posted
One other note: Ford is closing plants in several states. One of those they are NOT closing is in Mexico.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd heard that one of the ones they were closing was in Mexico.
Either way, are you really surprised? A lot of the idea behind closing plants is to cut costs to stay competitive, why would they close the plant that costs the least amount to staff its workforce?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
While that seems to be an economically sound business practice, isn't it a little hypocritical of them to run ads making a big deal about supporting American workers, then?
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
If they go out of business altogether, the tens of thousands of jobs that could be lost in addition to the thousands already gone wouldn't really be a boon to the American workforce would it? Besides, what do it's factories or factory in Mexico even make? If there isn't a factory with workers here making the exact same thing, it would cost them MORE to close the Mexico plant and move it to America (cancelling out the original point of it costing less in Mexico twice over).
There's only a chance of it being hypocritical if there were two plants making the same thing, and they chose to close the American one to save the Mexican one, but I'd question it even then.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My husband is an auto tech with a Ford dealership. That's how I knew that the Mexican plant was going to remain open. He says the current Mexican Car - the Focus - has excellent workmanship. And of course it is an economy car, so there is a market for it.
When hubby and I discussed this we came to the conclusion that this is about Union busting. Given the 'global economy' it seems inevitable that Unions will lose power unless they change, and they seem unlikely to change.
I have mixed feelings about that. There is no corporate loyalty to the workers working to create those profits for the corporation. You're just a body with a pulse which can be replaced. Or so they seem to think.
It seems to me that in today's Corporate world little thought is given to tomorrow's consequenses.
Who is going to buy those cars, if our economy goes bust?
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: While that seems to be an economically sound business practice, isn't it a little hypocritical of them to run ads making a big deal about supporting American workers, then?
We're fed a diet of hypocrisy every day. It is the spin machine. Cut taxes for the well off and pay for it with cuts in entitlements like Food Stamps and Student Loans. That will "stimulate jobs" according to the powers that be.
Tell that to the hungry old people living on Social Security, and children in families living on the edge of poverty who won't have bread or milk, or other necessities because of it.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: Honestly, CT, I wish that they had raised the price of gas years ago, and raised it to something above $3 a gallon. It hurts quite a bit paying a relatively high amount for gas, but I think that gas being painfully expensive is the only way to get the American public seriously interested in fuel conservation and alternatives to the way we've been doing things. When Katrina had gas prices up there a lot of my SUV driving co-workers began to seriously talk about getting something more fuel efficient, but when the prices dropped a bit they stopped talking about it, and several said (more than half seriously) that it meant that they wouldn't have to get rid of their SUVs after all.
Oh, I was totally serious. The US was the only place with such ridiculously low prices, and it fuels an unhealthy set of behaviors.
So why weren't the prices raised before this, guys? Record profits, better for us ... I don't get it. Why only now?
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: When hubby and I discussed this we came to the conclusion that this is about Union busting. Given the 'global economy' it seems inevitable that Unions will lose power unless they change, and they seem unlikely to change.
I don't think it is about Union busting, I think it is much more about trying to keep Ford business intact. The plants that are closing are mostly truck plants. Ford PlantsPosts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: When hubby and I discussed this we came to the conclusion that this is about Union busting. Given the 'global economy' it seems inevitable that Unions will lose power unless they change, and they seem unlikely to change.
I don't think it is about Union busting, I think it is much more about trying to keep Ford business intact. The plants that are closing are mostly truck plants.
I agree with you, but I doubt that any business decision like this is for any one reason. I'm sure that is part of it too. Sales of SUVs and trucks have fallen tremendously, for good reason: they guzzle gas. They are also amazingly expensive. I could pay off my home with what they cost.
I think Toyota has the best idea: they are going to make hybrids available for every model. Then you can have your SUV (or whatever) and drive it more affordably.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The Focus is made in Mexico?! All of them? From day one?
The Focus' manufacture was moved last fall to the Dearborn, MI plant. (Ford's Headquarters, where 'only' 80 people will be laid off.) A friend (mech. engineer) that I went to college with used to work there. He and several others in his department with low seniority were laid off a couple of years ago. Ford has been cutting back for years. There were no headlines then. The only time you see headlines are when large numbers are involved.
As of this year the Hermosillo Ford factory is producing new models: the Ford Fusion, Lincoln Zephyr and Mercury Milan.
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: Honestly, CT, I wish that they had raised the price of gas years ago, and raised it to something above $3 a gallon. It hurts quite a bit paying a relatively high amount for gas, but I think that gas being painfully expensive is the only way to get the American public seriously interested in fuel conservation and alternatives to the way we've been doing things. When Katrina had gas prices up there a lot of my SUV driving co-workers began to seriously talk about getting something more fuel efficient, but when the prices dropped a bit they stopped talking about it, and several said (more than half seriously) that it meant that they wouldn't have to get rid of their SUVs after all.
Oh, I was totally serious. The US was the only place with such ridiculously low prices, and it fuels an unhealthy set of behaviors.
So why weren't the prices raised before this, guys? Record profits, better for us ... I don't get it. Why only now?
I don't have an answer for you about why Gasoline is so much more expensive in Europe. They have been very different for many years.
I don't agree with you. There are basic practical reasons that we/the workforce need reasonably priced fuels. My husband commutes 20 miles each way to work, and the nearest grocery store to me is a 30 minute drive away. There is no public transportation.
Many people do not live in an area with public transportation, or cannot/will not live in the city where they could bicycle or walk to work. Those that are hurt most by these high prices are those whose earnings are the lowest, since it takes a bigger chunk - proportionately - out of their budget.
Our lifestyle is about to change quite a lot, if these prices continue to rise. It won't be just the Electric company adding a fuel surcharge. Everything we eat and drink and use is shipped. Eventually those prices have to rise too - and this year's wages have risen the least amount in ten years.
What does that do? It devalues your buying power... your dollar is worth less. Recently I read an article about China (one of the main countries we borrow from to finance our Deficit) diversifying from Dollars to other currency. And this week it was announced that Bush is asking Congress to raise our national debt ceiling, again.
Doesn't that make you wonder what they know that we haven't realized yet?
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't have an answer for you about why Gasoline is so much more expensive in Europe.
The big reason here in Canada is that it's taxed much more heavily. I believe the same is largely true of Europe, but I don't know for certain.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Before politicians take office, they are sworn in. Before witnesses testify in court, they pledge honesty. New citizens must swear their allegiance to the flag. High school students filling out college applications must attest to their truthfulness. Some states won't even let you drive unless you first take an oath. There is no limit, it often seems, to the venues in which Americans lean on the oath to steer their consciences to honesty--with one glaring exception: the hearing rooms of the United States Congress, where only a handful of the thousands of witnesses interviewed each year are required to take an oath before testifying.
When one points to the failure to perform a particular act in a particular instance as evidence of corruption, one should be sure that the act which the person failed to perform is one that a non-corrupt person in that very situation would perform.
Further, this
quote:The reason that Ted Stevens wouldn't swear in those Oil Executives last fall is that he was protecting them from being liable for not telling the truth to Congress, as the Tobacco Executives were liable for their false statements.
Is just flat out not true. It's still a crime to lie to Congress. While lack of an oath does require prosecutors to prove an element they otherwise wouldn't have to, such proof is not difficult.
Further, and most damning for Silkie's accusation, is that, according to the rules of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, "Witnesses in Committee or Subcommittee hearings may be required to give testimony under oath whenever the Chairman or Ranking Minority Member of the Committee or Subcommittee deems such to be necessary." The hearings were jointly held by the energy committee and the commerce committee; Jeff Bingaman could have demanded an oath but did not.
Why not? Because the statute against lying to Congress does not require an oath to create criminal liability. It requires proof that the witnesses knew of their duty to testify truthfully - something Stevens explicitly warned them about.
posted
It is not immoral of Exxon Mobil to make a profit by giving you a slightly less good deal. $2 for a gallon of gas is a great deal. $3 is still a great deal.
If gas prices are too high, buy less gas. Drive less. Walk more. Use mass transportation. Buy more fuel efficient cars. Gas prices are competitive - that means that if people use less gas, demand will drop, and prices will rise. It is not Exxxon Mobil's fault if people continue their high consumption of gas, despite the drop in supply and increase in prices - except insofar as they and other gas companies have been giving the consumer too good of a deal for too long.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Interesting article. Reminds me of the debate that swirled around "what the meaning of 'is' is."
You do seem to like that example. Would you care to explain how Stevens doing something that is done almost every time witnesses testify in Congress is evidence that he is owned by oil companies? Or why, if this was such an important thing to do, the ranking Democrat didn't insist on it as the rules allow?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ya might hafta watch an ad first cuz the following link is to the Economist's premium content. The is that the private / non-governmentally-held major oil companies are making more profit while pumping less oil, and not finding enough new oil reserves to make up for the depletion of their old oil fields. Which combined with ever increasing demand -- especially from China, India, and the UnitedStates -- makes it likely that fossil fuel prices will continue to rise.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Of course, it doesn't help if they don't know they can get help, or how. I'm glad there's a public awareness campaign going on.
Those "programs" run out of funds every years, lately before the middle of January.
Also, they can shut it off once it isn't cold...and then the people can't get it turned back on for the following winter.
Dag, I think that the main problem people have with these companies is that they get all sorts of "special exemptions" and subsudies despite their profitibility.
Also, anyone who thinks that the oil companies DON'T own parts of the government hasn't been paying attention to those companies record of political donations or their special interest groups techniques.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Steven's "It's my committee, and I'll shut it down if you insist on swearing in witnesses." is not even close to standard practice. Though with Republicans chairing the committees, it is becoming ever more so inregards to heavily Republican contributors.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
