4-door Mustang rumor: http://www.cnn.com/2006/AUTOS/12/15/ford_no_mustang_sedan/index.html <img src="http://meguiarsonline.com/gallery/data/500/669Mustang_wagon.jpg"
The facts don't support your statement Suss'. They support the one you refute. Here are some labor facts that allow the Japanese to earn about $2400 more per vehicle. They're taken from an article from doing a simple internet search, always a good idea before posting a hypothesis. "Japanese spent $1,400 less per car on health care benefits. The majority of the US disadvantage comes from paying healthcare benefits to retireees, of which GM has 338,000 to support. Toyota spends $348 per car on warranty costs vs. $500 for GM (GM) and Chrysler (DCX). US automakers spend $138 more per car on longer holidays. They also spend $70 more per car on worker absenteeism. Japanese spent $133 per car on 30 minutes of break time/day vs. $203 per car on 46 minutes of break time for US counterparts." I will grant you the premise that Japanese labor isn't cheap, but it is a lot cheaper than US labor, and that's what matters. Multiply the number of vehicles sold by 2400 and put a dollar sign in front of the product.
http://www.americanmachinist.com/304/News/Article/False/43759/ Ford Agrees to Sell Two Plants in Michigan, One in Mexico 12/20/2006 Ford Motor Company has entered into three memorandums of understanding to sell two of its plants in Michigan and a third plant in Mexico. The plants are part of Automotive Component Holdings, a Ford-managed temporary company formed in 2005. Ford says Automotive Component Holdings was created to ensure the flow of critical components to Ford while working significantly to reduce Fordâs material costs over time. The company currently includes 11 plants in the United States and three plants in Mexico. âWe have focused on preparing our businesses for sale to buyers who can grow and invest in them,â said Al Ver, chief executive officer and chief operating office of Automotive Components Holdings. â[These sales are] an important step for Fordâs North American operations and the Way Forward Acceleration Plan, especially as we seek to reduce costs over time,â said Mark Fields, president of The Americas and Ford executive vice president. The first memorandum of understanding is with Valeo, a global supplier of automotive parts with 130 plants, 65 research and development centers and 70,400 employees in 26 countries and annual sales of more than $13 billion (9.9 billion Euros). The agreement is for the purchase of Automotive Components Holdingsâ climate control business including the Sheldon Road Plant in Plymouth Township, Mich. The second memorandum of understanding is with Cooper-Standard Automotive, a privately held portfolio company of the Cypress Group and Goldman Sachs Capital Partners Funds that employs more than 16,000 across 61 facilities in 14 countries. The agreement covers the purchase of Automotive Components Holdingsâ fuel rail manufacturing operations at its El Jarudo, Mexico plant. And the latest memorandums of understanding is with Flex-N-Gate, a privately held supplier of automotive components with 40 plants in Spain, North and South America employing more than 10,000 people. The agreement is for the sale of Automotive Components Holdingsâ fascia and fuel tank business including the Milan, Mich. plant. Sales of the Michigan plants are contingent upon the negotiation of a new and competitive agreement with the United Auto Workers union for each plant.
I believe the comparative study you quoted was directed toward Japanese brand cars that are made in North America.
One note - The tab for health care is usually picked up by foreign governments for overseas labor. This is one reason why Ontario, Canada builds more cars than Detroit, Michigan. The cost of corporate funded health care equals an additional cost of a whopping $1,400 per car in the U.S., by some estimates. I have said and will maintain that the United States will have national health care within 5 years. It is being pushed by strange bedfellows: Labor unions and CORPORATE AMERICA. You just can't lose when you're betting on something that kind of coalition wants.
If people in other countries want to pay for their healthcare via a taxation-like system, surely that's their choice. It seems to me that the main problem the US faces is not how the money for healthcare is sourced. The core issue is that the country spends twice the amount per capita than most of its peers in the OECD and yet there is nothing to suggest that the average American is healthier or lives longer than those of citizens in other OECD countries. A national health service might well work a lot better for the US. In fact it's kind of hard to see what could be worse than the current system, which seems to combine a low degree of social inclusion with very high prices. If the troubles of the Big Three stimulates debate on the healthcare industry in the US as a whole then maybe that's for the good in the long term. Suss (edited for clarity)