rules and guidelines' to follow. (And you know how it pains me to contradict you, VB.)

As of January 29, 2010, any candidate receiving funding or support will have to sign off on the party platform like any good obedient stormtrooper:

"The Republican National Committee has just passed a compromise measure on a key set of resolutions that were being offered at today's winter meeting. It would require Republican candidates to pass ideological muster in order to receive party funding. . . . . It calls upon Republican leaders - a broad category that includes the RNC, state parties and other committees - to ensure that a candidate is faithful to the Republican Party's beliefs, as expressed in the platform."

Doubters can go here: Republicans pass 'litmus test' for candidates


Thankfully, as far as I know, freedom of thought is still allowed in the Democratic party.
..

 

[B_VinylBoy]

maxcok: Touché. :biggrin:
But I think you get what I'm saying. I actually know a number of people who label themselves as Republican and wouldn't even pass this litmus test. Still wouldn't claim that they're not a "Real Republican" just because of it. The problem is, they're not speaking up and telling those in the fringe to step back. They're sitting back and allowing their party to be redefined.

I wouldn't be surprised if this starts happening within the Democrats as well, if not in such a severe way. I'm sure many "fiscally conservative or moderate Democrats" will not feel pretty welcome as we get closer to Election time. Agendas need to be pushed, and I know they're not as progressive as some of the others. Will they stick around after all is said and done? Who knows...

 

[maxcok]

maxcok: Touché. :biggrin:
But I think you get what I'm saying. I actually know a number of people who label themselves as Republican and wouldn't even pass this litmus test. Still wouldn't claim that they're not a "Real Republican" just because of it. The problem is, they're not speaking up and telling those in the fringe to step back. They're sitting back and allowing their party to be redefined.

I get what you're saying, and I don't mean to be argumentative at all, but according to the party leadership they're not "Real Republicans". That says something.

I wouldn't be surprised if this starts happening within the Democrats as well, if not in such a severe way. I'm sure many "fiscally conservative or moderate Democrats" will not feel pretty welcome as we get closer to Election time. Agendas need to be pushed, and I know they're not as progressive as some of the others. Will they stick around after all is said and done? Who knows...

I think the opposite is more likely. Those farther on the left will be marginalized in a rush to grab voters in the middle. This has been the trend at least since Clinton. Both parties give lip service to the base, but the real battleground is among swing voters. A view from the red South.