Toyota has reported it will suspend production in its 12 Japanese plants for 12 days as world-wide demand for cars continues to take a pounding. You can read more about it here.
Still no reports of Toyota's management following the American lead and groveling to the Japanese government for taxpayer money to bail them out. Way to stay classy.
15 comments:
Classy? LOL.
I wanted to change that after, thought it sounded sarcastic and it wasn't meant to.
The double whammy is hurting even the healthiest car companies. Guess it has nothing to do with quality, eh Josh!
Once again, they're not begging their government and the Japanese tax payers for a bailout. Oil prices are hitting record lows right now and Toyota has no credit troubles. The US recession is what's hurting them.
That you can't distinguish between the situation GM is in and the situation Toyota is in is rather discouraging.
"Once again, they're not begging their government and the Japanese tax payers for a bailout. Oil prices are hitting record lows right now and Toyota has no credit troubles. The US recession is what's hurting them."
AHHHH! And would you say that GM was profiting or not profiting before the double whammy?
"That you can't distinguish between the situation GM is in and the situation Toyota is in is rather discouraging."
That you can't distinguish between the start of the double whammy and the corresponding drop in GM's profits is rather discouraging.
"And would you say that GM was profiting or not profiting before the double whammy?"
High gas prices do not benefit GM's ability to sell its product line which are filled with SUVs and trucks, and being already over-extended in credit and having capital tied up in union benefits and salaries restricts GM's resources to restructure.
"That you can't distinguish between the start of the double whammy and the corresponding drop in GM's profits is rather discouraging."
Ok, I just never liked the term "double wammy" and I never denied high gas prices and being over extended in credit as detrimental to GM's profitability. SO...you agree its discouraging that you can't distinguish between Toyota's situation and GM's?
"High gas prices do not benefit GM's ability to sell its product line which are filled with SUVs and trucks, and being already over-extended in credit and having capital tied up in union benefits and salaries restricts GM's resources to restructure.
"
You didn't answer my question. Were they profiting at the beginning of the oil crisis?
"Ok, I just never liked the term "double wammy" and I never denied high gas prices and being over extended in credit as detrimental to GM's profitability. SO...you agree its discouraging that you can't distinguish between Toyota's situation and GM's?"
I can distinguish between the two: GM is an American company that pays some of the highest wages in the country, hence driving up the average wage up well above where it would be without GM. I can also understand that the only reason Honda and Toyota pay 40 dollars an hour is the protectionist policies that allow them to do business in the US AND the high wages paid to the employees of the big three, WHICH ASSURES THAT HONDA AND TOYOTA HAVE TO PAY FORTY AN HOUR. If GM didnt pay that high of a wage, Honda and Toyota would not have to pay as much. And at this point, considering the importance of Toyota and Honda to the American economy, I would not oppose bailout money being given to them :)
"You didn't answer my question. Were they profiting at the beginning of the oil crisis?"
It doesn't matter, they were poorly prepared for the current market forces.
Anyhow, this graph http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif
shows the oil prices started to shoot up after 9/11, and continued to profit most of this decade and had lots of time to adjust. GM lost 40 billion in 2007, yet oil prices doubled in 2008 and they've reported less losses. The losses they did report in 2007 were because of the following "Special items included a net non-cash charge of $38.6 billion due to a valuation allowance against deferred tax assets related to operations in the U.S., Canada and Germany as required under SFAS No. 109, Accounting for Income Taxes." From there Q3 2007 financial reports. Essential, they had $39 billion in tax credit they were claiming as an asset, but had to write it off as an expense because they could no longer project they would create enough profit to make good on those tax credits. NOT BECAUSE OF OIL.
"I can also understand that the only reason Honda and Toyota pay 40 dollars an hour is the protectionist policies that allow them to do business in the US AND the high wages paid to the employees of the big three, WHICH ASSURES THAT HONDA AND TOYOTA HAVE TO PAY FORTY AN HOUR. If GM didnt pay that high of a wage, Honda and Toyota would not have to pay as much. And at this point, considering the importance of Toyota and Honda to the American economy, I would not oppose bailout money being given to them"
Toyota workers make an average of $25/hour as can be found here http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ath1Iy.S4k.o&refer=home
"Workers in San Antonio earn an average of $25 an hour in wages and benefits, Harbour estimates. That means Toyota may have had $30 million in labor expenses over the 15 weeks workers weren’t making trucks. Toyota’s Wiseman declined to comment on these estimates."
So Toyota does not have to pay as much. Could you imagine the US government proposing to bailout Toyota? Which politician do you think would voluntarily ask for his nuts to be cut off?
Anyway, you still failed to distinguish between the different economic and business situation of each automaker.
"It doesn't matter, they were poorly prepared for the current market forces."
WERE THEY PROFITING BEFORE THE OIL CRISIS? ANSWER THE BLOODY QUESTION.
"It doesn't matter, they were poorly prepared for the current market forces."
Yes, it does matter, because without the oil crisis the would have continued to PROFIT.
"Anyhow, this graph http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif
shows the oil prices started to shoot up after 9/11, and continued to profit most of this decade and had lots of time to adjust."
Hi, Josh! The data that I provided told a much more detailed story! People started to get spooked when the oil started jumping up 10 dollars a year. Since GM was heavily invested in SUVs and BIG TRUCKS, they were the hardest hit initially, because, *GASP*, BIG TRUCKS guzzle a lot of gas.
"GM lost 40 billion in 2007, yet oil prices doubled in 2008 and they've reported less losses. The losses they did report in 2007 were because of the following "Special items included a net non-cash charge of $38.6 billion due to a valuation allowance against deferred tax assets related to operations in the U.S., Canada and Germany as required under SFAS No. 109, Accounting for Income Taxes." From there Q3 2007 financial reports. Essential, they had $39 billion in tax credit they were claiming as an asset, but had to write it off as an expense because they could no longer project they would create enough profit to make good on those tax credits. NOT BECAUSE OF OIL."
And they couldn't make good on those tax credits because of the OIL CRISIS. We already established that they were losing big time well before 2007.
"So Toyota does not have to pay as much. Could you imagine the US government proposing to bailout Toyota? Which politician do you think would voluntarily ask for his nuts to be cut off?"
The stats I've been seeing were 40 with benefits for Toyota and 70 an hour.
"Though wages may be part of the problem, a reduction won’t suddenly make the Detroit Three profitable again. After all, the gap in take-home pay between unionized employees at Detroit Three plants and those non-union workers toiling for Japanese builders like Toyota, Honda and Nissan works out to only $2.50 an hour, or about $5,000 a year."
http://blog.macleans.ca/2008/12/18/auto-workers-make-a-lot-of-money%E2%80%94but-not-that-much/
I think your stats are for third party, parts manufacturing plants. They do tend to have lower wages. Also, it's in San Antonio. That should give you pause.
LOL, the San Antonio plant was opened to compete with GM's BIG TRUCKS, because the Japanese were clobbered by the Big Three in the area, and it was built in 2006, just before the UAW capitulated on benefits out of fear of plants moving overseas. Hence, $25 an hour. Glad I've been proven right!
"Hi, Josh! The data that I provided told a much more detailed story! People started to get spooked when the oil started jumping up 10 dollars a year. Since GM was heavily invested in SUVs and BIG TRUCKS, they were the hardest hit initially, because, *GASP*, BIG TRUCKS guzzle a lot of gas."
This started happening after 9/11. That GM failed to project this isn't the fault of the taxpayers. If market forces don't allow for GM to profit, and they're too in debt to borrow money to restructure, than they need to accept the inevitable. Its like saying horse a buggy manufacturers that didn't adjust quick enough for the invention of the automobile should have been bailed out. False. GM is building a product that has no future in the long-term and this is their fault. Peak oil isn't a new story. There are lots of people who were predicting oil was going to go up, they failed to listen and made wrong choices. Let them go bankrupt so the incompetent people will get the boot and competent people can come in.
"And they couldn't make good on those tax credits because of the OIL CRISIS. We already established that they were losing big time well before 2007."
I didn't establish that, in fact I thought your argument was that their losses didn't occur until 2007 when oil started shooting up. They couldn't make good on those tax credits because they weren't ever going make enough to be taxed 40 billion, ever.
""Though wages may be part of the problem, a reduction won’t suddenly make the Detroit Three profitable again. After all, the gap in take-home pay between unionized employees at Detroit Three plants and those non-union workers toiling for Japanese builders like Toyota, Honda and Nissan works out to only $2.50 an hour, or about $5,000 a year.""
This is only referencing wages, not benefits. Besides, even if Toyota employees were getting paid MORE than GM employees, GM still shouldn't be bailed out. They're the product of poor management decisions and the market forces have finally caught up with them.
"This started happening after 9/11. That GM failed to project this isn't the fault of the taxpayers."
Hi, Josh! It took people some time to get spooked! It didnt happen overnight! It started to happen when it was clear that the 10 jump in the price of a barrel would continue.
"If market forces don't allow for GM to profit, and they're too in debt to borrow money to restructure, than they need to accept the inevitable."
Nope, we do not need to accept a return to poverty.
"Its like saying horse a buggy manufacturers that didn't adjust quick enough for the invention of the automobile should have been bailed out."
Nope. They were not hit by the double whammy.
"False. GM is building a product that has no future in the long-term and this is their fault. Peak oil isn't a new story. There are lots of people who were predicting oil was going to go up, they failed to listen and made wrong choices."
Sorry, the entire economy shouldn't collapse because of selfish segment of the population that doesnt want to pay taxes or help when the entire economy might collapse.
"Let them go bankrupt so the incompetent people will get the boot and competent people can come in."
Had nothing to do with competence, Josh. Even the Japanese car companies are being thoroughly walloped by the double whammy.
"I didn't establish that, in fact I thought your argument was that their losses didn't occur until 2007 when oil started shooting up. They couldn't make good on those tax credits because they weren't ever going make enough to be taxed 40 billion, ever."
You are not reading, Josh. We are talking about GM, who started losing money in 2005 due to the growing concern over the price of oil. It first happened in Europe and then in North America. Since GM was heavily invested in BIG TRUCKS, they were the first to suffer.. And, yes, they were selling BIG TRUCKS in Europe. And since the Europeans are not free market idiots like consumers in the US, they stopped buying BIG TRUCKS earlier.
"This is only referencing wages, not benefits. Besides, even if Toyota employees were getting paid MORE than GM employees, GM still shouldn't be bailed out. They're the product of poor management decisions and the market forces have finally caught up with them."
No, it said earlier it was both wages and benefits. And, yes, GM employees are making less NOW.
GM and the other companies should be helped through the double whammy. It is not their fault. We should not be returning the world to a politics of poverty in the name of "market forces".
Those that fail to predict the future properly suffer for it. Whether its their fault or not, it doesn`t matter, this is reality in the life of an individual, the life of a business, and the life of a government.
I`m done with this argument, we are simply repeating ourselves.
"Those that fail to predict the future properly suffer for it. Whether its their fault or not, it doesn`t matter, this is reality in the life of an individual, the life of a business, and the life of a government."
They won't suffer if they are helped by others.
You see, this is why your ideology is inherently amoral. You don't give a shit about others, or, for that matter, yourself.
Post a Comment