Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 4
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 10:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
No, they would probably just cut jobs/close plants as they have been doing a lot lately.

How long can they continue to do so before the company will collapse?

-Mac
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 12:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:

How long can they continue to do so before the company will collapse?


I thought you were trying to argue that the companies would change their "union cultures" rather than collapse?
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 1:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
I thought you were trying to argue that the companies would change their "union cultures" rather than collapse?

You answered that question. I asked another, different question. By the way, I mentioned both corporate AND union cultures, not just union.

-Mac
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 2:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:

You answered that question. I asked another, different question.
-Mac


My point was that corporate welfare (as much as I am opposed to it) could be used to avoid cutting jobs and closing plants. So, if they are receiving money from the government they could last a long time. If not, they can keep cutting until there are no more plants left in Canada.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 9:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
My point was that corporate welfare (as much as I am opposed to it) could be used to avoid cutting jobs and closing plants. So, if they are receiving money from the government they could last a long time. If not, they can keep cutting until there are no more plants left in Canada.

If you're opposed to corporate welfare, why are you suggesting it?

You're advocating propping up an unsustainable situation. I'm saying the situation is unsustainable because of corporate welfare. There is no incentive for GM to change as long as governments bail them out.

-Mac
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 10:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:

If you're opposed to corporate welfare, why are you suggesting it?


If you read my previous posts, you'll see why.

Quote:

You're advocating propping up an unsustainable situation. I'm saying the situation is unsustainable because of corporate welfare. There is no incentive for GM to change as long as governments bail them out.

-Mac


Of course there is still the incentive to make money. Most companies want to make as much money as possible. If the government gave me $1,000 a year, that wouldn't stop me from working hard to try to make $100,000 a year or $1,000,000 a year. Besides, if the government didn't bail them out, the only "change" they would be making is cutting jobs and moving elsewhere.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 10:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
If you read my previous posts, you'll see why.

I saw your "save jobs at all costs" rationale. I asked you to explain this dichotomy: why you claim to be opposed to something you're advocating.

gc wrote:
Of course there is still the incentive to make money. Most companies want to make as much money as possible. If the government gave me $1,000 a year, that wouldn't stop me from working hard to try to make $100,000 a year or $1,000,000 a year. Besides, if the government didn't bail them out, the only "change" they would be making is cutting jobs and moving elsewhere.

I didn't say incentive to make money; I said incentive to change.

If corporate welfare were all that keeps GM here, good riddance, but that's not the case. Oshawa's plants are consistently in the top three of all GM plants for quality, efficiency and profitability per unit. GM recently re-invested heavily in Oshawa, installing their own rail spur and their own overpass & exits off Highway 401, completely replaced their paint facilities with state of the art equipment, among other things.

Can GM afford to move elsewhere? Nope, it's a losing proposition for them on many levels. Would GM lay off workers to shake a few billion of corporate welfare out of the governments of Ontario and Canada? Absolutely. Is GM hurting, across the board, because of their corporate and union cultures? Definitely. Will corporate welfare help that? NO!

-Mac
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 11:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:

I saw your "save jobs at all costs" rationale. I asked you to explain this dichotomy: why you claim to be opposed to something you're advocating.


Perhaps you overlooked my first post in this thread?

Quote:
I didn't say incentive to make money; I said incentive to change.


What is the incentive to change if not money?

Quote:

Can GM afford to move elsewhere? Nope, it's a losing proposition for them on many levels.


Why not? Ford is doing it. Ford is losing money on their North American plants, which is why they are cutting jobs. Their plants in the rest of the world are making money.

Quote:
Would GM lay off workers to shake a few billion of corporate welfare out of the governments of Ontario and Canada?


My whole point was that corporate welfare would be used to ensure that they do not lay off workers.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 12:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
Perhaps you overlooked my first post in this thread?

I thought you were being facetious by describing your arguments as being from a "devil's advocate" perspective and nothing you've posted thus far has convinced me otherwise. If I am mistaken, my apology.

gc wrote:
What is the incentive to change if not money?

The bigger picture: avoiding corporate demise is a pretty fair incentive. If GM doesn't change of it's own accord, the corporation will eventually be torn asunder by it's shareholders.

gc wrote:
Why not? Ford is doing it. Ford is losing money on their North American plants, which is why they are cutting jobs. Their plants in the rest of the world are making money.

Yes... and the shareholders have forced them to sell off Aston-Martin. They're negotiating to sell off Jaguar and Land Rover by year's end... and they likely going to sell off Volvo in 2008.

gc wrote:
My whole point was that corporate welfare would be used to ensure that they do not lay off workers.

My point was that's a very bad idea. Laying off workers won't prevent people from buying cars. As long as cars are being sold, someone will be building them, whether it's GM or someone else. Toyota has a plant in Cambridge and is opening a new plant in Woodstock. Is it a coincidence Toyota's labour force isn't unionized?

-Mac
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 12:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:

I thought you were being facetious by describing your arguments as being from a "devil's advocate" perspective and nothing you've posted thus far has convinced me otherwise. If I am mistaken, my apology.


No, I enjoy playing devil's advocate from time to time. If it wasn't clear, my apologies. Then again, sometimes playing devil's advocate is more effective when the other person doesn't know it.

Quote:

The bigger picture: avoiding corporate demise is a pretty fair incentive. If GM doesn't change of it's own accord, the corporation will eventually be torn asunder by it's shareholders.


Why would it be torn asunder by its shareholders? For the most part, the only thing shareholders care about is money/profits. Just because a corporation is receiving welfare, does not mean it doesn't want to maximize profits.

gc wrote:

My point was that's a very bad idea. Laying off workers won't prevent people from buying cars. As long as cars are being sold, someone will be building them, whether it's GM or someone else.


But where will they be building them?

Quote:
Toyota has a plant in Cambridge and is opening a new plant in Woodstock. Is it a coincidence Toyota's labour force isn't unionized?


Perhaps not. Then again, I have no idea how wages etc. compare between Toyota and GM.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 1:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
No, I enjoy playing devil's advocate from time to time. If it wasn't clear, my apologies. Then again, sometimes playing devil's advocate is more effective when the other person doesn't know it.

It's all good.

gc wrote:
Why would it be torn asunder by its shareholders? For the most part, the only thing shareholders care about is money/profits. Just because a corporation is receiving welfare, does not mean it doesn't want to maximize profits.

Why is Ford being torn apart? Change or be changed.

gc wrote:
But where will they be building them?

Wherever the conditions are best to do so. Woodstock, for instance. Why would Toyota choose to build in Canada rather than elsewhere?

gc wrote:
Perhaps not. Then again, I have no idea how wages etc. compare between Toyota and GM.

Toyota's wages and benefits are on par with GM and other Big 3 manufacturers.

-Mac
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 12:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:

Wherever the conditions are best to do so. Woodstock, for instance. Why would Toyota choose to build in Canada rather than elsewhere?


Apparently because of our healthcare & education systems:
"Canada is attractive because it subsidizes much of workers' health care tabs, said Jim Donaldson, vice president for business development at the Michigan Economic Development Corp. He noted health care expenses for GM's current and retired U.S. workers add about $1,400 to every vehicle it makes."

"Ontario also is working hard to attract more research and development and has established a new engineering degree specifically for the automotive field"

"Ontario workers are well-trained. That simple explanation was cited as a main reason why Toyota turned its back on hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies offered from several American states in favour of building a second Ontario plant."

as well as money from the government:

"Ontario's success also is tied to a Canadian $500 million fund the province created to attract automotive projects. In the past year alone, Ford, GM, Toyota and others have committed to Canadian $5 billion in new investments in the province."

Link 1
Link 2

Now, why is Ford moving outside of North America?

gc wrote:

Toyota's wages and benefits are on par with GM and other Big 3 manufacturers.


Then how does the "corporate and union culture" affect GM?
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 1:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
Apparently because of our healthcare & education systems:

So healthy, educated workers are more attractive than inexpensive workers elsewhere? Imagine that.

gc wrote:
as well as money from the government:

Without digging into the actual mechanisms of the government fund to find out how the monies are spent, I can't offer much of an opinion on it.

gc wrote:
Now, why is Ford moving outside of North America?

Are they? Didn't your last post say Ford was investing in Ontario?

gc wrote:
Then how does the "corporate and union culture" affect GM?

The corporation is top-heavy with bean counters who are all playing the "blame game". There are good reasons why GM has lost it's dominance in the world market... and they're not done slipping yet...

-Mac
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 1:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:

Are they? Didn't your last post say Ford was investing in Ontario?


No, my last post explained why Toyota was investing in Ontario, which is what you asked. What I want to know is why you think Ford is cutting jobs in North America while they are making huge profits on their plants outside of North America?

Quote:
The corporation is top-heavy with bean counters who are all playing the "blame game". There are good reasons why GM has lost it's dominance in the world market... and they're not done slipping yet...


Can you elaborate on this more?
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 2:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
No, my last post explained why Toyota was investing in Ontario, which is what you asked. What I want to know is why you think Ford is cutting jobs in North America while they are making huge profits on their plants outside of North America?

Actually, it was a quote in your post rather than your words...

Quote:
"Ontario's success also is tied to a Canadian $500 million fund the province created to attract automotive projects. In the past year alone, Ford, GM, Toyota and others have committed to Canadian $5 billion in new investments in the province."

I expect Ford is cutting jobs because they're trying to restore profitability to those plants before the shareholders force more drastic changes.

gc wrote:
Can you elaborate on this more?

Which part? I should qualify that I'm not an expert on the automotive industry. I'm a sportscar enthusiast and I help administer a major Corvette related forum. I've watch GM's slide with dismay...

-Mac
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 4

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Libs take on Tories for inaction on economy

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB