By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
No mention of that. If I can link, the Ford F150 plant video link is below.
Ford Rouge Plant
I don't think it is as much "embracing" (although true for the big parties in the USA right now) as it is the poorer and more oppressed peoples acting logically: "they have it, we want it, let's go get it..."
The one posted wanted to install QuickTime on my computer, which I've banned.
The page includes a link to the YouTube version, available in HD...
(at no extra charge, grin).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81cvHDdY0S0&hd=1
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The parties in this country both want the Latino vote. But those illegally immigrating across our southern border are almost all in the "they have it, we want some of it, let's go get it" mode. And they perform an illegal act to do it. Perhaps it is few against the world populations, but I don't consider many millions "few" for the US.
And, I'm old enough to remember the retention of firemen on railroad locomotives, even after they were no longer needed due to the conversion from steam power to diesel. The "WORRY" about automation goes well beyond the 1960's, but your point is well-made.
The transfer of private industry obligations to the public (GM & Chrysler, as an example) simply followed historical trends...(the transfer of private Railroad obligations to the public...sans bankruptcy proceedings).
We've been here before, but we all have a tendency to forget (or never learn) history.
Automation was great if it meant a factory job (the equipment they build performs more automated tasks which reduce manpower needs), but it sucks if it means losing a factory job! Sort of a double standard! ("I want my automation on MY terms!")
Well I see it as being primarily about votes. :mad:
But massive immigraction can have severe impacts on labor markets.
But massive immigraction can have severe impacts on labor markets.
Unfortunately for the US, our immigration policy is also a perfect storm against the general population.
One political party sees immigrants as more votes, so it has little desire to curb immigration.
The other major party sees immigration as cheap labor, so it also has little desire to curb immigration.
The general population loses as a result, as neither major party has any incentive to change the current immigration policy, and indeed, that is exactly why no substantial policy changes have been implemented. If these immigrants refused to work for slave wages, OR if they changed their party of voting preference, THEN one might see a change in policy....Maybe...
What do you think would happen if the vast majority of illegals moved their primary support to the republican party tomorrow?
What do you think would happen if if the vast majority of illegals immediately began striking for better pay and organizing into effective labor unions tomorrow?
We all know the answer to those questions...
The other major party sees immigration as cheap labor, so it also has little desire to curb immigration. "
Bingo. As well about the general population losing. And it's a mess being foisted not only on the US, but what was once the developed world.
You raise some questions few will touch with a 10 foot pole.
Heck, Woody Guthrie's Deportees could have been written yesterday but dates back to 1948.
But the same people were unethically profiting from the labor then as now, no doubt.
Heck, Woody Guthrie's Deportees could have been written yesterday but dates back to 1948.
True. But, as another poster stated, we didn't have the costly social support services back then that are being abused now by illegals. And, the employment situation has changed dramatically since Woody was around.
Our 84 Dodge Van, 78 Chevy G20 Van, the 07 Montero, and the 03 CR-V had the swinging door(s).
Our '80 Civic Wagon, a Dodge Colt hatch back and the 03 Pilot had the Lifting hatch.
We prefer the swinging door, for various reasons. Although I don't care for the spare hanging off of it.
To each his own!
As far as interior goes, we learned a long time ago that "Plush" appearance doesn't necessarily go along with quality.
Thanks,
Kip
The Montero, the Honda CR-V, and the Chevy G20 Van all had/have spares hanging on them. And I agree they are a bit heavy to leave open when driving. I forgot to mention earlier our Chevy Astro that had the door in the back. It didn't have a spare hanging.
If/when a given vehicle is the only one in a family, the hatch may be more advantageous, if they have a need to transport long items. Obviously the hatches are more popular than doors for most folks. OR, Maybe it is because "doors" aren't an option on most SUVs.
For us, If a given vehicle gave an option, we would go for the door. Actually two doors, such as on our G20 would be even better.
On the other hand, if everything about a particular vehicle was what we wanted, we would not discount it because it had a hatch. Although the door vs hatch could be a "tie breaker" for two close contenders.
Advantage of the hatch is that if another vehicle is close behind mine, the hatch doesn't need as much room to open fully. Such as when parallel parking. But, I can't remember the last time that was an issue. Down side is that the hatch pretty much needs to open "All the way" to access the cargo area. Doors can be opened just slightly to slip something in or out. Hatches are nice to stand under to load and unload in the rain. Down side is they are more likely to dump water when they are lowered and if an umbrella in in play the hatch can get in the way.
There are good arguments for both.
Kip
Those 2-way tailgates, like what GM's '77-era big cars had, was pretty cool. I think the Honda Ridgeline does something like that, too?
I really don't like hatches that raise up. I tend to bump them with my head! :sick:
The long and the short of it. We are headed to a very violent period in American history that will make the Civil Rights riots of the 60s look like a spring time walk in the park. Nobody really seems to be considering this real inevitability.
BTW, you're right with your last post. My FIL says there's gonna be another revolution here. What's sad is, instead of standing up for one another, everybody seems WAY TOO concerned with what other people have, just because they may not.
I almost admire your unwillingness to abandon a theory that you've fallen in love with just because the facts don't support it. As I've pointed out several times previously, no economist has turned up a connection between unemployment & violent crime. There might be a correlation between joblessness & petty crime, like shoplifting, but that's as far as it goes.
Something else to consider: throughout the 60s, the economy was generally strong, with low inflation & unemployment. Sociologists have pointed out that the poor are more likely to resort to violence during such times, when the majority are doing well, than during times of widespread economic recession. So it's not surprising that urban rioting took place during the more affluent 1960s rather than during the inflationary 1970s or the severe recession of the early 1980s. Sorry if this cuts the ground out from under your theory, but there you have it.
I've also pointed out a bunch of times that the violent crime rate in NYC has dropped to levels not seen since JFK's Presidency in the early 1960s. If Philadelphia remains a dangerous place to live, it's probably because your city is run by incompetents. (I was born in Philly, & it's painful for me to badmouth it, but I'm grateful to my parents for getting us out of there more than 50 years ago.)
Again, don't let ugly, inconvenient facts get in your way. And just a friendly reminder: it's almost time for you to trot out your deeply-felt conviction that German cars are prohibitively expensive to maintain.
How long can this continue until the last straw falls?
Well, unless civilization collapses, we will get to watch it play out and comment on it here at Edmunds!
There's only one solution!
How ya fixed for blades?
I've been Googling & Binging for background info on Michael. There isn't much out there about him, but I have learned this much:
(1) He's a lawyer who lives in the greater Seattle area, and
(2) a Helen T. Snyder, also of Seattle, has contributed to Lyndon LaRouche's PAC.
Now this doesn't constitute a smoking gun, but it does encourage me to ask if Michael is an acolyte of Loony Lyndon.
Just wondering.
There is a part of me that agrees with you, but I think it will also have a racial aspect to it...maybe an unfair stereotype, but many folks think that too much $$$ is spent (wasted) on inner city residents who simply keep having more kids to add to the welfare system...add to that the number of whites who have been turned down for loans, jobs, etc due to affirmative action and quotas for minorities...I think there are more smoldering tinderboxes than many want to believe, and having a Muslim President who has a WH dinner for Ramadan and has no trohble with a mosque at ground zero, and who apologizes to anyone about just how bad America is, there is more stirring beneath the surface than many want to believe...
Some folks have had it with social promotion due to race, and the system oozing with reverse discrimination...there is more to this than meets the eye...
Or maybe I am just some radical hick in the South...
I've heard that they were. Other disadvantages were that they cut into storage space under the trunk floor, added more weight than a regular tailgate would have, and when the glass was raised into the roof, the clearance was so tight that if anything dropped on the roof, the slightest buckle could shatter the glass.
Neat idea, though, and they did keep it through 1976. I have a feeling that with the downsized 1977 models, having something like that retract away would eat up too much interior space.
Personally, I think the EEO laws and implementation back in LBJ's Great Society of the 60's were necessary and effective. Unfortunately they seemed to devolve into reverse discrimination during the past two decades. Today we have blacks and other minorities as corporate CEO's, judges, surgeons and even as president of the USA, so I don't understand why we still have all of this EEO stuff and bureaucracy. The initial rules and programs worked and are now OBE. I think it's rather ironic that today there appear to be plenty of bigots or racists that are not white.
I know a lot of it is hard to face, as it might not make one want to bend over for unlimited rule-free "free market" corporate oligarchy dictatorship.
Well, I didn't see any data. I've never earned or spent a percentage, but I know that I have a hell of a lot more money now than I did 10 years ago. If you look back at the period around the depression (or any down turn), you'd see similar statistics predicting nothing but doom and gloom. We don't have any choice but to make this country work, and we will. We've made it through worse times.
No doubt we have serious issues (when haven't we), but I'm not particularly worried about the future (as in total societal breakdown). I have no doubt my kids will have opportunities to be more successful than my wife and I, just as we did in regards to our parents. That doesn't mean they are guaranteed to do well in life, they have to go out and get it.
The depression was ended by a disastrous and sickening world war that still impacts the direction of society to this day. Do we want that again?
I don't mean a breakdown like a Mad Max world...but there is a simmering tension already as the socio-economic gap continues to explode...and sooner or later it will cause a lot of ...let's say... disobedience.
Your kids are going to be hampered by paying for massive federal debt and public sector obligations, not to mention foreign obligations. They aren't going to be living in a sunny world.
And that is my point...we have a Pres who was voted in by a white majority, so we need to move beyond all this discrimination stuff...there just comes a point where one has to stand on their own 2 feet and quit blaming the "system"...in the 60s it did make sense to right some serious wrongs, but this cannot go on forever...
Jesse Helms ad in the late 90s talked about a white who was better qualified but was not employed due to affirmative action...reverse discrimination is just as bad...
This is the Web, after all, so it behooves one to vet the messenger before evaluating the message.
In this case, we know practically nothing at all about the messenger. Worse, he might be associated with a notorious cult leader.
How much credibility would you attach to the postings of an unknown person if you suspected that a political freak like LaRouche had influenced that person's thinking? Practically none, I would guess.
As far as taking something like WWII to get one out of a depression, sure you don't want that again but history proves over and over again that you will. And once again we'll pick up the pieces and move on.
It will be as sunny as they make it. This kind of talk is nothing new. Every generation seems to think the upcoming generation is going to have it so much worse.
Maybe their definition of success is will be different. Maybe I have a big set of rose colored glasses, but articles spewing percentages from a data set I can't evaluate doesn't scare me. Usually it's not what the stats show, but what data was left out to prove a point.
Precisely my sentiments.
"The strains on ordinary people mounted. Food prices rose, squalor spread disease through the cities and widespread famine broke out. Soldiers were unpaid, unemployment was rife, and all the while the nobility paid no tax and enjoyed a lifestyle of excess and power, and in 1789 the Revolution broke out."
I see many eerie parallels to today's situation. There's the possibility of hyper-inflation. Many eastern and midwestern cities are already impoverished, violent, and dangerous. If China refuses to take on any more of our debt or calls those T-notes in, we can no longer finance our military. We already know the corporate globalist elite already enjoy lifestyles beyond the dreams of avarice while the majority of the world starves in abject poverty.
How ya fixed for blades?
I'm also a lot better off now than I was 10 years ago, although I wonder how things would look against more of an "apples to apples" comparison. For example...I'm 40 now, so I was 30 ten years ago. I wonder how I'd stack up compared to the "typical" 40 year old of ten years ago, or how the "typical" 30 year old would compare to me of ten years ago?
Another thing that tends to happen, and I think it's just natural, is that recessions always cause a gap between rich and poor, and divide the middle class. For instance, if a recession hits and you get laid off, often you have to tap into savings/retirement. And if that money is invested in stocks, mutual funds, etc, chances are it has tanked as well, so you're cashing in at the worst possible time...when prices are low. By the time you find another job, you could be financially wiped out, and set back years, if not decades.
But, if you don't get laid off, you just keep on working, keep on saving, and when your stocks and mutual funds plummet, you just buy more, and dollar cost averaging works for you, and when the market turns back around, you've got it made.
That appears to be true. The number of millionaires increased 16% in 2009. Where did they come from? The middle class.
I'm a year behind you and wonder the same thing. After doing some minor research I see that according to some studies (who knows if these things are remotely accurate), my wife and I have saved more for retirement than most 60 years olds.
My college friends have all done extremely well with their so called McDegrees. I have friends making over $500k/yr that grew up solidly middle class. Some are business owners, one is a CEO. Some might find him or those like him to be the cause of all our ills, but I find him to be extremely down to earth and generous.
In general, I believe we are all where we're at because of our choices. I was raised to worry about myself first. I don't care if some CEO made 500x what I made, good for him and I hope I have his company stock in my portfolio. I'm happy with where I'm at (but never content).
Again, these trends are not imaginary.
Funny that a weirdo like Larouche is lamentable, and the entire "let's open China" cabal of Kissinger and friends have remained free and untouched men.
Success in the future will be making a living wage.
I see nobody will touch the claims and trends in that blurby little article.
But maybe cutting the highest income tax to zero and eliminating corporate taxes will save the day.
Well, where else are they going to come from, or is being worth over a million now middle class? Granted, most middle to upper middle income households should be worth a million or two by retirement. I know several high net worth individuals. Most of them made it on their own and started off poor to middle class.
I've read these types of stats several times over the past decade or so, but here is a link to the latest.
shrinking middle class