Ford to slash production by 21%

[ekpolk]

Why are you guys talking about unions at all? Hoot, I'm sure Ford management appreciates having you to help distract people from their grievous errors in judgment. Exactly how is it the unions' fault that Ford's management has been making idiotic product line choices, which have led customers to turn their backs in droves? As if it's the union's fault Ford is trying to push Excursions, Expeditions, and Explorers into a market that is evaporating like a parking lot puddle in Phoenix. Perhaps your success is more attributable to your ability to leave hickeys upon the posteriors of your masters, than it is your work ethic. . .

Disclaimer: I am not a member of any union.

 

[Hootbro]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ekpolk:
..... Perhaps your success is more attributable to your ability to leave hickeys upon the posteriors of your masters, than it is your work ethic. . .

......

---

To berate those who show success is a sign of jealousy.

Not knowing how they succeed is a sign of ignorance. Guessing and being wrong shows stupidity.

Part of my "success" among my peers and superiors is telling it like it is but with diplomacy. Not sugar coating a subject to protect someone's feelings.

For the record, "larryL" on the first page brought up the "Union" thing. Like everybody else, I just expressed my opinion on it. The stronger minds see it just for that, whether they agree is personal choice.

Also, the terms like "your master" and other like phrases, are very Marxist dogma that is spewed and repeated for the uneducated masses to lap up. Usually used to try and show a social class division that really does not exist to the extreme it is portrayed.

Hootbro

 

[jmacmaster]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vortec_4300:
Unions are a bad idea simply because they create an artificial price floor that increases the cost of business from that supported by the free market.

---

An artificial price FLOOR? A floor price is a LOW price. How can an artificial price floor INCREASE the cost? You obviously have not thought about what you said. I'm sure that you meant to say that unions RAISE the price. That said, many things affect the price of a product or service. You can't pick one thing and blame it for a price rise of the product or service. PLEASE inform yourself on economics, and THEN reenter this discussion.

And don't parrot the "free market" slogan to us. We do not have a free market, and anyone who knows about modern economics and about how markets work in today's world knows this. People like you, who constantly invoke the "free market", don't know what they are talking about. There has never been a free market. A free market is an idealistic construction of economists. It has never existed in the real world, because the market has always been tinkered with by employers, unions, and governments.

 

[brianl703]

One example I like to think about is how Home Depot can sell a 1000 foot roll of USA-made Cat5e cable for about $55 and CDW can sell a 1000 foot roll of Chinese-made Cat5e cable for $100.

If labor costs are the only factor, shouldn't the Chinese-made cable be cheaper?

Both cables are riser-rated and the USA made cable includes a ripcord--the Chinese cable doesn't.

 

[jmacmaster]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Volvohead:
Here's another clue to the puzzle for the economics students:

The American business model has always been a purely microeconomic creature of very narrow scope and purpose. What fundamental change, substantially occuring after the Second World War, allowed that narrow microeconomic model to finally directly affect macroeconomic scale changes?

MY ANSWER IS A CONCENTRATION ON SHORT TERM INCREASE IN PROFITS, TO THE EXCLUSION OF A CONCERN FOR LONG TERM GAINS IN PRODUCTION, EXPANSION, AND RETURN ON INVESTMENT.

And more importantly, what essential macroeconomic element does the American business model ignore?

IT IGNORES THE FACT THAT MACROECONOMICS DOES NOT EXPLAIN EVERYTHING AND THAT MICROECONOMICS, AND OTHER FACTORS, MUST ALSO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.

Students of Keynesian theory, of Galbraith and of Marx will readily know the answers.

---

 

[Hootbro]

quote:

---

Originally posted by brianl703:
One example I like to think about is how Home Depot can sell a 1000 foot roll of USA-made Cat5e cable for about $55 and CDW can sell a 1000 foot roll of Chinese-made Cat5e cable for $100.

If labor costs are the only factor, shouldn't the Chinese-made cable be cheaper?

Both cables are riser-rated and the USA made cable includes a ripcord--the Chinese cable doesn't.

---

Labor cost are not the only factor. Many thing can factor in like economy of scale, distribution cost and really how much the vendor wants to mark up for profit. HD can probably move more CAT5 cable in a day than CDW does in a week. CDW just may choose to mark up higher and still make a higher or like profit but move less product. FWIW, I have found CDW to be way pricey anyways and they mainly cater to a corporate buyer more than lower level consumer retail.

Hootbro

 

[jmacmaster]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hootbro:
I see I have struck a nerve with jmacmaster. I will regress from taking his baited comments and not lash out.

OF COURSE YOU WILL, SINCE YOU HAVE NOTHING INTELLIGENT TO SAY ON THE SUBJECT. JMAC.

Since he can only stand on the grounds of making assumptions of my viewpoints by generalizations and discredit my viewpoint by being the grammer police.

Funny how I am ****ed for breaking from a Union and being a success without them.

Unions are the new organized crime with most members not seeing the big picture or asking the right questions of their union stewards and Union leadership at the national level. I have seen the threats and intimidation Unions exert on their membership to keep their masses toeing the line. Up to threats of physical violence and MURDER.

A study of the American Communist Party will show how they have always tried to align themselves with Union movement in America over the years with not much success.

Hootbro

---

This kind of tripe is hardly worth answering. I will only say that he: (1) does not answer my points and relies on innuendo; (2) attacks what he thinks are my motives, instead of responding to the facts that I presented; and (3) yet again invokes the pathetic idea that if you don't agree with him you must be a commie. AND, it has apparently not dawned on him that the communist movement was discredited worldwide in the late 1980's, with the fall of the Soviet Union and its Eastern European satelites. So its no longer valid to invoke the boring and obsolete refrain that "you must be a commie", since you don't agree with my politics. Grow up, and get with the history of what's happened in the world over the past 20 years.

As to the problems with the union movement, I have freely admitted to them, but on the whole, the movement benefits workers.

As to his reference to a "study of the American Communist Party", I have studied politics, political theory, political philosphy, and history, since the late 1950's, and have read hundreds of books on the subject. I'd love to know what HIS study of the American Communist Party consists of.

Yo, Hootbro, would you like to detail and compare
your political and historical studies to mine?

 

[ekpolk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hootbro:
(...snip...)

---

To berate those who show success is a sign of jealousy.

Not knowing how they succeed is a sign of ignorance. Guessing and being wrong shows stupidity.

Part of my "success" among my peers and superiors is telling it like it is but with diplomacy. Not sugar coating a subject to protect someone's feelings.

For the record, "larryL" on the first page brought up the "Union" thing. Like everybody else, I just expressed my opinion on it. The stronger minds see it just for that, whether they agree is personal choice.

Also, the terms like "your master" and other like phrases, are very Marxist dogma that is spewed and repeated for the uneducated masses to lap up. Usually used to try and show a social class division that really does not exist to the extreme it is portrayed.

Hootbro [/QUOTE]

Hoot:

1) You state, "To berate those who show success is a sign of jealousy."

I'm a Colonel in the Marines, and before I got recalled to active duty back in 2003, I was doing quite nicely in my law practice. I'm glad for you that you're that you're happy with how things have turned out for you. That said, you've got nothing I need, covet, or feel jealous about. And for one who's so concerned about being "berated", you're showing a remarkable lack of respect for others.

2. I didn't say that you were the first to bring up unions. But you do seem only too happy to pick that ball up and run with it. And deciding that you "how it is" isn't being diplomatic -- it's simple arrogance. Yep, that's an effective way to get people working together.

3. Maxist dogma? Now that is a hoot, at least as applied to me. While the term "your masters" may be a tad on the undiplomatic side (but hey, you invited that), let's face it, the company guys whose number one goal is to eliminate organized labor are just that, whatever you choose to call them.

There's a reason I choose to run my own small business (when the USMC doesn't own me...) -- and in doing so, I can appreciate both sides of the labor arguments. As an owner, I very well realize that, if you're a stand-alone non-union employee, I can flick you away, on a whim, without a second thought. Yeah, that's a nice secure, enjoyable place to be, but if that's OK for you, so be it.

EDIT: But hey, I digress, this thread really isn't about labor at all. It's about Ford management, and the really poor product line decisions they've been making. Bold moves? Oh yeah, run the company, a respected American icon, boldly into the ground. . .

[ August 22, 2006, 11:37 PM: Message edited by: ekpolk ]

 

[milwaukee]

All the goofy (mis)use of the QUOTE feature can ruin a post.

I see it on ubb sites I frequent where an entire post is a quoted and nothing else.

Too much drinking while trying to respond?

 

[milwaukee]

My opinion is that Unions screwed themselves and when Ford and GM dump the unions and get on a level playing field with the "darling's of the sheeple" auto makers like Honda and Toyota (using 10-14 dollar and hour southern USA labor as opposed to 45-60/hr labor the unions charge) that the so called "quality gap" will no longer be in play.

 

[Hootbro]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jmacmaster:
Yo, Hootbro, would you like to detail and compare
your political and historical studies to mine? [/QB]

---

To what logical end? Your version or my version of perception? My formal education has been History with a minor in Political Science, so we could go round and round, tit for tat till the cows come home.

I gladly debate you anyday but this is still a oil forum and eventually this thread is gonna get locked.

Your stated timeline is dating yourself so I am starting to get a better picture of who I am dealing/debating with. Also, your capitalized responses to my post are what I have expected. They discount without much substance. I take it you are a personality that has to win even when there is no real winner but just different opinions?

I am boring of you as I am sure you are boring of me. There comes a point were self reflection takes place and then you realize you are being played or toyed with. Further commentary then just makes it evident to others that this is so.

Hootbro

[ August 23, 2006, 12:08 AM: Message edited by: Hootbro ]

 

[ekpolk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by milwaukee:
My opinion is that Unions screwed themselves (...snip...)

---

Nope, unions haven't exactly been playing their cards very well for the last couple of decades. So, does this fact absolve Ford of its responsibility for deciding to grossly overemphasize Excursions, Expeditions, and Explorers? Wait, I know -- two wrongs DO make a right! The foolishness of union leadership makes it OK for Ford executives to make one stupid product line decision after another. Perhaps Ford is fortunate that they're not cutting producton by 100% instead of "just" 21.

 

[ekpolk]

Ford didn't seem to be collapsing because of the unions when customers were happily and willingly forking over their cash for F-150s and Excursions. Now that a full tank for some of these impractical beasts costs at or above $100, and customers are staying away in droves, suddenly the unions are killing Ford and GM??? It is beyond question that the unions have their problems, some big ones in fact, but they're not to blame for the current predicament in which Ford finds itself. Ford painted itself squarely into a corner with their own greedy and foolish product line decisions. It's a real shame that hard-working "little guys" are the ones who are going to bear the brunt for management's shortsighted idiocy.

 

[Hootbro]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ekpolk:


I'm a Colonel in the Marines, .........

---

I respect you for your continued service to our country and have my thanks.

I still respectfully disagree with you about your assumptions of my "arrogance". To some that could be confidence. Depends on perceptions of leading and being lead. Being a former honorable discharged veteran myself, I can understand your view and not use to being challenged but having your view taken as gospel.

People need to respect that this is still just some internet forum and the worlds economic problems will be solved with this thread

Regards,

Hootbro

 

[Vortec_4300]

Unions are a bad idea simply because they create an artificial price floor that increases the cost of business from that supported by the free market.

Anyone who has ever had Econ 101 (and remembers the supply-demand curve, and the effects of price ceilings/floors on those curves) will understand that this is a bad idea.

 

[ekpolk]

Actually, I took macro-, micro-, and several other economics classes, and did quite well in all of them. The flaw in your reasoning, Vortec, is that you're looking at one factor in isolation, and trying to disconnect it from dozens, if not hundreds, of other factors that all bear on what happens in the long run. Again, I'm amazed that people are blaming labor while Ford is stuck pushing a bunch of vehicles that suddenly no one wants. Plug a sudden, massive drop in demand into that old supply and demand curve thing and see what happens. Prices, and Ford's income, will be plunging into the abyss, I think. . .

 

[jmacmaster]

As Hootbro just said:

"People need to respect that this is still just some internet forum."

I agree, and call for a closing or locking of this thread. I've had my say, and have, perhaps, in heat of the argument, said more than I should have said, which is not uncommon for me. In any case, I'm out of this thread. My regards to Hootbro, ekpolk, and the rest of the posters on this thread.

 

[brianl703]

What? You mean people aren't lining up around the block to spend $5 in gas to go 25 miles?

 

[LarryL]

Would Ford's sales would go up if more employees had enough confidence in the products to buy one for themselves. If these union workers are not buying Fords, do they know something we don't. If one worker does a better job, does it get him/her anything but grief? After all, it's a union job. Isn't that the union motto, same wage for everyone, but pay your dues.

 

[1sttruck]

"Unions also don't engineer **** like the TFI-IV and the self-destructing Taurus transmissions."

True. And companies without unions can still design vehicles that cost twice as much and have trannies that last half as long, like a co-worker's Acura that needed a new tranny at 35k miles :^)