JD powers does lots of surveys. Initial quality and the like as well as stuff three years out. Sure one has to take some of the stuff with a grain of salt, but it's still a "guide for the eye".

The semiconductor industry got it's tail in a knot for how it was using quasi-permanant temps a few years ago. Flexibility is good, but like any good thing, it can be prone to abuse.

To the lassaiz faire crowd. How would no government action dealt with creating the highway system? Or the GI Bill, or many of the other examples in the historical record where investment in growth was done by government agencies or action that we're in any interest of any commercial market actor? Really, you can give me all the "minuses" that you like, but I'd be interested to know what role one thinks is appropriate for the gov in economics?

And for what it's worth, there is a whole economic landsape out there that is between lassaiz-faire and socialism. It's my view that labelling managed market philosophies as socialism does little to advance real discussion and undertanding, and does much to muddy the waters and inflame reactionary responses. Mortgage interest deduction? It's market management and social engineering, yet there are few that would argue that home ownership is bad for either the economy or social standard of living (and before I get flamed here, abuse of loan vehicles is NOT what I'm talking about).

Many would be well served to go back and re-read "On the Wealth of Nations" and see that even the king of market philosophies himself says that there are areas that markets don't address, and these areas require action by government actors. Many tend to forget this.

Matt

Oh, and BTW, the Republik of Kalifornia has faster GDP and job growth and lower energy consumption per capita than the rest of the country (at least till the last economic tidal wave hit). Wonder what we're doing wrong!

 

20,000 state job cuts from a state, which is one of the highest taxed and by itself amongst the world's top ten economies; I'd say there's many thing wrong here in Cali. Not to mention middle-class flight out of here. If by current events in the US, you disagree there is a move towards socialism by definition, then you can ignore the obvious. I'm not saying we're there, its just a step in that direction. Additionally, that word wouldn't mean much if there has been one successful socialist state.


Back to the topic, I'm a little uneasy as mines scheduled to be built on Wk 11.

 

that now is a worrysome time to have a car built at Oxford!

I don't have anything against either markets or thier management. But there are logical flaws to the argument that because there are no successful socialsts states that there is no room for intervention in markets. Really, the debate ought to be what degree of oversight or intervention is required for improved market operation. Operation that is in our national, security and economic interests as well as the intererests of most of our population.

Our current energy market has no premium for national security, and as such, we are overly dependant on foreign sources of energy. What is a proper roll of government when the citizens don't care about national security risks when they make choices about what car to buy or how to price gas? Is no action "better" than doing something to decrease dependancy? In doing the article on batteries in cars I looked at 30 years of buying trends in cars and thier fuel efficiency. One could make a very compelling argument that the energy market in our country is broken and it's current implementation isn't in our national interests. After looking at the data, I'm convinced an "hands off" approach to energy in our nation will make things worse, not better. It will lead to shocks that stifle growth and cause severe societal hardship, and lead to more and more exposure to extra-national interests that don't share the health of the US economy or our socital mores as a goal.

California isn't perfect by any means (we and Kansas seem to be on the brink of government financial lockup) but for sure there are concrete examples here of regulation of markets in terms of energy conservation that also correlate with faster than the norm economic growth.

And sorry for going so far off topic here. But the notion that government action is by-definition wrong, counterproductive or has negative economic impact just isn't supported by the historical record (sure there are examples of screw ups, but there are examples of significan't success too).

Matt

 

I think the Union's grasping at straws there, otherwise the BMW workers in South Carolina are going to start speaking up and the people that build VWs and Dodges in Mexico are going to be joining the German Labor Unions and UAW respectively.
The factory the work is performed in is in England and I'd think the temp agency itself is English so unless there's some strange EU agreement that makes laws from one country enforceable in another I don't see this accomplishing much.

 

My previous comment was in response to this, you people are not working enough if you're replying this many times before I get in here. lol

 

There is and should be a great difference in Government regulation and Government control and participation in business. Any conversation concerning massive government social programs and the particapation of OUR government in private business cannot be without the inclusion of past and present failures of Socialist states. Again I will ask where Socialism has worked?

Mini/BMW has to act in a way that will secure their future as a company, if they succeed they can and will hire back workers. No PRIVATE company can afford to pay people to stand around and do nothing.
Mark

 

Erm, if we're going by your prediction, we should all be spending now. Spending a dollar now gets you a dollar's worth of goods. Saving that same dollar would make it worth less. :P

I have said this before and I'll repeat it here: the economy trades in only one commodity; confidence. Dumping money into the economy via top-down strategy really won't do much at this point. It should always have been the other way round.

 

I happen to agree with this statement. At this point the damage has been done and it's throwing good money after bad. It's going to be a long struggle.

 

But hey! Obamas our guy!

lets all join hands as we sheep, walk off the economic cliff together, to be saved by the "socialist" parachute

 

+1 oh and BTW IBTL

 

We are about to walk off "the economic cliff"? Where have you been living the past year?!

I said it before in the primaries... I do not envy whoever wins the election because they're going to be left holding quite an impressive flaming bag of dog crap as soon as they walk in the door.

It's like having your kid get back home after borrowing the car, saying as he tosses you the keys: "I t-boned a school bus and the car is totaled. And, what does it mean when those lights at intersections flash at you? That happened a lot. Good night."

 

I feel bad for the MINI workers that lost their jobs, but I also remember that Oxford didn't always have three shifts. They opened the plant with two and added the third based on demand. Now that the market is soft, they don't need to run at full capacity.

 

Contract labor laws around here are such that you can only work at a place for a limited period of time, then take something like 6 months off before being able to return to that same place. The way MINI seems to have done it was to let their contract labor (or "temporary" as they call it) stay for years as if they were regular employees. At least with the forced leaves, the system here doesn't let you forget the limited status of your employment.

In general, though, I don't think the issue is that MINI is scaling back their production shifts... it's the manner in which they told their staff that they were being let go. Completely within the letter of the law over there, but not very civil nonetheless. It could've been handled much better.

 

Markets don't drive business, people do, - when people don't have buying power there is no market. But, there needs to be a balance, it's not a question of top to bottom or bottom to top, but a matter of setting the appropriate balance to ensure stability and growth. I don't think this is the right time to set blame on anyone, it took us decades to get to this point and it will take us time to get out. I'm not a medical person, but right now the world economy is in triage, and I hope they know what they are doing because it won't be pretty if they don't.

 

The people are the markets sikamini and when their buying power is lowered, then the markets drop. We like to separate ourselves, our politicians, and business into nice little boxes but they're all made up of people doing human things.

 

+1 Very true.

 

Hopefully, they are ALL the ones involved with creating and assembling that GAWD-AWFUL-LOOKING SUV!

 

There is no market for business with out people earning wages who want your product. No jobs = no wages = no market = no business. Just relying on top down economics is as wrong as thinking bottom up will work, it as to be from both direction and the bottom is not the Welfare people but the bottom of the wage earners. I'm not talking about minimun wage either because no self respecting 3rd generation welfare recipient is going to give up his benefits for a minimun wage job....there must be a significant enough gap between welfare and the bottom of the working class to make it worth while to have that job...

 

"Living wage" !

 

Correct! But you also have to be careful not to make the Welfare folks to comfortable or you might remove the motivation for low end wage earners to keep working.......Dang, now we're right back to Socialism again.....