Replies

That is just it, Toyota, Honda, and others are building cars right here in the US by US workers. They also don't have the overhead that GM, FORD, and Chrysler do. US manufacturers have to pay for the retirement of all their former workers. Honda and others do not, because they have not been here that long.

I don't car who the manufacturer is, as long as a American is working to build the vehicle.

I have owned one foreign car in my life. I bought more GM made vehicles then any other. I love my Chevy Supercharged Monte Carlo, but you know what? I am not in the mood to borrow money to bail out failed businesses.

Ford came out the other day and said they are doing alright and they don't need a bail out. What is the deal with that? GM is the one who needs it. They owe their Union 29 billion. Time to build a new car company in the South.

Yes, at one time businesses took advantage of the people. Now, people are taking advantage of the business. They have been for years. Now, they are in trouble and they want my children's money. NO! Go to Wall Street and find some investors and leave my children's money alone.

We need to rebuild our industrial base anyway. We only have one steel company and most of our manufacturing industry is in China. If you are concerned about our military industry, then bring our steel companies home. Time to rethink some things and bring it back home properly. Sometimes, it takes a disaster to get people motivated to fix a problem.

Now, I really don't think it is fair or right to throw mud on folks who are not happy with the extortion that is going on. We had a gun put to our head that said if we don't bail out banks, we will all die. Now car companies are doing it. Who is next? Walmart? No, it is not the taxpayer responsibility to bail out short sited businesses.

Sometimes, it takes a disaster to get people motivated to fix a problem.

My precise fear.

That is just it, Toyota, Honda, and others are building cars right here in the US by US workers. They also don't have the overhead that GM, FORD, and Chrysler do. US manufacturers have to pay for the retirement of all their former workers. Honda and others do not, because they have not been here that long...

Well, no. You're comparing apples and oranges.

Here's the math. In 2004, GM says, its health care costs were $1,528 a vehicle and pension costs were $695 a vehicle. Total: $2,223. Toyota's comparable costs: $201 for health care (according to A.T. Kearney) and perhaps $50 for matching workers' 401(k) contributions (my estimate). GM refuses to provide legacy costs for its 2005 vehicles. But by my estimate, they were $1,850 for health care, $700 for pensions. Total: $2,550. (I'm using GM pension and health care numbers and WardsAuto.com's vehicle-production stats.) Numbers Toyota gave me indicate its U.S. health care costs stayed at about $200 a vehicle. And let's use the same, probably-too-high $50 for 401(k) costs...

Toyota doesn't provide pensions for retirees, they only offer 401(k) programs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/27/AR2006022701328.html

Toyota also doesn't offer 30-and-out programs, as does GM.