The New Reality

[Partha]

Everything I read about Rockford said that your companies sold out to larger out of state firms who then closed down your plants and outsourced your work. How is that Regan's fault?

Interest rates between 1980 and 1982 jumped to over 20%, making the dollar so strong that overseas investment became incredibly attractive. Add to that Reagan's union-busting (which made it easier for GM to start the maquiladora migration to Mexico of high-tech jobs) and general deregulation of business, and you can see why a place built on high-wage manufacturing jobs would get hit. It was Reagan who first pushed the idea of NAFTA in his campaign...sadly, it would be Clinton who actually signed the final product.

And I love the way that Embar puts the emphasis on the product development on the unions - last I heard, business executives were the ones who decide what products they're going to make.

Business execs decide the direction of the organization.. but they don't assemble the products.

No matter how great the business plan, if the workers are more concerned about jockeying for pay/benefits and less on the product they produce... expect the buying public to less motivated to purchase a product that is half-assed. The unions brought it upon themselves. No doubt about it. If Chrysler was the superior product, Americans would have bought it.

Tell me this Pwntha, why do you think American car manufacturers lost market share to the Japanese? Especially when we controlled the entire US market at one time?

Are you always this much of an idiot? It's not the unions that decided that America needed big cars and needed to push advertising for big cars during one oil crisis and before a second one. All they can do is put the parts together - which they did, and they did that fairly well. Blame management for the poor direction of the company, not the guys on the line who don't make a single executive decision.

[Jarochai Alabaster]

Business execs decide the direction of the organization.. but they don't assemble the products.

No matter how great the business plan, if the workers are more concerned about jockeying for pay/benefits and less on the product they produce... expect the buying public to less motivated to purchase a product that is half-assed. The unions brought it upon themselves. No doubt about it. If Chrysler was the superior product, Americans would have bought it.

Tell me this Pwntha, why do you think American car manufacturers lost market share to the Japanese? Especially when we controlled the entire US market at one time?

"Assembling the products" has nothing to do with the product's fucking design. Assembly line workers have absolutely nothing to do with designing and improving the vehicles they build, and you damn well know that.

The Japanese produced a superior product; it's really that simple. But you already know that. And the Japanese produced a superior product while paying their employees more than the American manufacturers do and paying their CEOs substantially less than we do.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Everything I read about Rockford said that your companies sold out to larger out of state firms who then closed down your plants and outsourced your work. How is that Regan's fault?

Interest rates between 1980 and 1982 jumped to over 20%, making the dollar so weak that overseas investment became incredibly attractive. Add to that Reagan's union-busting (which made it easier for GM to start the maquiladora migration to Mexico of high-tech jobs) and general deregulation of business, and you can see why a place built on high-wage manufacturing jobs would get hit. It was Reagan who first pushed the idea of NAFTA in his campaign...sadly, it would be Clinton who actually signed the final product.

And I love the way that Embar puts the emphasis on the product development on the unions - last I heard, business executives were the ones who decide what products they're going to make.

1) Interest rates jumped to over 20% because of the failed policies of the Carter Administration, what do you think is going to happen with Obama's policies?

2) The Dollar became weaker as a result of those interest rates, not stronger.

3) Unions themselves made it more lucrative for GM to start migrating to Mexico (because workers there weren't unionized and their wages were cheaper).

4) NAFTA wasn't even discussed until 1986. It was signed in December 1982 by G. H. W. Bush. The agreement simply became law after Clinton came into office.

Are you always this much of an idiot? It's not the unions that decided that America needed big cars and needed to push advertising for big cars during one oil crisis and before a second one. All they can do is put the parts together - which they did, and they did that fairly well. Blame management for the poor direction of the company, not the guys on the line who don't make a single executive decision.

You're right, its not Unions that decided that America needed big cars. Its American's that decided they wanted big cars by using their purchasing power. Look how many tiny ass cars and "SUVs" are on the market and American still buy larger vehicles hand over fist.

And the Japanese produced a superior product while paying their employees more than the American manufacturers do and paying their CEOs substantially less than we do.

The Japanese actually pay less than American Manufacturers because their workers aren't unionized. American Manufacturers pay more, by a large amount. This was proven back when we were bailing out GM and Chrysler. The only reason we didn't have to bail out Ford is because their situation wasn't so far out of control.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

>.<

Dollar became weaker which resulted in those interest rates, not vice versa.

[Partha]

If the dollar became weaker, explain how the exchange rate for a British Pound went from $2.44 in 1980 to $1.05 in 1985.

No, the Fed tightening the money supply (which drove interest rates up) increased the dollar's value overseas, as limited supply with increased demand is wont to do.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

...

The Fed had to tighten the money supply because there was too much in the system (much like there is now) and the dollar was already very weak. It was actually at its weakest point in 1980 vs. the British pound.

Seriously, the British pound going from $2.44 in 1980 to $1.05 in 1985 is proof that the dollar became stronger over those 5 years. For as long as I can remember (note: I didn't play with money in 1985), it has taken around $1.50-2.00 to buy 1 British pound. What you're saying indicates that it took $1.05 to buy a single British pound in 1985, which would indicate that this was the strongest the dollar had ever been in our lifetime. And when you can buy more British pounds for less money, that means your currency is stronger.

[Partha]

2) The Dollar became weaker as a result of those interest rates, not stronger.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

>.<

Dollar became weaker which resulted in those interest rates, not vice versa.

Maybe you should L2Read.

P.S.: I would've edited the main post, but I caught my error after I was able to edit.

Please, though, try to make sense out of your argument with the British Pound. The chart I linked even shows that the Dollar was weakest vs. the British Pound in 1980 and not in 1985 (and the corresponding value the Pound had vs. the Dollar prior to the Carter Administration. Funny how it devalued due to Carter's policies and all turned around after Reagan came into office even though he was, and I'm mockingly quoting here, "like omg the worst President ever").

Correspondingly:

Oct. 1, 1981 - Dec. 31, 1981 18.35% 1981-14 Vol. 46 / Sep. 17, 1981 / 46273
July 1, 1981 - Sep. 30, 1981 16.19% 1981-09 Vol. 46 / June 17, 1981 / 31804
Apr. 1, 1981 - June 30, 1981 17.74% 1981-06 Vol. 46 / Mar. 25, 1981 / 18637
Jan. 1, 1981 - Mar. 31, 1981 13.14% 1981-04
Oct. 1, 1980 - Dec. 31, 1980 9.09% 1980-11
July 1, 1980 - Sep. 30, 1980 14.72% 1980-08
Mar. 31, 1978 - June 30, 1980 9.00%

Oct. 1, 1985 - Dec. 31, 1985 9.00% 1985-16 Vol. 50 / Aug. 5, 1985 / 31668
July 1, 1985 - Sep. 30, 1985 9.00% 1985-11 Vol. 50 / May 2, 1985 / 18761
Apr. 1, 1985 - June 30, 1985 9.00% 1985-05 Vol. 50 / Jan. 31, 1985 / 4609
Jan. 1, 1985 - Mar. 31, 1985 9.00% 1985-04 Vol. 49 / Oct. 31, 1984 / 43830

[Fallakin Kuvari]

>.<

[Embar Angylwrath]

Business execs decide the direction of the organization.. but they don't assemble the products.

No matter how great the business plan, if the workers are more concerned about jockeying for pay/benefits and less on the product they produce... expect the buying public to less motivated to purchase a product that is half-assed. The unions brought it upon themselves. No doubt about it. If Chrysler was the superior product, Americans would have bought it.

Tell me this Pwntha, why do you think American car manufacturers lost market share to the Japanese? Especially when we controlled the entire US market at one time?

"Assembling the products" has nothing to do with the product's fucking design. Assembly line workers have absolutely nothing to do with designing and improving the vehicles they build, and you damn well know that.

The Japanese produced a superior product; it's really that simple. But you already know that. And the Japanese produced a superior product while paying their employees more than the American manufacturers do and paying their CEOs substantially less than we do.

Yep.. the Japanese produced a superor product. A product that was more reliable, didn't break down, had less repair costs and higher quality than union made vehicles.

Unions pushed out crappy products and expected americans to keep buying them. They were more interested in inflating wages and benefits than they were about producing a quality product.

[Harlowe]

How in the world are the unions responsible for American vehicles that didn't keep up with the Japanese in design? The unions aren't designing nor sourcing parts.

[Freecare Spiritwise]

I wouldn't blame the unions for all the automakers problems. At any company, management is ultimately responsible for the product. If your team doesn't make the Super Bowl then you can say the team had shitty players, but the primary blame is on the coaching.

No, unions didn't have a hand in the design or quality of the parts, but they certainly had a hand in building these shitty cars. There was no commitment to excellence. There was plenty of commitment to wages, benefits, working conditions, etc., but there was no actual commitment to building good cars. It was one big clusterfuck all the way from the CEO down to the janitor - everybody sucked.

Take the NFL. It's unionized (players union), but some of the teams are good and some of the teams suck. Why is that? It's coaching, baby.

Now look at the how the Japanese operated. From the CEO down to the janitor, everyone was committed to doing their part and everyone was on the same page. Everyone's impact was ultimately felt and the quality of the product reflected that, and still does. Heh, I own a Honda.

[Embar Angylwrath]

How in the world are the unions responsible for American vehicles that didn't keep up with the Japanese in design? The unions aren't designing nor sourcing parts.

It wasn't the design Harlowe. The cars weren't put together well at all. What was coming off the line was substandard work product. Even if Detroit had the best designed cars in the world, union workers would fuck it up because they just didn't care much about what they produced (overall.. I'm sure there were some that cared). What really made the Japanese cars better wasn't the design... it was the quality of workmanship. Something that had been lacking in the US automotive industry until early this decade. The UAW had a large hand in doing themselves in and creating a hole for foreign competition to exploit by simply not giving a fuck about what they produced, good design or not.

[Freecare Spiritwise]

And where was management through all of this? You know, the people who had the ultimate responsibility of making good cars and providing value to their shareholders?

Did they just throw up their hands and say "Oh well, our unionized employees are doing a shitty job, time to go play golf" ?

You make it sound like responsibility of the success of a company lies with its worker bees. I'm not a big fan of unions either but I can recognize poor leadership when I see it.

It was poor leadership (arrogance, complacency, etc.) that led to us getting our asses kicked by the Japanese.

[Embar Angylwrath]

And where was management through all of this? You know, the people who had the ultimate responsibility of making good cars and providing value to their shareholders?

Did they just throw up their hands and say "Oh well, our unionized employees are doing a shitty job, time to go play golf" ?

You make it sound like responsibility of the success of a company lies with its worker bees. I'm not a big fan of unions either but I can recognize poor leadership when I see it.

It was poor leadership (arrogance, complacency, etc.) that led to us getting our asses kicked by the Japanese.

Sure there was bad leadership.. but the companies had their hands tied because effectively, they HAD to use union labor, and the unions didn't want to change. There was simply no way around it. You those company leaders enjoyed losing market share to Toyota? Hell no. The unions resisted attempts to put some good quality control in the systems.. at least they did until plants started closing and the unions finally woke up to the fact that they better start producing good quality product or there would be nothing left for them. That's why you saw the turn-around in the automotive industry in the late 90s/early 2000s. Now, the US automotive industry can make a pretty damned good car, but they've lost that market share for good.

If they hadn't resisted for so long, Detroit might look a lot different today.

[Lurker]

I'm traveling and don't have a lot of time to discuss, but I disagree that American cars sucked because union workers didn't care and did a bad job. They sucked because the american car companies had a horrible business model that made quality control impossible. For example, the Japanese had a just in time parts policy, ordering in small quantities so that problems could be remedied before the parts ended up on cars. American companies ordered huge lots of parts and were forced to "make them work" even if they were defective. It wasn't until the American companies started modeling themselves after the Japanese, still using union labor, that quality became more equal.

[Jarochai Alabaster]

Business execs decide the direction of the organization.. but they don't assemble the products.

No matter how great the business plan, if the workers are more concerned about jockeying for pay/benefits and less on the product they produce... expect the buying public to less motivated to purchase a product that is half-assed. The unions brought it upon themselves. No doubt about it. If Chrysler was the superior product, Americans would have bought it.

Tell me this Pwntha, why do you think American car manufacturers lost market share to the Japanese? Especially when we controlled the entire US market at one time?

"Assembling the products" has nothing to do with the product's fucking design. Assembly line workers have absolutely nothing to do with designing and improving the vehicles they build, and you damn well know that.

The Japanese produced a superior product; it's really that simple. But you already know that. And the Japanese produced a superior product while paying their employees more than the American manufacturers do and paying their CEOs substantially less than we do.

Yep.. the Japanese produced a superor product. A product that was more reliable, didn't break down, had less repair costs and higher quality than union made vehicles.

Unions pushed out crappy products and expected americans to keep buying them. They were more interested in inflating wages and benefits than they were about producing a quality product.

Unions had nothing to do with crappy products. An assembly line worker's job consists of "align part, weld and/or tighten bolt." If they were given a shitty design to produce, no amount of happy thoughts on the workers' parts is going to transform that shitty design into a quality product.

You're being obtuse here and you know it. It's management's job to ensure that the product is a quality one. If vehicles actually were rolling off the assembly line suffering from poor manufacturing, it's management's responsibility to isolate and fix the problem whether that be a poor design, faulty component, or lazy employee.

[Jarochai Alabaster]

Just to add:

Unless the management is absolute shit (Read: Abusive) you're hard pressed to find a group of laborers who care so little about what they're doing that the majority of them actively sabotage their product/business (And let's face it, that's what you're accusing them of in so many words). Most laborers do their work to the best of their abilities, and if the UAW were so disgruntled with their $15-30/hour wages that they churned out inferior production, then absolutely no one on minimum wage would lift a finger, no matter how easy the job.

But maybe you're right. Maybe they really were so disgruntled that they sabotaged or critically neglected their own production. That makes it sound like a raise is in order, given we know that wage increases improve worker motivation and morale. Perhaps the execs would have agreed to a pay cut, given a single GM exec made about half what Toyota's top 32 did in one year (Includine salaries and bonuses for all). Hell, a bonus pay program for high quality workmanship would have gone a long way if what you're saying is true, and wouldn't have cut enough into upper management salaries for them to notice in the slightest.

In short: Fail business model is fail.

[Partha]

Fall, your idiocy is legend, but I want this HOF'd.

My post you originally responded to claimed that the dollar became STRONGER when the interest rates jumped - which it did.

You changed the word STRONG in my post to WEAK (Evidently in some lameass 'fix'd' attempt) and then forgot what you were doing and started arguing that the dollar became weak based on those interest rates - even though you're NOW arguing that the dollar was weakest before those interest rates spiked over 20% and became stronger as the Fed tightened the money supply.

Thanks for agreeing with me, I guess, but you didn't seriously have to argue with yourself publicly on the intertrons to do it. Shall we call you 'Sybil' from now on?

[Fallakin Kuvari]

>.<

Dollar became weaker which resulted in those interest rates, not vice versa.

Maybe you should L2Read.

P.S.: I would've edited the main post, but I caught my error after I was able to edit.

Please, though, try to make sense out of your argument with the British Pound. The chart I linked even shows that the Dollar was weakest vs. the British Pound in 1980 and not in 1985 (and the corresponding value the Pound had vs. the Dollar prior to the Carter Administration. Funny how it devalued due to Carter's policies and all turned around after Reagan came into office even though he was, and I'm mockingly quoting here, "like omg the worst President ever").

Correspondingly:

Oct. 1, 1981 - Dec. 31, 1981 18.35% 1981-14 Vol. 46 / Sep. 17, 1981 / 46273
July 1, 1981 - Sep. 30, 1981 16.19% 1981-09 Vol. 46 / June 17, 1981 / 31804
Apr. 1, 1981 - June 30, 1981 17.74% 1981-06 Vol. 46 / Mar. 25, 1981 / 18637
Jan. 1, 1981 - Mar. 31, 1981 13.14% 1981-04
Oct. 1, 1980 - Dec. 31, 1980 9.09% 1980-11
July 1, 1980 - Sep. 30, 1980 14.72% 1980-08
Mar. 31, 1978 - June 30, 1980 9.00%

Oct. 1, 1985 - Dec. 31, 1985 9.00% 1985-16 Vol. 50 / Aug. 5, 1985 / 31668
July 1, 1985 - Sep. 30, 1985 9.00% 1985-11 Vol. 50 / May 2, 1985 / 18761
Apr. 1, 1985 - June 30, 1985 9.00% 1985-05 Vol. 50 / Jan. 31, 1985 / 4609
Jan. 1, 1985 - Mar. 31, 1985 9.00% 1985-04 Vol. 49 / Oct. 31, 1984 / 43830

Thanks for not addressing this at all, Monkey.

The interest rates jumped because they pulled money out of the the system so the dollar could regain some strength. The Dollar became stronger after the interest rates jumped, not when they jumped.

Lets be honest, you clearly have never taken a class in Economics and have no idea what the hell you're talking about (and I'm only doing slightly better).