tbh the only thing I can see in the graph is where the GFC bottomed out the market in '07
Jay could look at a line of piss in the snow and call it a normal probability plot
Decreased market share is usually the sign of an inferior product. Whether it's pricing, customer service, or the fact that Boeing is known for work stoppages at its plants, something is causing them to lose market share.Jaekus wrote:
tbh the only thing I can see in the graph is where the GFC bottomed out the market in '07
Regardless, that was like half of a sentence out of four giant paragraphs. Agree to disagree ok?
Last edited by Jay (2011-07-24 20:16:11)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
and what is your reasoning when Airbus falls below the line?Jay wrote:
Decreased market share is usually the sign of an inferior product. Whether it's pricing, customer service, or the fact that Boeing is known for work stoppages at its plants, something is causing them to lose market share.Jaekus wrote:
tbh the only thing I can see in the graph is where the GFC bottomed out the market in '07
Regardless, that was like half of a sentence out of four giant paragraphs. Agree to disagree ok?
Boeing is pumped up by the U.S. and Airbus by the E.U. Marketshare going up and down could be reflective of other things than product quality...
Holy fucking asinine nitpickery.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I am not nit picking, I said I agreed with you on your post EXCEPT for the second rate airplane part. I asked you what lead you to believe that, and you posted that chart. A chart that does not prove your point regarding Boing airplanes being inferior to Airbus.Jay wrote:
Holy fucking asinine nitpickery.
Questions of quality are personal opinion are they not? I happen to like Airbus planes better than I like Boeing planes. That chart just shows that I'm not in the minority when it comes to that opinion. If Boeing was clearly superior, it would not be lagging behind in sales.lowing wrote:
I am not nit picking, I said I agreed with you on your post EXCEPT for the second rate airplane part. I asked you what lead you to believe that, and you posted that chart. A chart that does not prove your point regarding Boing airplanes being inferior to Airbus.Jay wrote:
Holy fucking asinine nitpickery.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Oh, I thought your post was excellent. Just the graph doesn't make much sense is all.Jay wrote:
Decreased market share is usually the sign of an inferior product. Whether it's pricing, customer service, or the fact that Boeing is known for work stoppages at its plants, something is causing them to lose market share.Jaekus wrote:
tbh the only thing I can see in the graph is where the GFC bottomed out the market in '07
Regardless, that was like half of a sentence out of four giant paragraphs. Agree to disagree ok?
IMO the graph let your post down.
I thought the USA fell behind in the cars because they put out shitty designs with crappy engines, not because of manufacturing? Also I heard a statistic that companies are pulling in 65% profits and even if they used US labor it would end up being 30% labor.
It's funny when companies only care about the shareholders and figure out ways to increase profits for them and shit on the employees to do it. Unless all these corporate shills plan on moving out of our country they're going to end up with a bunch of tiny pieces of paper and numbers on a computer screen that don't mean shit.
It's funny when companies only care about the shareholders and figure out ways to increase profits for them and shit on the employees to do it. Unless all these corporate shills plan on moving out of our country they're going to end up with a bunch of tiny pieces of paper and numbers on a computer screen that don't mean shit.
There were a multitude of factors that went into it.cpt.fass1 wrote:
I thought the USA fell behind in the cars because they put out shitty designs with crappy engines, not because of manufacturing? Also I heard a statistic that companies are pulling in 65% profits and even if they used US labor it would end up being 30% labor.
It's funny when companies only care about the shareholders and figure out ways to increase profits for them and shit on the employees to do it. Unless all these corporate shills plan on moving out of our country they're going to end up with a bunch of tiny pieces of paper and numbers on a computer screen that don't mean shit.
Number one, we've had tariffs on imported vehicles for decades. This protected the American auto industry and led to complacency. The Japanese came in and kicked our ass because at the time they had cheaper labor, and their plants were almost entirely automated. Our plants didn't automate until very late in the game because the unions fought it tooth and nail. Times have changed since the 70's and 80's however, and Japanese labor costs have skyrocketed. This is why they've been building plants in the South. They circumvent the tariffs by producing in America, and they get cheap labor and shipping costs as a bonus. Tariffs, by their very nature, encourage the protected company to produce an inferior product because competition is suppressed and they feel they can get away with the lower quality or lack of innovation. It's the same concept with cheap Chinese produced products. People will buy whatever is cheapest, regardless of quality, far more often than not.
Number two, when a company cares about the shareholders, it is able to draw in capital to make new investments. If there is no return on investment to be seen, a company will have a really difficult time raising capital and it will suffocate. Caring about shareholders does not mean all profit is siphoned off and deposited into their bank accounts. No one but short term holders would profit from that. Shareholders want a viable, sustainable, long term growth pattern and are well aware that it means investment in R&D for new products among other things.
Lastly, while poor design does play a role, everyone I've ever known that has owned a Ford or Chevy has had thousands of dollars in niggling little problems attached to ownership of the vehicle. US cars have been notorious for becoming nightmares shortly after reaching 100,000 miles. On the flip side, we've all had friends that drove their little shitbox Honda or Toyota into the ground at 200-250k miles, have we not? Many of those little niggling problems stem from poor work being done on the assembly lines. If labor had no influence on quality there wouldn't be any Lemon Laws or rules of thumb about buying cars assembled on a Monday. They play the ultimate role in determining a final products quality.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
That's very racist of you.Jay wrote:
niggling
airbus has a very very steady delivery rate compared to boeing for one.Macbeth wrote:
Yeah I don't see how how that graph says anything about airplane quality.
That has nothing to do with quality though.
I can't think of any race which can do service industry better than the Chinese TBH. China is crammed with service industry already, then there's Hong Kong...Jay wrote:
China can't keep peg its currency forever, especially with the dollar weakening so drastically in the past four years. Because they have a centrally planned economy (to a large extent), they'll never be able to switch to a service based industry fast enough when they do become yesterdays hotspot for cheap labor.
Typically Fords etc are only designed to be cheap to run and problem-free for 2-3 years - the typical lease - and barely survive to 100K.US cars have been notorious for becoming nightmares shortly after reaching 100,000 miles. On the flip side, we've all had friends that drove their little shitbox Honda or Toyota into the ground at 200-250k miles, have we not? Many of those little niggling problems stem from poor work being done on the assembly lines.
This is why a cam-belt change on a Mondeo is an engine-out 10 hour job for example - it happens after the lease expired, no-one gives a fuck.
I disagree that durability is in any way related to work done on the assembly line - usually its a design issue - although fuckwad unfirable line operators can be a problem.
From my experience engineers and managers at Ford etc spend their time shouting, arm-waving, buck-passing, forwarding pointless documents around huge distribution lists and trying to work out how to blag a trip to europe to see castles and retire on sick benefit because of 'stress' at company expense.
Japanese engineers spend their time optimising the design from the start, testing, solving problems, looking for more problems to solve, retesting then assessing whether they've missed anything.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-07-25 03:35:30)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Chinese manufacturers are starting to follow the Toyota model and are looking to build factories in the US.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
They're going to have trouble finding good workers
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
How is sending money to China better than hoarding it?Jay wrote:
[No, Friedman wasn't wrong. If a nation ends up hoarding the majority of the money that it takes in it will cause inflation. Inflation causes wage spikes. Wage spikes cause manufacturers to look elsewhere. China's economy is predicated on the millions of poor people that flow into the cities from the countryside and who will work for a pittance. If labor ever becomes organized (which is starting to happen there) it will wipe out the competitive advantage they have when it comes to wages. China can't keep peg its currency forever, especially with the dollar weakening so drastically in the past four years. Because they have a centrally planned economy (to a large extent), they'll never be able to switch to a service based industry fast enough when they do become yesterdays hotspot for cheap labor.
Hoarded money can at least be loaned out at a profit, a gift which gives year after year.
Much more so than creaming off a middlemans cut once when you send dollars to china never to return in exchange for plastic crap which will be buried in landfill next year.
Friedman is an imbecile if he thinks thats how to run an economy.
Do that for too long and your economy will take 2-3-4-5 times as long to recover, as it pays the interest on loans spent on buying garbage instead of reaping the benefit from money saved and invested productively.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-07-25 04:16:01)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
got any experience with either of them to draw your opinion from?Jay wrote:
Questions of quality are personal opinion are they not? I happen to like Airbus planes better than I like Boeing planes. That chart just shows that I'm not in the minority when it comes to that opinion. If Boeing was clearly superior, it would not be lagging behind in sales.lowing wrote:
I am not nit picking, I said I agreed with you on your post EXCEPT for the second rate airplane part. I asked you what lead you to believe that, and you posted that chart. A chart that does not prove your point regarding Boing airplanes being inferior to Airbus.Jay wrote:
Holy fucking asinine nitpickery.
lol that ain't no shit.Dilbert_X wrote:
They're going to have trouble finding good workers
McDonald's got a waiver from Obamacare, GE paid no taxes last year and Caterpillar was bailed out by the feds.... Hardly the portrait of a rebounding economy.Kmar wrote:
http://i.imgur.com/CwVBR.gifWASHINGTON — Strong second-quarter earnings from McDonald's, General Electric and Caterpillar on Friday are just the latest proof that booming profits have allowed Corporate America to leave the Great Recession far behind.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
lol that aint no dont notlowing wrote:
lol that ain't no shit.Dilbert_X wrote:
They're going to have trouble finding good workers
Tu Stultus Es
I can't find the specific post, but if anyone thinks China can't do service industries or hi-tech R+D then think again.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14238345
Huawei has sunk Nortel, half screwed Alcatel and Lucent and will nail Cisco next.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14238345
Huawei has sunk Nortel, half screwed Alcatel and Lucent and will nail Cisco next.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Not to mention they dont hesitate to steal trade secrets.Dilbert_X wrote:
I can't find the specific post, but if anyone thinks China can't do service industries or hi-tech R+D then think again.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14238345
Huawei has sunk Nortel, half screwed Alcatel and Lucent and will nail Cisco next.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Receive and duplicate.Kmar wrote:
Not to mention they dont hesitate to steal trade secrets.Dilbert_X wrote:
I can't find the specific post, but if anyone thinks China can't do service industries or hi-tech R+D then think again.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14238345
Huawei has sunk Nortel, half screwed Alcatel and Lucent and will nail Cisco next.