| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 1:56 am Post subject: U.S. Employment: GM vs Toyota |
 |
|
GM employs 142,000+ people in the United States.
Toyota employs 36,632 people in the United States.
The sources:
http://www.gm.com/corporate/about/global_operations/north_america/usa.jsp
http://www.toyota.com/about/our_business/at_a_glance/our_numbers/direct_employment.html
Not only that, but the Toyota jobs are basically just lower paying
blue collar jobs, where as GM has 50,000 engineers working over here.
Toyota and other import car companies have brainwashed Americans into
thinking that buying their car is just as good or better for the
American economy than buying from the Big Three, because their car is
assembled over here, but that is baloney. My friends...when we buy
our cars from GM, Ford, or Chrysler, the money stays over here.
Otherwise, it just goes down the drain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 3:34 am Post subject: Re: U.S. Employment: GM vs Toyota |
|
|
The only thing I wanted to know is how paying $65/hour for people to
mow grass has any long term benefit to both management and labor.
On May 17, 8:32 pm, "Ralph Mowery" <rmowery28...@earthlink.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
I don't know about the blue collar workers, but when Ford will fire a CEO
and give him $ 20 million to leave, something is wrong with our system...
Just as with Home Depot. Fired their CEO and gave him $ 120 million. Wish
I could get fired and get my part of that.
How many of the big 3 cars are made somewhere else and shipped here ? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 8:08 am Post subject: Re: U.S. Employment: GM vs Toyota |
|
|
On Sat, 17 May 2008 18:56:46 -0700, buydomestic wrote:
| Quote: |
GM employs 142,000+ people in the United States. Toyota employs 36,632
people in the United States.
|
Toyota hasn't yet had a layoff. GMs layoffs not only add to the price of
the cars, but also to the taxpayer's burden as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ralph Mowery
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 8:32 am Post subject: Re: U.S. Employment: GM vs Toyota |
|
|
<buydomestic@usa.com> wrote in message
news:dff9cde3-d3e9-47e3-8ff5-f81d67e3aa26@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
GM employs 142,000+ people in the United States.
Toyota employs 36,632 people in the United States.
The sources:
http://www.gm.com/corporate/about/global_operations/north_america/usa.jsp
http://www.toyota.com/about/our_business/at_a_glance/our_numbers/direct_employment.html
Not only that, but the Toyota jobs are basically just lower paying
blue collar jobs, where as GM has 50,000 engineers working over here.
Toyota and other import car companies have brainwashed Americans into
thinking that buying their car is just as good or better for the
American economy than buying from the Big Three, because their car is
assembled over here, but that is baloney. My friends...when we buy
our cars from GM, Ford, or Chrysler, the money stays over here.
Otherwise, it just goes down the drain.
|
I don't know about the blue collar workers, but when Ford will fire a CEO
and give him $ 20 million to leave, something is wrong with our system...
Just as with Home Depot. Fired their CEO and gave him $ 120 million. Wish
I could get fired and get my part of that.
How many of the big 3 cars are made somewhere else and shipped here ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Gosi
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 1:13 pm Post subject: Re: U.S. Employment: GM vs Toyota |
|
|
On May 18, 11:30 am, "Edwin Pawlowski" <e...@snet.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
"why, me" <kleingt-m...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:M4TXj.1017$co7.646@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
johngd...@hotmail.com wrote:
The only thing I wanted to know is how paying $65/hour for people to
mow grass has any long term benefit to both management and labor.
Where did you get this figure from? My understanding is that the job MIGHT
be worth that much when you figure in overtime, employer taxes, benefits,
and overhead. I don't believe they get near that in straight pay.
They certainly don't, but that may be their actual cost for labor. The fact
is, Big 3 pay considerably more than the other car companies. Over the
years, the auto worker made a decent wage, good benefits, good retirement,
money during shutdowns, etc. For many years, rather than have a costly
strike, the automakers just added the cost of labor to the cost of the car
and the American public paid for it. All businesses pass of their cost of
doing business. Competition, however, paid a lot less and sold their cars
for less.
I don't know, off hand, what the actual rates are, but just as you pay $65
and hour for a plumber, $80 shop rates, the worker makes a lot less that
what is charged as the difference goes to overhead, taxes, etc.
|
The price of overhead and fat bonuses is also baked into the price of
the cars.
As they say then people vote with their feet.
That is they go to the place where they want to put their money.
It is ok to raise prices as much as you want if the public is willing
to pay for it and there is no alternative.
For some reason then GM grew to be the biggest and the best a long
time ago.
People wanted their cars and unfortunately GM thought that they could
continue raising prices as much as they wanted without continuing
making the best.
A reputaion is hard to get and easy to lose.
Lets say that GM would try to restart making quality and giving
quality service and pay attention to their customers it is more
difficult for them to regain confidence than acquiring it in the first
place.
Building up a growing company is relatively easy comparing to running
a company with a decreasing customer base and bad reputation.
Add to that if management does not face the issues and does nothing to
improve customer relations.
GM has been fighting all kinds of battles and is not winning very much
and may ultimately lose the war.
The individuals working for GM may be in for nasty changes of their
incomes and livestyles.
Who can they blame for it?
I am sure I am not to blame but that does not stop many replying to
this post now to this as if I am. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
why, me
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 2:58 pm Post subject: Re: U.S. Employment: GM vs Toyota |
|
|
johngdole@hotmail.com wrote:
| Quote: |
The only thing I wanted to know is how paying $65/hour for people to
mow grass has any long term benefit to both management and labor.
Where did you get this figure from? My understanding is that the job |
MIGHT be worth that much when you figure in overtime, employer taxes,
benefits, and overhead. I don't believe they get near that in straight pay.
| Quote: |
On May 17, 8:32 pm, "Ralph Mowery" <rmowery28...@earthlink.net> wrote:
I don't know about the blue collar workers, but when Ford will fire a CEO
and give him $ 20 million to leave, something is wrong with our system...
Just as with Home Depot. Fired their CEO and gave him $ 120 million. Wish
I could get fired and get my part of that.
How many of the big 3 cars are made somewhere else and shipped here ?
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Edwin Pawlowski
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 4:30 pm Post subject: Re: U.S. Employment: GM vs Toyota |
|
|
"why, me" <kleingt-misc@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:M4TXj.1017$co7.646@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
| Quote: |
johngdole@hotmail.com wrote:
The only thing I wanted to know is how paying $65/hour for people to
mow grass has any long term benefit to both management and labor.
Where did you get this figure from? My understanding is that the job MIGHT
be worth that much when you figure in overtime, employer taxes, benefits,
and overhead. I don't believe they get near that in straight pay.
|
They certainly don't, but that may be their actual cost for labor. The fact
is, Big 3 pay considerably more than the other car companies. Over the
years, the auto worker made a decent wage, good benefits, good retirement,
money during shutdowns, etc. For many years, rather than have a costly
strike, the automakers just added the cost of labor to the cost of the car
and the American public paid for it. All businesses pass of their cost of
doing business. Competition, however, paid a lot less and sold their cars
for less.
I don't know, off hand, what the actual rates are, but just as you pay $65
and hour for a plumber, $80 shop rates, the worker makes a lot less that
what is charged as the difference goes to overhead, taxes, etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
weird
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 6:48 pm Post subject: Re: U.S. Employment: GM vs Toyota |
|
|
Amen Brother.
Buy American!!!!
<buydomestic@usa.com> wrote in message
news:dff9cde3-d3e9-47e3-8ff5-f81d67e3aa26@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
GM employs 142,000+ people in the United States.
Toyota employs 36,632 people in the United States.
The sources:
http://www.gm.com/corporate/about/global_operations/north_america/usa.jsp
http://www.toyota.com/about/our_business/at_a_glance/our_numbers/direct_employment.html
Not only that, but the Toyota jobs are basically just lower paying
blue collar jobs, where as GM has 50,000 engineers working over here.
Toyota and other import car companies have brainwashed Americans into
thinking that buying their car is just as good or better for the
American economy than buying from the Big Three, because their car is
assembled over here, but that is baloney. My friends...when we buy
our cars from GM, Ford, or Chrysler, the money stays over here.
Otherwise, it just goes down the drain. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 8:32 pm Post subject: Re: U.S. Employment: GM vs Toyota |
|
|
On Sun, 18 May 2008 06:13:18 -0700 (PDT), Gosi <gosinn@gmail.com>
wrote:
| Quote: |
On May 18, 11:30 am, "Edwin Pawlowski" <e...@snet.net> wrote:
"why, me" <kleingt-m...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:M4TXj.1017$co7.646@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
johngd...@hotmail.com wrote:
The only thing I wanted to know is how paying $65/hour for people to
mow grass has any long term benefit to both management and labor.
Where did you get this figure from? My understanding is that the job MIGHT
be worth that much when you figure in overtime, employer taxes, benefits,
and overhead. I don't believe they get near that in straight pay.
They certainly don't, but that may be their actual cost for labor. The fact
is, Big 3 pay considerably more than the other car companies. Over the
years, the auto worker made a decent wage, good benefits, good retirement,
money during shutdowns, etc. For many years, rather than have a costly
strike, the automakers just added the cost of labor to the cost of the car
and the American public paid for it. All businesses pass of their cost of
doing business. Competition, however, paid a lot less and sold their cars
for less.
I don't know, off hand, what the actual rates are, but just as you pay $65
and hour for a plumber, $80 shop rates, the worker makes a lot less that
what is charged as the difference goes to overhead, taxes, etc.
The price of overhead and fat bonuses is also baked into the price of
the cars.
As they say then people vote with their feet.
That is they go to the place where they want to put their money.
It is ok to raise prices as much as you want if the public is willing
to pay for it and there is no alternative.
For some reason then GM grew to be the biggest and the best a long
time ago.
People wanted their cars and unfortunately GM thought that they could
continue raising prices as much as they wanted without continuing
making the best.
A reputaion is hard to get and easy to lose.
Lets say that GM would try to restart making quality and giving
quality service and pay attention to their customers it is more
difficult for them to regain confidence than acquiring it in the first
place.
Building up a growing company is relatively easy comparing to running
a company with a decreasing customer base and bad reputation.
Add to that if management does not face the issues and does nothing to
improve customer relations.
GM has been fighting all kinds of battles and is not winning very much
and may ultimately lose the war.
The individuals working for GM may be in for nasty changes of their
incomes and livestyles.
Who can they blame for it?
I am sure I am not to blame but that does not stop many replying to
this post now to this as if I am.
What you say would be true IF the Toyota model was cheaper then the |
comparable offerings from the big three, but it is not. In many cases
it is actually more expensive.
--
"Before all else, be armed" -- Machiavelli |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 8:42 pm Post subject: Re: U.S. Employment: GM vs Toyota |
|
|
On Sun, 18 May 2008 07:30:28 -0400, "Edwin Pawlowski" <esp@snet.net>
wrote:
| Quote: |
"why, me" <kleingt-misc@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:M4TXj.1017$co7.646@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
johngdole@hotmail.com wrote:
The only thing I wanted to know is how paying $65/hour for people to
mow grass has any long term benefit to both management and labor.
Where did you get this figure from? My understanding is that the job MIGHT
be worth that much when you figure in overtime, employer taxes, benefits,
and overhead. I don't believe they get near that in straight pay.
They certainly don't, but that may be their actual cost for labor. The fact
is, Big 3 pay considerably more than the other car companies. Over the
years, the auto worker made a decent wage, good benefits, good retirement,
money during shutdowns, etc. For many years, rather than have a costly
strike, the automakers just added the cost of labor to the cost of the car
and the American public paid for it. All businesses pass of their cost of
doing business. Competition, however, paid a lot less and sold their cars
for less.
But that is all past-tense. Compare a Toyota model offering to a |
comparable model from any of the big-three and there is no cost
savings in purchase price. However, where savings may come into play
is in overall "lifetime" ownership costs.
For a long time the Japanese dumped a lot of their products in our
marketplace and the average American consumer buys based on purchase
cost. Do you think that Wal-Mart shoppers give any consideration to
the fact that the products they are purchasing come from China and
have put American workers out of jobs?
When the American factory worker looses his or her job they cannot buy
the products made by other factory workers which of course leads to
those workers loosing their jobs as well. All-in-all you end up with
a toilet spiral with everything going down the shitter and nobody
having the monies to buy goods & services. The more the American
worker/consumer turns to imported products because of their price, the
more they are putting their own job at risk.
| Quote: |
I don't know, off hand, what the actual rates are, but just as you pay $65
and hour for a plumber, $80 shop rates, the worker makes a lot less that
what is charged as the difference goes to overhead, taxes, etc.
Anyone who owns their own business is more then aware of this. The |
cost of carrying an employee greatly exceeds just what the employee
makes as a hourly rate. The greater the tax burden, mandated
government costs such as medical care, minimum wages, and so forth
that we put on the business the greater said burden. All of these
costs are simply based onto the consumer. Many people just don't seem
to understand that business do not pay taxes, they collect them. Any
tax burden is built into the products & services they sell.
--
"Before all else, be armed" -- Machiavelli |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
JoeSpareBedroom
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 8:46 pm Post subject: Re: U.S. Employment: GM vs Toyota |
|
|
<buydomestic@usa.com> wrote in message
news:dff9cde3-d3e9-47e3-8ff5-f81d67e3aa26@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
GM employs 142,000+ people in the United States.
Toyota employs 36,632 people in the United States.
The sources:
http://www.gm.com/corporate/about/global_operations/north_america/usa.jsp
http://www.toyota.com/about/our_business/at_a_glance/our_numbers/direct_employment.html
Not only that, but the Toyota jobs are basically just lower paying
blue collar jobs, where as GM has 50,000 engineers working over here.
Toyota and other import car companies have brainwashed Americans into
thinking that buying their car is just as good or better for the
American economy than buying from the Big Three, because their car is
assembled over here, but that is baloney. My friends...when we buy
our cars from GM, Ford, or Chrysler, the money stays over here.
Otherwise, it just goes down the drain.
|
Sometimes when you own an American car, other money goes down the drain,
like your own income. My first two cars were Fords, and they were broken so
often that it affected my ability to get to work. I'll stick with cars that
continue to operate dependably, and don't have stupid problems when they're
still "young". Toyota, in other words.
You will now point out that no car is without problems. Don't bother. That's
obvious, but does nothing to support your opinion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Edwin Pawlowski
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 10:44 pm Post subject: Re: U.S. Employment: GM vs Toyota |
|
|
<Zomby-Woof@cox.net> wrote in message
| Quote: |
But that is all past-tense. Compare a Toyota model offering to a
comparable model from any of the big-three and there is no cost
savings in purchase price. However, where savings may come into play
is in overall "lifetime" ownership costs.
For a long time the Japanese dumped a lot of their products in our
marketplace and the average American consumer buys based on purchase
cost. Do you think that Wal-Mart shoppers give any consideration to
the fact that the products they are purchasing come from China and
have put American workers out of jobs?
|
Correct on the past tense. Why should they sell their cars for less when
people (be it right or wrong) as willing to pay more for them. Right now,
Hyundai wants to build a customer base and they sell good cars for a lot
less. Toyota and Honda have good reputations as perceived by the customer
so they have no reason to price cut. Frankly, unless I had a cost analysis
of both I can't say if the cars cost more of less to build or if the quality
of some material are any better.
| Quote: |
When the American factory worker looses his or her job they cannot buy
the products made by other factory workers which of course leads to
those workers loosing their jobs as well. All-in-all you end up with
a toilet spiral with everything going down the shitter and nobody
having the monies to buy goods & services. The more the American
worker/consumer turns to imported products because of their price, the
more they are putting their own job at risk.
|
The perception of a good deal is what keeps some companies in business.
People actually think they are saving money shopping at big box stores but
the local merchants often sell identical products for the same or even less
and have a selection of items the big box stores won't bother with. Price
is the driving factor and as consumers, we want to save money no matter how
much it costs to do so.
| Quote: |
costs are simply based onto the consumer. Many people just don't seem
to understand that business do not pay taxes, they collect them. Any
tax burden is built into the products & services they sell.
|
Don't get me started. Tax the homeowner and they scream at the town
meeting. Pass those same taxes on to business and no one cares. Or the town
wants a project done and our leaders say not to worry, the state is paying
for it. There are many incredibly stupid people in this country that have no
idea who pays for what. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
ron
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 10:59 pm Post subject: Re: U.S. Employment: GM vs Toyota |
|
|
Say it isn't true Zomby! I keep hearing that Obama and Clinton and to a
tiny bit lesser degree McCain that the "Government" will pay for everything!
I used to be a heavy construction estimator/engineer before I went to work
for the government!! I always used about 150% of base wage to cover workers
comp, OH, taxes, SSA, FICA, union fringes etc to figure labor cost - this
was in the 60's! I am sure with the crap added to the employer the cost is
more now. By the way I think Toyota dealer shop rate is about 105/hr, here
but haven't paid attention to it recently.
Ron in Ca |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
David Z
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 12:27 am Post subject: Re: U.S. Employment: GM vs Toyota |
|
|
<Zomby-Woof@cox.net> wrote in message
news:p1j034ljsceio38s8jjp3l4dq469929p7k@4ax.com...
| Quote: |
Compare a Toyota model offering to a
comparable model from any of the big-three and there is no cost
savings in purchase price. However, where savings may come into
play is in overall "lifetime" ownership costs.
|
Reliability and engineering are key factors for me. It's hard to put a
price on knowing that (1) each time you get in your car it will perform as
expected, and (2) you won't spend hours out of your day in car repair mode.
In the early 80s, I bought my last American-branded car. I lived in Detroit
and had to drive to my clients' offices on occasion, many of them in the
auto industry. At the time, Japanese cars had earned a reputation for
better reliability, but I thought I would give the US car companies a chance
to catch up before buying foreign. To my amazement, they never did.
When I bought my first Japanese-made car in the late 80s (1987 Acura Legend
Coupe), it was already quite common to see a variety of foreign cars in the
employee parking lots of auto-related companies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Edwin Pawlowski
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 12:32 am Post subject: Re: U.S. Employment: GM vs Toyota |
|
|
"David Z" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
| Quote: |
At the time, Japanese cars had earned a reputation for better
reliability, but I thought I would give the US car companies a chance to
catch up before buying foreign. To my amazement, they never did.
|
Sure they did, in the early 90's. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
104 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
