BF2S Forums What will happen if the big 3 collapsed?

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

I wish scorpion was the king of the USA, under his rule I'd make $25/hr serving ice cream to people.

Actually, this how I'd do it - pay on jobs would work on a supply-and-demand basis - the higher the demand for that job the lower the pay. (i.e. all the easy/clean jobs would be high demand, but low pay, the shitty/hard/unclean jobs would be low demand, but high pay).

I think the person that cleans my toilet should be paid more than me. It's that simple.

With the exception of teaching, this is already happening... Trust me, there is no lack of supply of janitors. People regulate salaries based on how easy/hard it is to find someone to do the job.

That's the way the free market works... until unions fuck over companies.

-kon

Someone called into a radio show and gave an interesting comment. "How do they expect a person making $15 an hour to buy a car built by people each making $30 an hour?"

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

12/f/taiwan wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Because it's a shitty job (pun not intended).

Are you actually fucking serious?

Which part of "yes" do you not understand?

So a man who does a job that any brainless idiot can do should get paid as much as someone who spent decades in training?

lolololololol

thank god you don't run things

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jord wrote:

Actually a lot of the shit managers do I could do within 1 month of training. The fact that you need to spend 2 years at college, then 3 at uni to get a well paying job disgusts me. I've always made it clear what I think of qualifications anyway...

Theres a bit more to it than one month of training, you usually need an experience of and in-depth understanding of what your subordinates are doing, and some management skills which take learning as well as training.

I mean, how hard is it to be an officer in the services, all you do is walk around yelling stuff right?
I reckon a month's training should cover it.

Typically at Ford the line workers would be making close to what the engineers, with 3-4 years of university, would be making.
Also the line workers wielded a lot of power.
'How about we change this design from four bolts to two to save money?'
'Fuck you, it'll take less time so I get paid less, or my buddy will get fired - its staying as it is.'

'Can we change the work pattern so the machines run more efficiently, we produce less scrap and the plant stays profitable?'
'Fuck you, I like my breaks as they are thanks'

'Would you mind not smashing each part as it comes out of the leak tester?'
'Fuck you'
'Thank you, your job just went to Poland, as did mine'.

Making potentially live saving decisions as a military officer is different than managing an office. I wouldn't be comfortable with that sort of responsibility after 1 month. However in one month of training about managing workers and emailing contacts I'm pretty sure I'd get the hang of it.

Dilbert_X wrote:

I see, so one months training is enough to manage numb-nuts in a manufacturing facility, but not enough to manage grunts in an army.
Interesting.

You don't feel being responsible for people's lives is a little more demanding that being responsible for maintaining a profit margin?

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

what will happen? Someone else will come in and take their places as the "big 3". No big deal.

In the airline industry the big 3 used to be TWA, Pan AM, and Eastern. All are gone now and guess what, the world didn't explode.

And those big three will be based in Japan!

I suppose then,the American car companies should have spent their time and money building a quality car to compete, instead of trying to build the cheapest car for increased profits.

See, the system works.

Harmor wrote:

lowing wrote:

I suppose then,the American car companies should have spent their time and money building a quality car to compete, instead of trying to build the cheapest car for increased profits.

See, the system works.

Didn't they build SUVs because the profit margin for each vehicle was greatest?  When you build a sub-compact the profit margin is probably the smallest I would imagine.

Do you think the auto-unions have something to do with this?  I mean working for an auto company is like working the government with respect to benefits (i.e. pension).  Has the government taken over the auto industry's pensions yet?

1.  Build a car the Americans want: right now its a cheap reliable car that gets pretty good gas mileage and doesn't feel like you're trying a tin can.
2.  Innovate: come out with something that we'll willing to pay for - natural language interface would be nice
3.  Lower costs: Retool your plants so its not so specialized, this way you can change the end product without stopping production for a week as demand changes
4.  Improve safety: always make a safer car than the year prior

It all ties together, American car companies were building junk and relying on "patriotism" to "buy American". All the while Honda and Toyota was building extremely reliable cars that even cost a bit more for the same class. Still, they out sold American auto makers.

The Japanese companies had employees with high work ethic, typical American auto workers ( like most of us) think the company owes THEM something more than the employee owes the company. Hence, bullshit union work rules ( and I do not mean safety related), bullshit elevated salaries for non skilled labor, etc., crippled an already corrupt industry. It became apparant that the big 3 could no longer rely on patriotism to sell cars, that they must in fact compete to do so. In my opinion wayyyyyyyy too little wayyyyyyy too late. Thier image along with their union bed fellows are forever tarnished. It is time for a new "big 3". Hopefully, someone who actually wants to build great cars.

Harmor wrote:

I've never owned an American car.  Does not make me unpatriotic?

Susuki Forsa, Nissans 240SX, and finally a Toyota Corolla (1994 and runs well still after 14 years).

I want a 240SX but i don't know how to use manual D:

Cars my family has owned since my birth:

Isuzu Rodeo - A total piece of shit, had it from around '94 to 2003

Volvo S70 - Pretty decent, apparently ours was from a bad batch or something though so it had to keep getting repaired bought it in '99 or '00, kept it till '05

BMW 325i - Amazing, from around '03 to '05 when my mom got a deal to switch it for a 5 series

Ford Expedition - Slow, bulky, NOT MADE FOR CITY USE, uses way too much gas, was basically an impulse buy (I'll make sure not to follow my dad's example of financial management...)... bought it in '04 because we wanted a more comfortable ride for road trips... horrible decision, we bought it for like $30K used and now it's worth maybe $7K at best, dad's trying to get rid of it now

BMW 530i - Sex, from '05 to present

If the big 3 auto manufacturers collapsed, it may be a good thing.

Perhaps then there'd be a place for a few new US manufacturers with their priorities straight, their cars not shit, their unions not grossly overpaid, and their internal structure not a byzantine maze of beaurocracy and bloat.


But, what the US economy needs first is to take a long, hard look at the current "product is just decent enough not to get sued for negligence, and can be overpriced to maximize profits for the stockholder" mentality.

Did you know that a US company with public stocks can be sued by it's shareholders if they invest "too much" into quality of product and/or research & development at the expense of "too little" maximization of profit for the shareholder?
Yeah - THAT is 1/2 of what's broken with our economic model right now.


What we really NEED is for some of these "too big to fail" dinosaurs to die off.  Only this is going to be a big enough slap to get the US to think of changing it's corporate culture back to what it was meant to be. 

Customer, Innovation, and Quality -- NOT Shareholder profiteering.

S.Lythberg wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

12/f/taiwan wrote:

Are you actually fucking serious?

Which part of "yes" do you not understand?

So a man who does a job that any brainless idiot can do should get paid as much as someone who spent decades in training?

lolololololol

thank god you don't run things

If those jobs are in demand, then they get more pay.

Simple as that.

Everything else is neither here nor there.

Some people find calculus easy, some find cleaning toilets hard.

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

If those jobs are in demand, then they get more pay.

Simple as that.

Everything else is neither here nor there.

Some people find calculus easy, some find cleaning toilets hard.

You omit a major detail, particularly important to the big 3 auto makers.

United Auto Workers Union.


In a non-union environment (technical, professional, and executive workers), pay generally scales with job skills of the worker and employer's demand for those skills.

When a union is so deeply rooted in a company, as UAW is in the big 3, that union can hold the company hostage for unreasonable compensation for their workers.

It's alot like someone sticking a gun to your head and demanding your wallet.  You're not going to start negotiating a "reasonable" amount to give him.  The UAW (& other unions)  have gone far past 'ensuring reasonable pay & working conditions' and gone straight for 'soak the company for as much money as we possibly can'

Last edited by rdx-fx (2008-11-15 13:04:22)

rdx-fx wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

If those jobs are in demand, then they get more pay.

Simple as that.

Everything else is neither here nor there.

Some people find calculus easy, some find cleaning toilets hard.

You omit a major detail, particularly important to the big 3 auto makers.

United Auto Workers Union.


In a non-union environment (technical, professional, and executive workers), pay generally scales with job skills of the worker and employer's demand for those skills.

When a union is so deeply rooted in a company, as UAW is in the big 3, that union can hold the company hostage for unreasonable compensation for their workers.

It's alot like someone sticking a gun to your head and demanding your wallet.  You're not going to start negotiating a "reasonable" amount to give him.  The UAW (& other unions)  have gone far past 'ensuring reasonable pay & working conditions' and gone straight for 'soak the company for as much money as we possibly can'

Yeah, I know what you mean.

Unions are tricky - they protect the rights of the worker, but they also wield a lot of power over companies (and in this country, the government).

I don't think Unions should be banned, but they should be restricted.