Harry P.

Depends on who's numbers you want to believe. I have seen figures that state the cost per car to GM to cover wages and benefits-remember, there's more to labor cost than just the hourly salary-is in the neighborhood of $1500, whereas Toyota's costs per car are a couple hundred bucks. So going by that statistic, GM has a built in $1000 penalty per car that it has to deal with. I've also seem many references to the cost of labor (again, wages and benefits-the total cost-has to be considered!) showing GM's cost per employee per hour at roughly $70, vs. Toyota at roughly $48. That's a huge disparity, and GM is on the short end of the stick. Something has to change there in order for GM to be able to compete with Toyota. That's not to say that the average GM worker makes 70 bucks an hour... many of those costs to GM are the cost of benefits and pensions to the workers... but still, in the end it costs GM $70 per worker per hour, bottom line. Now I know that you can argue the specific numbers back and forth, but no matter which side of the argument you're on, it's obvious that GM's cost for labor per car is a lot higher than Toyota's. Tough to be competitive when you have a built-in disadvantage right off the bat! As far as fleeing the craziness... I'm starting to think there's no place to go! Maybe Sweden... my rule of thumb is, the less you hear about a country in the news, the better that country is probably run. But I don't know about those long cold winters there...

I didn't say they make 150 grand. Never said it. I'm not bitter or jealous that some people have more than I do. I could just as well have gotten a job as an auto worker if that's what I had wanted to do... nobody stopped me from doing so. I just don't think the government should be in the business of selectively helping certain industries with taxpayer dollars, but not others. Who decides which people's jobs are worth saving, and which people's jobs are not? Is an autoworker more important than a guy who used to work at a Zenith plant, back when the US actually made TVs? I don't recall any of the domestic electronics companies receiving any federal aid... their industry was all shipped overseas and their US plants left to die. Helping foreign car builders? I said I wasn't sure about that one. And there's a BIG difference between a company that's successful and productive and thriving being given "incentives" to locate a plant here in the US and create US jobs vs. giving a poorly run, mismanaged, inefficient company money to keep on doing what they're doing without demanding massive changes from that company. Giving the Big Three money without strings attached is the equivalent of throwing money down a sewer. So you can see, the "help" given to Toyota and Honda isn't the same sort of "help" the Big Three want. Totally different situation and circumstances. Looking out for your own interests? Of course you are! We all are, myself included. I don't want my money being given to a company that I have no connection to. Only saints act without thinking of their own best interests. Suppose a deal was struck to save the US auto makers, but the catch was they had to hire an entirely new, non-union workforce in order to lower their costs. The car industry would be saved (best for the country, right?) but people like you would be out of a job (not so good for Michael Garrett!). Would you support that plan? To your last point: I agree, we'll have to wait and see how this all comes out. But nowhere is it written that the US auto industry must necessarily consist of three companies, GM, Ford and Chrysler. It wasn't always that way, and it doesn't need to be that way in the future. I say let the free market do its thing. If the Big Three fail, you can bet that other, new auto companies will emerge to fill the void and the demand for cars here in the US. There is nothing magical or mystical about the Big Three, and nothing about them that is inherently worth saving. They're just the 3 companies that happen to be building cars right now. There used to be many others, there can be many others in the future. If the Big Three disappear, other ones will eventually replace them (along with new jobs). The real shame of this situation is that no matter what happens, somebody somewhere gets screwed.

Could be.

Maybe they just haven't caught you yet...

It's been policy for a while now. Seems like a good idea to me. A secure, guaranteed method of payment protects both buyer and seller. It just makes good sense.

Yeah, I usually don't get that much into detail about my personal situation, but man, this whole concept of my money going to save the jobs of people who are already much better off than I am really burns me, politically correct or not. Especially when those three clowns flew to Washington in their private jets to ask the government to give them money that the government took from me and all other taxpayers, so that their little world will be saved. If for some reason I could no longer do what I do and can no longer support myself, you know what's in my bailout package? Nothing. Either we go with free market capitalism here, or we go with nationalized industries. You can't just pick and choose certain companies to save, while letting others die. It's simply not fair. Either ALL failing companies get government help (socialism), or NO failing companies get government help (free market capitalism). And hey...if I get banned, at least I had the chance to speak my mind!

I think your anger is misplaced if you're talking to me. You're mixing my comments in with all the others you've read. 1. If you have read anywhere on this forum that union workers get paid 150 grand a year, I guarantee you it wasn't me who wrote that. 2. I also guarantee you it wasn't me who wrote about union workers getting $60/hr to sweep floors. 3. You are a union worker. Obviously you support the union. There's no way you can see this issue in an unbiased way, because you have a direct stake in the outcome! That's what I meant when I said you have an agenda... you obviously back the union, as would be expected. Nothing wrong with that at all, except that you have to realize that by your very status as a union member whose future depends on the outcome of this situation, you can't possibly be unbiased. It's impossible to step outside the situation and weigh the pros and cons when you're directly involved. 4. I also never "complained" that the Big Three pay too much. In all my posts I've never said that I think union workers get paid too much. I never said that UAW workers are overpaid, what I said was that the union's demands, over the years, and the cost per employee per hour, is a huge drag on GM, Ford and Chrysler. That's a fact, regardless of whether or not I personally think the workers are overpaid or not. It costs GM $70 per employee per hour (salary plus benefits). It costs Toyota $48. That's a huge disparity. Something has to change there. Are union auto workers overpaid? Depends on who you are. If you're a union worker, obviously the answer is no. If you work at Walmart, I think you'd get a different opinion. And besides, hourly wages aren't the issue. The issue is the billions GM has to pay their retired workers. I've never really said this before, but I guess I might as well come clean as to why I am against a government bailout (loan) for the Big Three. Two basic reasons: 1. Our economic system is based on open market capitalism and competition. If a company makes a profit, they continue to operate. If they can't make a profit, for whatever reason... poor product, too much competition, can't sell enough of their product to consumers... then they go out of business, and other companies fill the void. That's how our system works. When the government starts cherry picking certain companies or industries to bail out, it's inherently unfair to all those other companies and industries who DON'T get government help. If the auto industry gets help, why not everyone else? Are the people who work for the auto makers more important, or somehow more worthy of having their jobs saved, than millions of other workers in different industries? Why should the taxpayers be paying money to support a few companies that are obviously mismanaged and inefficient? Nobody wants to see auto workers out on the street... but why do they get their jobs saved by the government... but nobody else does? How about all the people in various industries, like electronics, for instance, who've lost their job to outsourcing? Why don't their employers get any government help? Where did all the workers who used to make TVs here in America go? Where is their bailout? 2. Even more basic than that, this is the part that really burns me when I hear government loans for the automakers: I'm self employed. That means I have the "privilege" of paying both my employee taxes AND my employer taxes, because my employer is me! In essence I get taxed double compared to what an "employee" gets taxed for social security, but I won't get any more benefits. I just have to pay twice as much for mine! And "benefits"? No union for people like me. I have no benefits. No sick days, no paid vacation, no yearly raises, no pension and no medical benefits. I can't afford the insurance! If I get sick and have to go to the hospital, I'm screwed. So I have a really hard time with the concept of a person like me (and millions of others in the same situation) having my income taxed, money that I've earned taken away from me and that money going to save the jobs of people who get paid a lot more than I do, and have all the benefits and perks that I don't get! So that's why I'm against a government (I mean, TAXPAYER) bailout of ANY private company, automakers or anyone else.

That... ahem... "other magazine" used to do a Kit of the Year feature, where readers voted and they posted the results. (not sure if they still do). Maybe MCM should do that? Voting could be done online, right here on the forum, and the results in an upcoming issue. What do you guys think?

I agree with the doctor... if that's not a factory color it should have been! Very clean build, looks fantastic. That's what rep stock is all about!

I only posted what I heard on the news...and according to what I heard on the news, the UAW refused to give on employee costs, so the bailout didn't get the votes. Undoubtedly politics played a part in the vote... after all, politicians are the ones voting! I agree that if line workers are expected to give back, white collar guys should also agree to the same... it's only fair. My point was this: if the automakers are in trouble to the extent we're all being led to believe and collapse is imminent, doesn't it make sense for both labor and management to make some immediate, drastic changes? Mike, if anyone here has an "agenda" it would be you. You're a union member! Obviously you have a very biased opinion of all of this, your own self-interest is at stake! If I was in your place I'm sure I'd be supporting the union all the way, too! But I'm trying to see the issue without any bias...I don't work for the car companies, I don't have any friends or relatives who do, I don't personally know anyone who is a UAW member or pensioner... I have no particular ties or interests to either the UAW or the automakers. The UAW and the Big Three have no connection to me whatsoever, other than they want my money to help them stay in business I'm just looking at things as rationally as I can, and as far as I can tell, the union-related costs that GM and Chrysler have incurred are a huge part of the problem. Like I said before, not the only factor, but a major contributing factor. How can you deny that, or say that it's all management's fault, and the union is an innocent bystander in all this? Another interesting point to consider (and again, I found these numbers online, checked as many sources as I could find...I can't guarantee the accuracy), but what I found (and I think these numbers would be easy to verify): In 2007 Toyota sold approx. 9.4 million units worldwide, and on those sales they made a profit of $17 billion. In 2007 GM also sold approx. 9.4 million units worldwide, and on those sales they had a loss $38 billion. I'm not an economist or a CPA, and maybe those numbers don't necessarily correlate exactly one to one, it might be a case of apples and oranges, but still... if GM sold as many cars and trucks as Toyota did, yet ended the year with a massive loss, isn't something in GM's operations drastically wrong? It tells me that the problem GM has isn't so much that they can't sell enough cars, it tells me that something internal is out of whack. And it tells me their current business model is in serious need of revamping. And the union AND management should realize that and work together to avert the coming crisis. It's in the best interest of both of them! And to your point about taxpayer money going to foreign makers here in the US...that's an issue I haven't been able to make up my mind on. On the one hand, you can see that the foreign plants that operate here do contribute jobs and help boost the economy, but on the other hand, the cars they produce are in direct competition with our own American makers (who can't compete cost-wise due to union/non-union issues), and that doesn't seem right. After all, how many GM, Ford or Chrysler plants are there in Japan? It's an issue I'm torn on...

Desperate times call for desperate measures. Seems the UAW isn't ready to make any serious effort to right the ship. They're already weakened and their influence and power is diminished... they obviously don't want to make any wage concessions and be seen as "caving in" to the feds. But the feds are the ones who have the money to give them... you'd think that UAW bigwigs would be a little more willing to play ball. If the Big Three (actually only GM and Chrysler, right now) really need this money to avoid collapse, what does the UAW think will happen to all those union jobs if there's no federal help and the automakers go under??? The UAW's hardline stance makes no sense to me, given the situation.

Yeah, now that you mention the perks...

Some of those places are just a little too remote for me! I was thinking more like Canada... BTW... news reports all say that basically the bailout failed because the UAW refused to make any wage/benefits concessions. The feds wanted the UAW to scale back GM's average worker's hourly cost (salary plus benefits), which is now roughly $70 per hour per employee, to match Toyota, whose workers now cost the company roughly $48/hr. The UAW refused, and I guess the feds said, well in that case, you're on your own.

I guess the obvious answer is: there is no answer! Ask ten different people how they would judge a model and you're likely to get ten different answers. One guys looks for accuracy, another guy doesn't care so much for accuracy but looks for creativity or "extra effort", etc. Just by the few previous posts here you can see how different people's opinions are when it comes to what's more important in judging a model. There's no way to know what any given judge at any given contest on any given day will be looking for as the most important factors he/she will judge a model on. Just no way.

Nope, it's REAL! Next ROM coming MONDAY!

And I will be watching this thread to see if the photos ever show up...

It takes a man to publicly admit to making a mistake. Hope you're feeling better. Take care... and keep posting!

Is that the Model King reissue?

But bowls are way bigger than cups! :lol:

Looks like this one should be closed.

That's better...

And back on the air again just as quickly...

How many Superbowls have they won??? :lol:

I tried answering your message, but I got an error message... "recipient's inbox full". Time to clean out your attic!

Ooooh, look! A Smart Car!