Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 35
Discuss U.S. Employment: GM vs Toyota in the alt.autos.pontiac forum at Car Dealer Forums; GM employs 142,000+ people in the United States. Toyota employs 36,632 people in the United ...
  1. #1
    buydomestic@usa.com
    Guest

    Default U.S. Employment: GM vs Toyota

    GM employs 142,000+ people in the United States.
    Toyota employs 36,632 people in the United States.

    The sources:
    http://www.gm.com/corporate/about/gl...merica/usa.jsp
    http://www.toyota.com/about/our_busi...mployment.html

    Not only that, but the Toyota jobs are basically just lower paying
    blue collar jobs, where as GM has 50,000 engineers working over here.
    Toyota and other import car companies have brainwashed Americans into
    thinking that buying their car is just as good or better for the
    American economy than buying from the Big Three, because their car is
    assembled over here, but that is baloney. My friends...when we buy
    our cars from GM, Ford, or Chrysler, the money stays over here.
    Otherwise, it just goes down the drain.

  2. #2
    Ralph Mowery
    Guest

    Default Re: U.S. Employment: GM vs Toyota


    <buydomestic@usa.com> wrote in message
    news:dff9cde3-d3e9-47e3-8ff5-f81d67e3aa26@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
    > GM employs 142,000+ people in the United States.
    > Toyota employs 36,632 people in the United States.
    >
    > The sources:
    > http://www.gm.com/corporate/about/gl...merica/usa.jsp
    > http://www.toyota.com/about/our_busi...mployment.html
    >
    > Not only that, but the Toyota jobs are basically just lower paying
    > blue collar jobs, where as GM has 50,000 engineers working over here.
    > Toyota and other import car companies have brainwashed Americans into
    > thinking that buying their car is just as good or better for the
    > American economy than buying from the Big Three, because their car is
    > assembled over here, but that is baloney. My friends...when we buy
    > our cars from GM, Ford, or Chrysler, the money stays over here.
    > Otherwise, it just goes down the drain.


    I don't know about the blue collar workers, but when Ford will fire a CEO
    and give him $ 20 million to leave, something is wrong with our system...
    Just as with Home Depot. Fired their CEO and gave him $ 120 million. Wish
    I could get fired and get my part of that.

    How many of the big 3 cars are made somewhere else and shipped here ?



  3. #3
    Hachiroku ハチロク
    Guest

    Default Re: U.S. Employment: GM vs Toyota

    On Sat, 17 May 2008 18:56:46 -0700, buydomestic wrote:

    >
    > GM employs 142,000+ people in the United States. Toyota employs 36,632
    > people in the United States.



    Toyota hasn't yet had a layoff. GMs layoffs not only add to the price of
    the cars, but also to the taxpayer's burden as well.



  4. #4
    why, me
    Guest

    Default Re: U.S. Employment: GM vs Toyota

    johngdole@hotmail.com wrote:
    > The only thing I wanted to know is how paying $65/hour for people to
    > mow grass has any long term benefit to both management and labor.
    >

    Where did you get this figure from? My understanding is that the job
    MIGHT be worth that much when you figure in overtime, employer taxes,
    benefits, and overhead. I don't believe they get near that in straight pay.
    >
    > On May 17, 8:32 pm, "Ralph Mowery" <rmowery28...@earthlink.net> wrote:
    >> I don't know about the blue collar workers, but when Ford will fire a CEO
    >> and give him $ 20 million to leave, something is wrong with our system...
    >> Just as with Home Depot. Fired their CEO and gave him $ 120 million. Wish
    >> I could get fired and get my part of that.
    >>
    >> How many of the big 3 cars are made somewhere else and shipped here ?

    >


  5. #5
    Edwin Pawlowski
    Guest

    Default Re: U.S. Employment: GM vs Toyota


    "why, me" <kleingt-misc@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:M4TXj.1017$co7.646@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
    > johngdole@hotmail.com wrote:
    >> The only thing I wanted to know is how paying $65/hour for people to
    >> mow grass has any long term benefit to both management and labor.
    >>

    > Where did you get this figure from? My understanding is that the job MIGHT
    > be worth that much when you figure in overtime, employer taxes, benefits,
    > and overhead. I don't believe they get near that in straight pay.


    They certainly don't, but that may be their actual cost for labor. The fact
    is, Big 3 pay considerably more than the other car companies. Over the
    years, the auto worker made a decent wage, good benefits, good retirement,
    money during shutdowns, etc. For many years, rather than have a costly
    strike, the automakers just added the cost of labor to the cost of the car
    and the American public paid for it. All businesses pass of their cost of
    doing business. Competition, however, paid a lot less and sold their cars
    for less.

    I don't know, off hand, what the actual rates are, but just as you pay $65
    and hour for a plumber, $80 shop rates, the worker makes a lot less that
    what is charged as the difference goes to overhead, taxes, etc.



  6. #6
    Gosi
    Guest

    Default Re: U.S. Employment: GM vs Toyota

    On May 18, 11:30*am, "Edwin Pawlowski" <e...@snet.net> wrote:
    > "why, me" <kleingt-m...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    >
    > news:M4TXj.1017$co7.646@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
    >
    > > johngd...@hotmail.com wrote:
    > >> The only thing I wanted to know is how paying $65/hour for people to
    > >> mow grass has any long term benefit to both management and labor.

    >
    > > Where did you get this figure from? My understanding is that the job MIGHT
    > > be worth that much when you figure in overtime, employer taxes, benefits,
    > > and overhead. I don't believe they get near that in straight pay.

    >
    > They certainly don't, but that *may be their actual cost for labor. The fact
    > is, Big 3 pay considerably more than the other car companies. *Over the
    > years, the auto worker made a decent wage, good benefits, good retirement,
    > money during shutdowns, etc. *For many years, rather than have a costly
    > strike, the automakers just added the cost of labor to the cost of the car
    > and the American public paid for it. *All businesses pass of their cost of
    > doing business. *Competition, however, paid a lot less and sold their cars
    > for less.
    >
    > I don't know, off hand, what the actual rates are, but just as you pay $65
    > and hour for a plumber, $80 shop rates, the worker makes a lot less that
    > what is charged as the difference goes to overhead, taxes, etc.


    The price of overhead and fat bonuses is also baked into the price of
    the cars.
    As they say then people vote with their feet.
    That is they go to the place where they want to put their money.
    It is ok to raise prices as much as you want if the public is willing
    to pay for it and there is no alternative.
    For some reason then GM grew to be the biggest and the best a long
    time ago.
    People wanted their cars and unfortunately GM thought that they could
    continue raising prices as much as they wanted without continuing
    making the best.
    A reputaion is hard to get and easy to lose.
    Lets say that GM would try to restart making quality and giving
    quality service and pay attention to their customers it is more
    difficult for them to regain confidence than acquiring it in the first
    place.
    Building up a growing company is relatively easy comparing to running
    a company with a decreasing customer base and bad reputation.
    Add to that if management does not face the issues and does nothing to
    improve customer relations.
    GM has been fighting all kinds of battles and is not winning very much
    and may ultimately lose the war.
    The individuals working for GM may be in for nasty changes of their
    incomes and livestyles.
    Who can they blame for it?
    I am sure I am not to blame but that does not stop many replying to
    this post now to this as if I am.

  7. #7
    weird
    Guest

    Default Re: U.S. Employment: GM vs Toyota

    Amen Brother.
    Buy American!!!!

    <buydomestic@usa.com> wrote in message
    news:dff9cde3-d3e9-47e3-8ff5-f81d67e3aa26@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
    > GM employs 142,000+ people in the United States.
    > Toyota employs 36,632 people in the United States.
    >
    > The sources:
    > http://www.gm.com/corporate/about/gl...merica/usa.jsp
    > http://www.toyota.com/about/our_busi...mployment.html
    >
    > Not only that, but the Toyota jobs are basically just lower paying
    > blue collar jobs, where as GM has 50,000 engineers working over here.
    > Toyota and other import car companies have brainwashed Americans into
    > thinking that buying their car is just as good or better for the
    > American economy than buying from the Big Three, because their car is
    > assembled over here, but that is baloney. My friends...when we buy
    > our cars from GM, Ford, or Chrysler, the money stays over here.
    > Otherwise, it just goes down the drain.




  8. #8
    Zomby-Woof@cox.net
    Guest

    Default Re: U.S. Employment: GM vs Toyota

    On Sun, 18 May 2008 06:13:18 -0700 (PDT), Gosi <gosinn@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    >On May 18, 11:30*am, "Edwin Pawlowski" <e...@snet.net> wrote:
    >> "why, me" <kleingt-m...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    >>
    >> news:M4TXj.1017$co7.646@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
    >>
    >> > johngd...@hotmail.com wrote:
    >> >> The only thing I wanted to know is how paying $65/hour for people to
    >> >> mow grass has any long term benefit to both management and labor.

    >>
    >> > Where did you get this figure from? My understanding is that the job MIGHT
    >> > be worth that much when you figure in overtime, employer taxes, benefits,
    >> > and overhead. I don't believe they get near that in straight pay.

    >>
    >> They certainly don't, but that *may be their actual cost for labor. The fact
    >> is, Big 3 pay considerably more than the other car companies. *Over the
    >> years, the auto worker made a decent wage, good benefits, good retirement,
    >> money during shutdowns, etc. *For many years, rather than have a costly
    >> strike, the automakers just added the cost of labor to the cost of the car
    >> and the American public paid for it. *All businesses pass of their cost of
    >> doing business. *Competition, however, paid a lot less and sold their cars
    >> for less.
    >>
    >> I don't know, off hand, what the actual rates are, but just as you pay $65
    >> and hour for a plumber, $80 shop rates, the worker makes a lot less that
    >> what is charged as the difference goes to overhead, taxes, etc.

    >
    >The price of overhead and fat bonuses is also baked into the price of
    >the cars.
    >As they say then people vote with their feet.
    >That is they go to the place where they want to put their money.
    >It is ok to raise prices as much as you want if the public is willing
    >to pay for it and there is no alternative.
    >For some reason then GM grew to be the biggest and the best a long
    >time ago.
    >People wanted their cars and unfortunately GM thought that they could
    >continue raising prices as much as they wanted without continuing
    >making the best.
    >A reputaion is hard to get and easy to lose.
    >Lets say that GM would try to restart making quality and giving
    >quality service and pay attention to their customers it is more
    >difficult for them to regain confidence than acquiring it in the first
    >place.
    >Building up a growing company is relatively easy comparing to running
    >a company with a decreasing customer base and bad reputation.
    >Add to that if management does not face the issues and does nothing to
    >improve customer relations.
    >GM has been fighting all kinds of battles and is not winning very much
    >and may ultimately lose the war.
    >The individuals working for GM may be in for nasty changes of their
    >incomes and livestyles.
    >Who can they blame for it?
    >I am sure I am not to blame but that does not stop many replying to
    >this post now to this as if I am.
    >

    What you say would be true IF the Toyota model was cheaper then the
    comparable offerings from the big three, but it is not. In many cases
    it is actually more expensive.
    --
    "Before all else, be armed" -- Machiavelli

  9. #9
    Zomby-Woof@cox.net
    Guest

    Default Re: U.S. Employment: GM vs Toyota

    On Sun, 18 May 2008 07:30:28 -0400, "Edwin Pawlowski" <esp@snet.net>
    wrote:

    >
    >"why, me" <kleingt-misc@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    >news:M4TXj.1017$co7.646@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
    >> johngdole@hotmail.com wrote:
    >>> The only thing I wanted to know is how paying $65/hour for people to
    >>> mow grass has any long term benefit to both management and labor.
    >>>

    >> Where did you get this figure from? My understanding is that the job MIGHT
    >> be worth that much when you figure in overtime, employer taxes, benefits,
    >> and overhead. I don't believe they get near that in straight pay.

    >
    >They certainly don't, but that may be their actual cost for labor. The fact
    >is, Big 3 pay considerably more than the other car companies. Over the
    >years, the auto worker made a decent wage, good benefits, good retirement,
    >money during shutdowns, etc. For many years, rather than have a costly
    >strike, the automakers just added the cost of labor to the cost of the car
    >and the American public paid for it. All businesses pass of their cost of
    >doing business. Competition, however, paid a lot less and sold their cars
    >for less.
    >

    But that is all past-tense. Compare a Toyota model offering to a
    comparable model from any of the big-three and there is no cost
    savings in purchase price. However, where savings may come into play
    is in overall "lifetime" ownership costs.

    For a long time the Japanese dumped a lot of their products in our
    marketplace and the average American consumer buys based on purchase
    cost. Do you think that Wal-Mart shoppers give any consideration to
    the fact that the products they are purchasing come from China and
    have put American workers out of jobs?

    When the American factory worker looses his or her job they cannot buy
    the products made by other factory workers which of course leads to
    those workers loosing their jobs as well. All-in-all you end up with
    a toilet spiral with everything going down the shitter and nobody
    having the monies to buy goods & services. The more the American
    worker/consumer turns to imported products because of their price, the
    more they are putting their own job at risk.
    >
    >I don't know, off hand, what the actual rates are, but just as you pay $65
    >and hour for a plumber, $80 shop rates, the worker makes a lot less that
    >what is charged as the difference goes to overhead, taxes, etc.
    >

    Anyone who owns their own business is more then aware of this. The
    cost of carrying an employee greatly exceeds just what the employee
    makes as a hourly rate. The greater the tax burden, mandated
    government costs such as medical care, minimum wages, and so forth
    that we put on the business the greater said burden. All of these
    costs are simply based onto the consumer. Many people just don't seem
    to understand that business do not pay taxes, they collect them. Any
    tax burden is built into the products & services they sell.
    --
    "Before all else, be armed" -- Machiavelli

  10. #10
    JoeSpareBedroom
    Guest

    Default Re: U.S. Employment: GM vs Toyota

    <buydomestic@usa.com> wrote in message
    news:dff9cde3-d3e9-47e3-8ff5-f81d67e3aa26@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
    > GM employs 142,000+ people in the United States.
    > Toyota employs 36,632 people in the United States.
    >
    > The sources:
    > http://www.gm.com/corporate/about/gl...merica/usa.jsp
    > http://www.toyota.com/about/our_busi...mployment.html
    >
    > Not only that, but the Toyota jobs are basically just lower paying
    > blue collar jobs, where as GM has 50,000 engineers working over here.
    > Toyota and other import car companies have brainwashed Americans into
    > thinking that buying their car is just as good or better for the
    > American economy than buying from the Big Three, because their car is
    > assembled over here, but that is baloney. My friends...when we buy
    > our cars from GM, Ford, or Chrysler, the money stays over here.
    > Otherwise, it just goes down the drain.



    Sometimes when you own an American car, other money goes down the drain,
    like your own income. My first two cars were Fords, and they were broken so
    often that it affected my ability to get to work. I'll stick with cars that
    continue to operate dependably, and don't have stupid problems when they're
    still "young". Toyota, in other words.

    You will now point out that no car is without problems. Don't bother. That's
    obvious, but does nothing to support your opinion.



Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-03-2010, 03:12 AM
  2. Dealer.com Employment Info Session - Boston Herald
    By CarIndustryNews in forum Car Industry News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-24-2010, 05:26 AM
  3. U.S. Employment: GM vs Toyota
    By buydomestic@usa.com in forum alt.autos.gm
    Replies: 74
    Last Post: 07-01-2008, 06:30 PM
  4. U.S. Employment: GM vs Toyota
    By buydomestic@usa.com in forum alt.autos.toyota
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 07-01-2008, 06:30 PM
  5. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-11-2006, 11:42 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •