Toyota projects first operating loss since 1941 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Owner59 -> Toyota projects first operating loss since 1941 (12/22/2008 8:44:34 AM)

To balance out the discussion a bit......

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081222/ap_on_bi_ge/as_japan_toyota



MzMia -> RE: Toyota projects first operating loss since 1941 (12/22/2008 9:07:05 AM)

I also heard this news about Toyota.
I wonder if they will need a "bail out".
[8|]



rulemylife -> RE: Toyota projects first operating loss since 1941 (12/22/2008 9:52:50 AM)

It must be their own fault for making cars people don't want to buy and paying their workers too much.  [sm=bury.gif]



celticlord2112 -> RE: Toyota projects first operating loss since 1941 (12/22/2008 9:56:08 AM)

quote:

It must be their own fault for making cars people don't want to buy and paying their workers too much.

Exactly.



rulemylife -> RE: Toyota projects first operating loss since 1941 (12/22/2008 10:43:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

It must be their own fault for making cars people don't want to buy and paying their workers too much.

Exactly.


I thought it was the Japanese who were such leaders in innovation that their cars ran for 200,000 miles without ever needing so much as an oil change.





Termyn8or -> RE: Toyota projects first operating loss since 1941 (12/22/2008 11:10:43 AM)

No actually it is because fewer people have the money with which to buy new cars. As my Mother used to say when we wanted something we couldn't afford - "Things are rough all over".

All in all foreign car companies have been better managed, and more responsive to the market. I don't think they will need a bailout. I think they will trim some fat if they can find it, possibly be forced to reduce their scale of operations for a time and so forth, but they are not in a rut like the US automakers by any stretch. The article speaks of a reduction in profits mainly, a downturn. From what I read they project a loss, they haven't lost it yet. Or did I read it wrong ? (it happens)

They are in alot better shape than the big three. Even if they had these ridiculous retirement plans they haven't been here as long and the load would not be so bad.

I say, and maintain this much : Pay people good for good work. Pay them when they work.  Do not pay them when they do not work. Let the union handle the sick days, the vacations even (although in Canada you get two weeks by law from the company, big deal). Let them handle all that and just stick to what you know.

Respond to the market instead of trying to mold it. What do you think they were trying to do with GMAC credit ? They got a bunch of people to overbuy cars that depreciated faster than a pet rock.

Me own Mother bought an SUV. I told her that Mike (our mechanic) is not going to like this, but it had a ten year hundred thousand mile drivetrain warranty. It is also a four cylinder, she is not speed racer anymore. It has anough balls to get on the highway and delivers quite good mileage. It also sports the advantage of being PAID OFF, and of course a CD player.

What the big three failed to take into account is that people of brainage consider their own means, and just how much they want to put into something. She could've afforded the biggest Escolade or Yukon they have, but did not want to.

So a logical conclusion could be that the big three did not count on there being that many reasonable and responsible people. But then, one of the basic tenets of human psychology is that everyone tends to think others are the same as they are. If that is accepted we would have a situation where high paid executives go to the government looking for basically welfare on a grand scale, in their private jets. Hmmm, we have that already don't we ?

Actually, when it comes to welfare for the commoners, assistance or whatever they choose to call it, only amounts to like 2-3% of the budget. Most of the "welfare" is in the form of pet projects, pork and research "grants". Typical social engineering, I just wish we had better engineers.

T



celticlord2112 -> RE: Toyota projects first operating loss since 1941 (12/22/2008 11:39:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

It must be their own fault for making cars people don't want to buy and paying their workers too much.

Exactly.


I thought it was the Japanese who were such leaders in innovation that their cars ran for 200,000 miles without ever needing so much as an oil change.

Even presuming the Japanese are leaders in innovation, the economic reality is their cars aren't selling.

A car manufacturer exists to sell cars, and if it is losing money then it is either not selling enough cars or paying too much to make the cars that it is selling.



Musicmystery -> RE: Toyota projects first operating loss since 1941 (12/22/2008 2:38:00 PM)

quote:

I thought it was the Japanese who were such leaders in innovation that their cars ran for 200,000 miles without ever needing so much as an oil change.


Yup. And except for the oil change, exactly my experience with Toyota.

A company posts one negative quarter since 1941 and suddenly people pile on? Geez, most companies would LOVE to trade places.

Nor does the loss threaten their continued existence. Compare that to the "Big Three."

And by the way--my Toyota was made in the U.S. Just saying.

From the New York Times:

"Toyota said it still expected to report a small net profit, helped by interest and dividend income as well as tax-related savings of 50 billion yen, or $560 million.

With some $18.5 billion in cash, and relatively little debt, Toyota is still in far better shape to weather the downturn than General Motors and Chrysler, which on Friday received $17.4 billion in emergency loans from Washington."



LadyEllen -> RE: Toyota projects first operating loss since 1941 (12/22/2008 2:42:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

It must be their own fault for making cars people don't want to buy and paying their workers too much.

Exactly.


Without me checking back through, I seem to recall it was you saying that the likes of Toyota were very fine firms in the thread where unions were being bashed, due to their not being tied up in union deals?

E



Owner59 -> RE: Toyota projects first operating loss since 1941 (12/22/2008 2:48:20 PM)

 

Not a pile on for me.

Just a way to blow a huge hole through the guts of the argument that unions are to blame for Detroit's troubles.

No one is buying cars right now.It has to do with frozen credit,consumer confidence and lost jobs/foreclosed homes/etc.

Not the unions.

The Japanese make a fine car and if they opened up their markets(a little more) to our products,it would be a good relationship for both.



thishereboi -> RE: Toyota projects first operating loss since 1941 (12/22/2008 3:30:50 PM)

It didn't blow a hole in anything, but if you want to think it did, have at it. Yes, the unions are a BIG part of the big 3's problems. Sorry you can't understand that.



Evility -> RE: Toyota projects first operating loss since 1941 (12/22/2008 3:58:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
It must be their own fault for making cars people don't want to buy and paying their workers too much.


No, you can manage your business well and still have an off year. When you are getting your ass kicked by the Japanese and then fly to Washington in your private jet to beg the feds for a handout that's because you build junk and you are the union's bitch.



rulemylife -> RE: Toyota projects first operating loss since 1941 (12/22/2008 3:59:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

I thought it was the Japanese who were such leaders in innovation that their cars ran for 200,000 miles without ever needing so much as an oil change.


Yup. And except for the oil change, exactly my experience with Toyota.

A company posts one negative quarter since 1941 and suddenly people pile on? Geez, most companies would LOVE to trade places.

Nor does the loss threaten their continued existence. Compare that to the "Big Three."

And by the way--my Toyota was made in the U.S. Just saying.

From the New York Times:

"Toyota said it still expected to report a small net profit, helped by interest and dividend income as well as tax-related savings of 50 billion yen, or $560 million.

With some $18.5 billion in cash, and relatively little debt, Toyota is still in far better shape to weather the downturn than General Motors and Chrysler, which on Friday received $17.4 billion in emergency loans from Washington."


And my experience with the Fords I have owned.

Japanese automakers gained a foothold back in the days of the oil embargo.  Their cars were great on mileage but short on longevity.

Then their successful PR campaign was started to convince people that they were selling a superior product.

You know, the lazy American autoworker drinking beer on the job while the industrious Japanese worker put his job above family, friends, and all else.  His only goal in life was to make sure the car you purchased would last you a lifetime.

Then they started making their cars here employing American workers. 

Did the quality change?  From what you have said, your Toyota being assembled here, no.  So how is it the lazy, beer-drinking on the job American auto-worker is able to produce a quality product when Toyota is the name on the front of the building rather than GM or Chrysler?

Could it be a result of PR and marketing?

How about their financial problems?  Toyota and the other Japanese manufacturers have operated here since the mid 80's.  Why are their operating costs lower?  Could it be they don't have a heavy burden of retirees since they have only operated here some 25 years? 

Could it also be that they established plants in rural, economically deprived areas that were grateful for any type of jobs and would happily accept lower than industry standard wages because the alternative was $7/hr part-time at the Dollar Store?    





Musicmystery -> RE: Toyota projects first operating loss since 1941 (12/22/2008 4:00:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

It didn't blow a hole in anything, but if you want to think it did, have at it. Yes, the unions are a BIG part of the big 3's problems. Sorry you can't understand that.


So tell me....

...large, major companies couldn't see that coming and adjust?



thornhappy -> RE: Toyota projects first operating loss since 1941 (12/22/2008 4:20:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
Japanese automakers gained a foothold back in the days of the oil embargo.  Their cars were great on mileage but short on longevity.

One of the reasons they didn't last long was that in Japan, people replace their cars after a very short time compared to US consumers (we're talking every 2 years.)

thornhappy



Musicmystery -> RE: Toyota projects first operating loss since 1941 (12/22/2008 4:45:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
Japanese automakers gained a foothold back in the days of the oil embargo.  Their cars were great on mileage but short on longevity.

One of the reasons they didn't last long was that in Japan, people replace their cars after a very short time compared to US consumers (we're talking every 2 years.)

thornhappy



I drive 30,000 miles a year.

I drove my first two Toyotas seven years each, with nothing but routine maintenance. I'm on my third.

Damn unreliable product.





rulemylife -> RE: Toyota projects first operating loss since 1941 (12/22/2008 5:05:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
Japanese automakers gained a foothold back in the days of the oil embargo.  Their cars were great on mileage but short on longevity.

One of the reasons they didn't last long was that in Japan, people replace their cars after a very short time compared to US consumers (we're talking every 2 years.)

thornhappy



Which is a nice way of saying they were pieces of crap.



Termyn8or -> RE: Toyota projects first operating loss since 1941 (12/22/2008 7:05:14 PM)

Actually if you have an aggressive payment plane, meaning shorter term, and trade a car in while it still has significant trade in value the hit of a new car isn't so bad.

There is also a glut of used cars on the market these days.

T



Owner59 -> RE: Toyota projects first operating loss since 1941 (12/22/2008 7:34:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

It didn't blow a hole in anything, but if you want to think it did, have at it. Yes, the unions are a BIG part of the big 3's problems. Sorry you can't understand that.



Ummm. You`ll have to do a bit more than just say so.A debate means one must convince others,not just themselves.

Perhaps an explanation? Yes?

If unions are the problem,then why are non -union car companies also having problems too?

Before the economy tanked,no one was talking about unions.

Now? They are "the" problem.

I will say one thing though,the rightists were extremely successful in high-jacking the debate in their attempt to escape their responsibility for their econo-mess.




Owner59 -> RE: Toyota projects first operating loss since 1941 (12/22/2008 7:44:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery


quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
Japanese automakers gained a foothold back in the days of the oil embargo.  Their cars were great on mileage but short on longevity.

One of the reasons they didn't last long was that in Japan, people replace their cars after a very short time compared to US consumers (we're talking every 2 years.)

thornhappy



I drive 30,000 miles a year.

I drove my first two Toyotas seven years each, with nothing but routine maintenance. I'm on my third.

Damn unreliable product.





True,but the quality gap is closing,

Many if not most of the big 3 now have up to 100.000 mile/10 year warrenties on their cars/trucks/

My 06 Silverado has a 100,000 mile one.

I have 24000 so far w/ no issues.

The 100 bucks it took to fill it sucked,but that was until last summer and had nothing to do with the unions.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
3.076172E-02