I disagree with 90% of this, but it's still interesting and I still
agree with the let-the-market-solve-it idea
--
The Drive-a-Toyota Act
July 2, 2007; Page A14
The next time Democratic leaders lament
I disagree with 90% of this, but it's still interesting and I still
agree with the let-the-market-solve-it idea
Sounds like yet another case of the Beltway Disconnect, where
politicians aren't listening to their constituents. What gives any
elected official the right to scold the people that
lobbies over
American carmakers and workers. Call it their Drive-a-Toyota Act.
Foreign automakers were cheering in June when Senate Democrats
muscled
through energy legislation to raise Corporate Average Fuel Economy
(CAFE) standards, requiring that automaker fleets hit an average of
35
Does'nt cafe apply to all manufacturers selling cars in america?
DRE
Yes, but the over seas competition has already made the capitol investments in
more fuel efficient vehicles so they would out compete the Detroit manufactures
if CAFE required higher gas mileage cars is how I read the
The american car manufacturers also make cars in and for overseas markets where
they are already competitive. Also, many of the foreign manufacturers make
many cars specifically in and for the us market.
I dunno, the only reason I see them complaining is that they are less flexible
than
I disagree with 90% of this, but it's still interesting and I still
agree with the let-the-market-solve-it idea
The libertarian in me screams: This isn't a federal problem to solve! and
that's my general leaning.
But at the same time the article sickens me. Not only is it incredibly biased
+1!
On 7/2/07, Jim Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I disagree with 90% of this, but it's still interesting and I still
agree with the let-the-market-solve-it idea
The libertarian in me screams: This isn't a federal problem to solve! and
that's my general leaning.
But at the same time the
You missed the part about the unions costing American manufacturers
$1500 per car more than the non-unionized Japanese companies. They
offer minimal benefits and let workers go after each rush to market.
American companies have to pay workers all year long even during
off-season.
On 7/2/07, Jim
hmm do you have a link for this? Because if they do this, it's new
since I took Japanese and was studying the culture.
On 7/2/07, Sam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You missed the part about the unions costing American manufacturers
$1500 per car more than the non-unionized Japanese companies. They
-Original Message-
From: Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 9:06 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Drive-a-Toyota Act?
You missed the part about the unions costing American manufacturers
$1500 per car more than the non-unionized Japanese companies
They are THRIVING here under the same environment that Detroit claims is
suffocating them so much that they must move plants to Mexico (at the cost
of thousands of jobs).
I'm not saying that the Japanese are guileless angels only out to do good:
what I am saying is that they're sounding
Thanks again :)
On 7/2/07, C. Hatton Humphrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem lies in the fact that Mr Gritton just pointed out - bad
contracts. Companies today just cannot survive paying healthcare for
every person that ever worked for them for more than a year! Because
of union
12 matches
Mail list logo
