Toyota's New Billboard Advertisements
Thread Starter
Founder
SL Member
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 4,281
From: scionlife.com
Toyota's New Billboard Advertisements
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2006/...ap2675010.html
Toyota Touts Impact on U.S. in Billboards
For years the saying went, what's good for General Motors is good for America. Japanese automaker Toyota Motor Corp. has a new promotional campaign that says it's good for America, too.
Billboards along highways in areas of the country such as the Cincinnati-northern Kentucky region, where Toyota employs some 8,800 people, tout the U.S. economic impacts of the company, which is on its way to passing GM as the world's largest automaker.
The messages highlight numbers, such as 13 - "Donuts in a baker's dozen; Toyota's U.S. investment, in billions," and 386,000 - "Kilometers to the moon; U.S. jobs created by Toyota." The billboards are in some two dozen U.S. markets where Toyota has factories or supplier operations, from Fremont, Calif., where Toyota partners with GM at an automaking plant, to Huntsville, Ala., where Toyota makes engines.
"Our intent is to raise awareness of our growing U.S. presence," said Patricia Pineda, group vice president for corporate communications of Toyota Motor North America. "Our research tells us that consumers want to learn more about Toyota's U.S. presence."
She said Toyota highlights its U.S. investments and "level of commitment" to the country in a campaign that began last month and also includes local radio spots and airport advertising.
Toyota has led the way for Asian automakers that have steadily increased U.S. sales, and Toyota now has about 13 percent of U.S. vehicle sales. While GM and Ford Motor Co. are facing major restructuring with plant closings and job cuts, Toyota says it wants to expand car production in the United States, such as recently announced plans to make up to 100,000 Camrys a year at a Subaru plant in Lafayette, Ind.
Toyota's message is generally warmly received in Kentucky, where it's provided a major economic boost to the state and employs 7,000 workers at its Georgetown plant alone.
"I think most people, particularly in this area, like Toyota a lot," said Kenneth Troske, who heads the University of Kentucky's Center for Business and Economic Research. "They bring a lot of things to the community."
But the billboards can be irritating to U.S. workers with an uncertain future.
"We're not real happy about it," said Tony Currington, vice president of United Auto Workers Local 696, with members facing possible closure of a Dayton brake plant by Delphi Corp., largest auto parts supplier for GM, its former parent.
"As a result of us losing market share to the foreign imports, we're losing American jobs. It just hurts our economy here," Currington said, adding that the UAW has been weakened by Toyota's mostly nonunion operations.
"It's not the Japanese who are causing the market share decline," said Bruce Belzowski, an auto analyst at the University of Michigan's Transportation Research Institute. "It's Americans buying the Japanese vehicles."
He said Toyota's latest campaign underlines that "they build where they sell."
General Motors Corp. spokeswoman Ryndee Carney said the company usually doesn't comment on competitors' advertising. But she noted that the company has launched its own new advertising this month, with print ads describing GM's restructuring, price cuts and new products.
The ads' tag line: "At the global car company that's proud to be American."
In an April 12 speech to the Swiss American Chamber of Commerce in New York, Robert Lutz, GM's vice chairman, cited statistics about GM, Ford and DaimlerChrysler AG's importance to the U.S. auto industry and economy, saying they account for 4 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product and 11 percent of manufacturing shipments.
"People who think it doesn't matter who owns our auto industry are flat wrong," Lutz said.
But the days of Japan-bashing and "Buy American" appeals have mostly faded, said Gordon Wangers, CEO of Los Angeles-based Automotive Marketing Consultants Inc., which has done work for Toyota, GM and other companies.
"I think today's consumers, especially in our global economy, are not particularly moved by it the way they once were. I think they're moved by a good product at a good price," he said.
He suggested that most young Americans, asked their favorite car companies, now would mention Toyota. He said Toyota has had a long-term strategy of being accepted like an American company, hitting another milestone in American assimilation this year with the announcement that a NASCAR edition of Camry will begin racing next year in the Nextel Cup, America's top stock-car series.
"Those billboards are the culmination of 35 years of focus on being American in America," Wangers said. "They've waited until now to thump their chest."
For years the saying went, what's good for General Motors is good for America. Japanese automaker Toyota Motor Corp. has a new promotional campaign that says it's good for America, too.
Billboards along highways in areas of the country such as the Cincinnati-northern Kentucky region, where Toyota employs some 8,800 people, tout the U.S. economic impacts of the company, which is on its way to passing GM as the world's largest automaker.
The messages highlight numbers, such as 13 - "Donuts in a baker's dozen; Toyota's U.S. investment, in billions," and 386,000 - "Kilometers to the moon; U.S. jobs created by Toyota." The billboards are in some two dozen U.S. markets where Toyota has factories or supplier operations, from Fremont, Calif., where Toyota partners with GM at an automaking plant, to Huntsville, Ala., where Toyota makes engines.
"Our intent is to raise awareness of our growing U.S. presence," said Patricia Pineda, group vice president for corporate communications of Toyota Motor North America. "Our research tells us that consumers want to learn more about Toyota's U.S. presence."
She said Toyota highlights its U.S. investments and "level of commitment" to the country in a campaign that began last month and also includes local radio spots and airport advertising.
Toyota has led the way for Asian automakers that have steadily increased U.S. sales, and Toyota now has about 13 percent of U.S. vehicle sales. While GM and Ford Motor Co. are facing major restructuring with plant closings and job cuts, Toyota says it wants to expand car production in the United States, such as recently announced plans to make up to 100,000 Camrys a year at a Subaru plant in Lafayette, Ind.
Toyota's message is generally warmly received in Kentucky, where it's provided a major economic boost to the state and employs 7,000 workers at its Georgetown plant alone.
"I think most people, particularly in this area, like Toyota a lot," said Kenneth Troske, who heads the University of Kentucky's Center for Business and Economic Research. "They bring a lot of things to the community."
But the billboards can be irritating to U.S. workers with an uncertain future.
"We're not real happy about it," said Tony Currington, vice president of United Auto Workers Local 696, with members facing possible closure of a Dayton brake plant by Delphi Corp., largest auto parts supplier for GM, its former parent.
"As a result of us losing market share to the foreign imports, we're losing American jobs. It just hurts our economy here," Currington said, adding that the UAW has been weakened by Toyota's mostly nonunion operations.
"It's not the Japanese who are causing the market share decline," said Bruce Belzowski, an auto analyst at the University of Michigan's Transportation Research Institute. "It's Americans buying the Japanese vehicles."
He said Toyota's latest campaign underlines that "they build where they sell."
General Motors Corp. spokeswoman Ryndee Carney said the company usually doesn't comment on competitors' advertising. But she noted that the company has launched its own new advertising this month, with print ads describing GM's restructuring, price cuts and new products.
The ads' tag line: "At the global car company that's proud to be American."
In an April 12 speech to the Swiss American Chamber of Commerce in New York, Robert Lutz, GM's vice chairman, cited statistics about GM, Ford and DaimlerChrysler AG's importance to the U.S. auto industry and economy, saying they account for 4 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product and 11 percent of manufacturing shipments.
"People who think it doesn't matter who owns our auto industry are flat wrong," Lutz said.
But the days of Japan-bashing and "Buy American" appeals have mostly faded, said Gordon Wangers, CEO of Los Angeles-based Automotive Marketing Consultants Inc., which has done work for Toyota, GM and other companies.
"I think today's consumers, especially in our global economy, are not particularly moved by it the way they once were. I think they're moved by a good product at a good price," he said.
He suggested that most young Americans, asked their favorite car companies, now would mention Toyota. He said Toyota has had a long-term strategy of being accepted like an American company, hitting another milestone in American assimilation this year with the announcement that a NASCAR edition of Camry will begin racing next year in the Nextel Cup, America's top stock-car series.
"Those billboards are the culmination of 35 years of focus on being American in America," Wangers said. "They've waited until now to thump their chest."
Senior Member
ScionERA
SL Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 705
From: Red Rock, AZ
Re: Toyota's New Billboard Advertisements
Originally Posted by scionlife
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2006/04/17/ap2675010.html
Toyota Touts Impact on U.S. in Billboards
"It's not the Japanese who are causing the market share decline," said Bruce Belzowski, an auto analyst at the University of Michigan's Transportation Research Institute. "It's Americans buying the Japanese vehicles."
"It's not the Japanese who are causing the market share decline," said Bruce Belzowski, an auto analyst at the University of Michigan's Transportation Research Institute. "It's Americans buying the Japanese vehicles."
Yea, right. Maybe he could explain how his Avalanche came form Mexico and his son's Aveo is a great product of South Korea. It's true that Americans are buying "foriegn" cars, but GM and Ford can't even afford to be American companies anymore. The "big 3" killed themselves and everyone knows it. I'll consider an American car only after they are reliable, well-built machines that actually hold a portion of their value...Until then (if that day ever comes), I'll sell and own a product that I believe in... Toyota.
Senior Member
Team Sushi
SL Member
Team N.V.S.
Scion Evolution
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 4,320
From: Bangkok, Thailand
no, the "big 3" didn't kill themselves, the unions did. . . the UAW. There's no way you can run a profitable company with that kind of a cost structure. And a company that doesn't profit, is a company that shouldn't exist in the first place (in terms of market efficiency).
Senior Member
SL Member
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 325
Originally Posted by djct_watt
no, the "big 3" didn't kill themselves, the unions did. . . the UAW. There's no way you can run a profitable company with that kind of a cost structure. And a company that doesn't profit, is a company that shouldn't exist in the first place (in terms of market efficiency).
Senior Member
Team Sushi
SL Member
Team N.V.S.
Scion Evolution
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 4,320
From: Bangkok, Thailand
Well, soon they'll be out of jobs. . . it's no wonder so many jobs and plants are being lost.
It's great that unions are supposed to look out for the "workers," yet they've created a job market with absolutely no security. The "big 3" example is proof that markets are more efficient. Instead of keeping jobs in the USA, we've shipped them off to Mexico, Canada, and China.
I love how people try to bash imports as the reason why the "big 3" are dying, and how they stress the importance of buying "american." Little do they know that the destination of the profits pales in comparison to where the costs of production are incurred.
Little do people realize that CA schools are in the exact same position. We spend more per student than any other state, yet our schools consistently underperform. . . and the media complains that we don't spend enough. It is truth to the testament that throwing money at a problem won't fix it.
The only way to kill the auto unions is to let the big 3 die off. Unfortunately, I think that GM and Ford are locked into the path of becoming automotive history. There is no way they can succeed as a business, IMO. Even if they were to build the best cars in the planet, their business/cost structure would still put them in the red. They're currently the #1 and #3 producers of automobiles and yet they still can't turn a profit. And that should just about say it all.
It's great that unions are supposed to look out for the "workers," yet they've created a job market with absolutely no security. The "big 3" example is proof that markets are more efficient. Instead of keeping jobs in the USA, we've shipped them off to Mexico, Canada, and China.
I love how people try to bash imports as the reason why the "big 3" are dying, and how they stress the importance of buying "american." Little do they know that the destination of the profits pales in comparison to where the costs of production are incurred.
Little do people realize that CA schools are in the exact same position. We spend more per student than any other state, yet our schools consistently underperform. . . and the media complains that we don't spend enough. It is truth to the testament that throwing money at a problem won't fix it.
The only way to kill the auto unions is to let the big 3 die off. Unfortunately, I think that GM and Ford are locked into the path of becoming automotive history. There is no way they can succeed as a business, IMO. Even if they were to build the best cars in the planet, their business/cost structure would still put them in the red. They're currently the #1 and #3 producers of automobiles and yet they still can't turn a profit. And that should just about say it all.
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 31
From: Amarillo, Texas
I'm sure GM and Ford will survive but their days of market dominance are over. They're kinda like the Roman Empire. They did great things and conquered the world but the following generations didn't care about anything but eating and being entertained. Now it's just a little country shaped like a boot. It's happening in the US too but at least our country won't be shaped like a boot. Call me Mr. Optimism!
Senior Member
Team Sushi
SL Member
Team N.V.S.
Scion Evolution
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 4,320
From: Bangkok, Thailand
The problem is that no matter how small they get, their cost structure prevents them from turning a profit, and without profit, they might as well close shop. It would be stupid to even keep the factories open (unless the de-unionize).
Senior Member
SL Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 612
It's really simple:
Build this car:
1. Reliable for 300,000 miles with no maintenance except fluid changes.
2. Small 1 liter highly turboed motor.
3. Quiet as a tomb inside
4. Outrageous handing (.9g at least).
5. 60-70 miles per gallon.
6. 5 stars in all crash tests
7. $8,000 dollars.
You're laughing? I'm not. We're supposed to be the greatest country on earth. We're supposed to have "American Inginuity" and "American Know How."
We put people on the moon. We harnassed the atom. We figured out how the universe is put together. We won the greatest war the world has ever know, and hopefully ever will know. We have the best universities on earth.
We can't build a car obviously superior to what the nations we *crushed* in the last war make?
WTF?
If we really wanted to, we would. If the IDIOTS running GM and Ford wanted to, they would.
Did you ever see the film Roger & Me? Yea, I know the director is an @ss, but take a look at the people that were running GM then -- completely detached and divorced from the real world the rest of us live in, probably with garages full of Porsches & Ferarris.
Those SAME PEOPLE are running GM now. I assume similar folks are running Ford.
Does anyone remember what Mercedes management did after having their *fill* of Chrysler idiots? They stormed the building one moring, and threw everyone in the building out on their butts.
THAT is what needs to happen at the top of the only two remaining American Auto Companies.
Do you really think if we built cars like I described above that Toyota would sell even ONE SINGLE more car in the U.S.?
People are a lot brighter than the GM/Ford "managers" give them credit for. They buy the most for their money. If U.S. cars gave us the most for our money, we would buy them instead.
Build this car:
1. Reliable for 300,000 miles with no maintenance except fluid changes.
2. Small 1 liter highly turboed motor.
3. Quiet as a tomb inside
4. Outrageous handing (.9g at least).
5. 60-70 miles per gallon.
6. 5 stars in all crash tests
7. $8,000 dollars.
You're laughing? I'm not. We're supposed to be the greatest country on earth. We're supposed to have "American Inginuity" and "American Know How."
We put people on the moon. We harnassed the atom. We figured out how the universe is put together. We won the greatest war the world has ever know, and hopefully ever will know. We have the best universities on earth.
We can't build a car obviously superior to what the nations we *crushed* in the last war make?
WTF?
If we really wanted to, we would. If the IDIOTS running GM and Ford wanted to, they would.
Did you ever see the film Roger & Me? Yea, I know the director is an @ss, but take a look at the people that were running GM then -- completely detached and divorced from the real world the rest of us live in, probably with garages full of Porsches & Ferarris.
Those SAME PEOPLE are running GM now. I assume similar folks are running Ford.
Does anyone remember what Mercedes management did after having their *fill* of Chrysler idiots? They stormed the building one moring, and threw everyone in the building out on their butts.
THAT is what needs to happen at the top of the only two remaining American Auto Companies.
Do you really think if we built cars like I described above that Toyota would sell even ONE SINGLE more car in the U.S.?
People are a lot brighter than the GM/Ford "managers" give them credit for. They buy the most for their money. If U.S. cars gave us the most for our money, we would buy them instead.
Senior Member
Team Sushi
SL Member
Team N.V.S.
Scion Evolution
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 4,320
From: Bangkok, Thailand
Originally Posted by io333
It's really simple:
Build this car:
1. Reliable for 300,000 miles with no maintenance except fluid changes.
2. Small 1 liter highly turboed motor.
3. Quiet as a tomb inside
4. Outrageous handing (.9g at least).
5. 60-70 miles per gallon.
6. 5 stars in all crash tests
7. $8,000 dollars.
You're laughing? I'm not. We're supposed to be the greatest country on earth. We're supposed to have "American Inginuity" and "American Know How."
We put people on the moon. We harnassed the atom. We figured out how the universe is put together. We won the greatest war the world has ever know, and hopefully ever will know. We have the best universities on earth.
We can't build a car obviously superior to what the nations we *crushed* in the last war make?
WTF?
If we really wanted to, we would. If the IDIOTS running GM and Ford wanted to, they would.
Did you ever see the film Roger & Me? Yea, I know the director is an @ss, but take a look at the people that were running GM then -- completely detached and divorced from the real world the rest of us live in, probably with garages full of Porsches & Ferarris.
Those SAME PEOPLE are running GM now. I assume similar folks are running Ford.
Does anyone remember what Mercedes management did after having their *fill* of Chrysler idiots? They stormed the building one moring, and threw everyone in the building out on their butts.
THAT is what needs to happen at the top of the only two remaining American Auto Companies.
Do you really think if we built cars like I described above that Toyota would sell even ONE SINGLE more car in the U.S.?
People are a lot brighter than the GM/Ford "managers" give them credit for. They buy the most for their money. If U.S. cars gave us the most for our money, we would buy them instead.
Build this car:
1. Reliable for 300,000 miles with no maintenance except fluid changes.
2. Small 1 liter highly turboed motor.
3. Quiet as a tomb inside
4. Outrageous handing (.9g at least).
5. 60-70 miles per gallon.
6. 5 stars in all crash tests
7. $8,000 dollars.
You're laughing? I'm not. We're supposed to be the greatest country on earth. We're supposed to have "American Inginuity" and "American Know How."
We put people on the moon. We harnassed the atom. We figured out how the universe is put together. We won the greatest war the world has ever know, and hopefully ever will know. We have the best universities on earth.
We can't build a car obviously superior to what the nations we *crushed* in the last war make?
WTF?
If we really wanted to, we would. If the IDIOTS running GM and Ford wanted to, they would.
Did you ever see the film Roger & Me? Yea, I know the director is an @ss, but take a look at the people that were running GM then -- completely detached and divorced from the real world the rest of us live in, probably with garages full of Porsches & Ferarris.
Those SAME PEOPLE are running GM now. I assume similar folks are running Ford.
Does anyone remember what Mercedes management did after having their *fill* of Chrysler idiots? They stormed the building one moring, and threw everyone in the building out on their butts.
THAT is what needs to happen at the top of the only two remaining American Auto Companies.
Do you really think if we built cars like I described above that Toyota would sell even ONE SINGLE more car in the U.S.?
People are a lot brighter than the GM/Ford "managers" give them credit for. They buy the most for their money. If U.S. cars gave us the most for our money, we would buy them instead.
You lack a lot of basic basic business knowledge right there. . . I suggest you get some good books on supply and demand. . . (I'm not poking fun at you, just trying to be as objective as possible).
1. Do you know, how much it costs to put a man on the moon, in adjusted dollars? (Realize a dollar today is worth much less than a dollar 10 years ago).
2. Do you realize how much national debt we have?
3. The reason we our so great is due in part to our good financial system. We can accumulate massive debt, yet investors still invest. That is some stability! The huge capital influx is what drives technology.
4. Selling more cars doesn't always equate to higher profit. There is a threshold where producing more cars will costs more per vehicle, for every additional vehicle produced.
5. Setting the price (too far) below the market price is a stupid business move. The net effect is less profit. And because you will be building a huge volume of cars to meet a huge volume of demand, quality will fall.
6. All your requirements are feasible ( I dunno how many years it will take before we can get there), except for the selling price. $8,000? Maybe in 1960's dollars. If they were to build it at this price, it would HAVE to handicap child slave labor in India or China.
7. The demand for performance vehicles is miniscule. . . which is why many sports cars are being dropped from manufacturers lists. Do you know how many times over that the Camry outsells the Celica AND Supra put together? Do you know how many times over the F-150 outsells the Mustang? Don't forget the vast number of Mustangs out there are rental cars (fleet) to begin with. Even BMW, which is regarded to as having superior performance to Lexus, has a tiny market share. They have the equivalent market share as Mac's in the computer market (not talking about Ipods, but the computers).
$8,000 for everything you lists? I think just about anyone in the automotive business would be laughing. Say $30,000, and the Mitsu EVO is about 90% of what you want.
Senior Member
Scikotics
SL Member
N.G.S.O.
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 459
From: smarthomes chattanooga TN
Originally Posted by Ranthese
Originally Posted by djct_watt
no, the "big 3" didn't kill themselves, the unions did. . . the UAW. There's no way you can run a profitable company with that kind of a cost structure. And a company that doesn't profit, is a company that shouldn't exist in the first place (in terms of market efficiency).
Problem is, the UAW is protesting them putting plants there, because the UAW gets voted down in EVERY Toyota plant. Seems the Toyota workers put job security and a great environment over a high hourly rate and no future.
Senior Member
SL Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 612
Originally Posted by djct_watt
You lack a lot of basic basic business knowledge right there. . . I suggest you get some good books on supply and demand. . . (I'm not poking fun at you, just trying to be as objective as possible).
<snip>
5. Setting the price (too far) below the market price is a stupid business move. The net effect is less profit. And because you will be building a huge volume of cars to meet a huge volume of demand, quality will fall.
6. All your requirements are feasible ( I dunno how many years it will take before we can get there), except for the selling price. <snip>
<snip>
$8,000 for everything you lists? I think just about anyone in the automotive business would be laughing.
<snip>
Sir, you would be an excellent CEO of a Wal-Mart competitor.
Senior Member
Team Sushi
SL Member
Team N.V.S.
Scion Evolution
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 4,320
From: Bangkok, Thailand
Originally Posted by JUMBO
Problem is, the UAW is protesting them putting plants there, because the UAW gets voted down in EVERY Toyota plant. Seems the Toyota workers put job security and a great environment over a high hourly rate and no future.
Senior Member
Team Sushi
SL Member
Team N.V.S.
Scion Evolution
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 4,320
From: Bangkok, Thailand
Originally Posted by io333
Originally Posted by djct_watt
You lack a lot of basic basic business knowledge right there. . . I suggest you get some good books on supply and demand. . . (I'm not poking fun at you, just trying to be as objective as possible).
<snip>
5. Setting the price (too far) below the market price is a stupid business move. The net effect is less profit. And because you will be building a huge volume of cars to meet a huge volume of demand, quality will fall.
6. All your requirements are feasible ( I dunno how many years it will take before we can get there), except for the selling price. <snip>
<snip>
$8,000 for everything you lists? I think just about anyone in the automotive business would be laughing.
<snip>
Sir, you would be an excellent CEO of a Wal-Mart competitor.
Could they go lower? ABSOLUTELY. The stuff they sell is bought from China for pennies on the dollar, and they turn it around and sell it for $5. But hey, one look at their profit margins should tell you enough. They're smart, not stupid. Will we pay for it in the end as a nation? Who knows, that's up to debate. But this is kinda tangent to the topic. And watch what happens if/when they become a monopoly. Can you say "market control?" See how low the prices are then (if that happens).
Senior Member
Music City Scions
SL Member
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 11,808
From: West TN - Land of twisty roads
I know the big 3 better do something fast or they will be gone. They already have the oxygen mask on. They know what they need to do but the UAW has their hands tied.
They will prolly continue outsourcing all the work and just pay the UAW folks to assemble the sub-assemblies.
They will prolly continue outsourcing all the work and just pay the UAW folks to assemble the sub-assemblies.
Senior Member
SL Member
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 716
From: Dulles, VA
Originally Posted by Ranthese
Originally Posted by djct_watt
no, the "big 3" didn't kill themselves, the unions did. . . the UAW. There's no way you can run a profitable company with that kind of a cost structure. And a company that doesn't profit, is a company that shouldn't exist in the first place (in terms of market efficiency).
agreed, those guys should un-unionize themselves if they want to compete, but of course they won't because they're making serious money. I remember I read an article about the linemen making HIGH five figures. I don't remember the exact number but when these guys want to make $80,000 or so working on the assembly, what do they expect.
That kind of stuff used to fly back in the hay day of American auto manufacturing. Back when times were good and American industry was booming and foreign competition was practically nonexistant, nobody actually thought that someday things would be different.
Let us not forget, though, that at one point labor unions were entirely necessary. In the earlier days of the industrial revolution, factory workers used to get truely dumped on... in ways that you nor I could even comprehend. It's true that labor unions have played a pivotal role in bringing about many necessary changes in the manufacturing industry. My professor from a Social Issues in Management class I had last fall at Pitt, used to say "Labor unions are the bast**d child of the rape of labor by management." (I'm sorry, I know this a PG forum) Indeed, labor unions had their place at one time, but I do believe that they have all but lost thier usefulness. And we can all see what happens when they go too far.
Senior Member
Team Sushi
SL Member
Team N.V.S.
Scion Evolution
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 4,320
From: Bangkok, Thailand
Actually, I my labor economics professors would disagree with your social issues professor.
According to OUR theories, markets are most efficient when left alone. . .
Look at Asia. . . management is "raping" labor like never before, yes. But look at the average job growth, salary growth, education growth, and capital growth in Asia, particularly Southeast Asia. With efficient markets, all producers ship their labor intense manufacturing over, and when they have to compete for labor, wages naturally increase. It's happening now, at this very moment. Workers choose the environments with the best benefits and safety, and employers are forced to meet their demands, based on market driven forces.
What happens when you have artificial price controls? You either have a supply side or demand side inefficiency (like less employment, which is what is happening to GM). Cheap labor ensures a fast influx of capital. . . which is what this country was founded on.
And so what happened to GM? Inefficient labor (due to artificial wage controls) caused labor to shift over seas. . . to off shore manufacturing or to foreign companies. And as GM shuts down plants, Toyota opens new ones (on American soil) without unions. And guess what? Without artificial controls, these plants are significantly more efficient.
Remember, I'm not arguing with you, I'm arguing with your professor, so don't take it personally. I contend that Labor Unions are the bast**d child of people trying to make a quick buck. . . and of those too ignorant to understand how management works.
According to OUR theories, markets are most efficient when left alone. . .
Look at Asia. . . management is "raping" labor like never before, yes. But look at the average job growth, salary growth, education growth, and capital growth in Asia, particularly Southeast Asia. With efficient markets, all producers ship their labor intense manufacturing over, and when they have to compete for labor, wages naturally increase. It's happening now, at this very moment. Workers choose the environments with the best benefits and safety, and employers are forced to meet their demands, based on market driven forces.
What happens when you have artificial price controls? You either have a supply side or demand side inefficiency (like less employment, which is what is happening to GM). Cheap labor ensures a fast influx of capital. . . which is what this country was founded on.
And so what happened to GM? Inefficient labor (due to artificial wage controls) caused labor to shift over seas. . . to off shore manufacturing or to foreign companies. And as GM shuts down plants, Toyota opens new ones (on American soil) without unions. And guess what? Without artificial controls, these plants are significantly more efficient.
Remember, I'm not arguing with you, I'm arguing with your professor, so don't take it personally. I contend that Labor Unions are the bast**d child of people trying to make a quick buck. . . and of those too ignorant to understand how management works.
Senior Member
SL Member
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 716
From: Dulles, VA
But, you have to realize that things are much different today than they were 100 years ago. Competition is all well and good, because we actually have it today. Back in the day, when workers first began to organize, there wasn't competition (and there was no such thing as "globalization"). And given that sort of situation, the rich only become richer, and the poor work themselves to death, be it because they're 80 and still working, or 16 and got killed in an unsafe factory.
Fortunately today, we do have a global marketplace for competition, and so companies like GM are now forced to either compete with the newcomers overseas or get out of the market. Like I said, times change, and labor unions have outlived their usefulness.
Unfortunately, I don't think the U.S. government will ever let GM die, just like they won't the airlines die either. But that's another can of worms I don't want to get into.
Fortunately today, we do have a global marketplace for competition, and so companies like GM are now forced to either compete with the newcomers overseas or get out of the market. Like I said, times change, and labor unions have outlived their usefulness.
Unfortunately, I don't think the U.S. government will ever let GM die, just like they won't the airlines die either. But that's another can of worms I don't want to get into.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Pablo_xB
Scion xB 1st-Gen Aero & Exterior
19
Jan 13, 2004 09:23 PM
