|
|
|
|
|
Re: Competitive edge - too much nostalgia? [message #55956 is a reply to message #55949] |
Sat, 30 October 2004 23:48 |
Bill Martinelli
Messages: 677 Registered: May 2009
|
Illuminati (1st Degree) |
|
|
It's funny every (myself included) thinks the old cars were better built. If you think about it for a minute they are not better built, only made more heavy. In a crash test the old cars survived impact but defered all the impact to the passenger. Now days with 'crumple zones' the car is destroyed but the people live on. Sure for us gear heads the whole car and design was more simple in the 60's. things were thicker and we could do more modifications with less thought. The 60's had some of the most horse power per cubic inch. The 80's took it all away, but it's coming back today in full force with great fuel economy as well. Todays 350 hp vette gets 25mpg on the highway. a 65 small block vette got 12 mpg on good days. Quality today is actually better. Engines for example have an increased life expectancy every new model. In the 60's and 70's cars with 100,000 miles on them were very rare and would soon be in need of a resting spot. Today a 100k on an engine is not much at all. Some companies are shooting for 100k as the first tune up point. Living in a town where Rochester Products and Delco started and lived, we were all found of carburators, points and plugs to earn livings. I dont miss carbs and points these days. I dont miss having to change plugs 1 or 2 times a year either. In the north east we get snow and then put crazy things like salt on the roads so we can still drive. Here, in 1970 a car never had a chance to make 100k because it would tottally rust out in 4 years. The cars are now thinner, lighter, and we say cheaper. but they last longer. run better, and handle better. There are only a handfull of post war cars that were good handling cars. Sure the big muscle cars went fast,,, in a line. But cars of the showroom floor of yesteryear did not handle good, were not easy or comfortable to drive and didnt brake well either, compared to the new stuff. There is a problem growing today with the outsourcing and perceptions of loosings jobs. I sure dont have any answers it is all very concerning if you need to work for a living. The typewriter was a great invention. we dont use them any more and all those people lost jobs making them. The transister took over the vacuum tube (for normal people!) The ice house doesnt get to come by and drop a block of ice in the small door on my back porch anymore, I have a fridge now and dont need them. The technology changes, and as leaders of the free world, If thats the way we want to look at ourselves. We need to make changes and work on the next level. We need to make our own markets. We cant compete with labor in far away lands. If those products were made in USA, we wouldnt be able to afford to buy them. But, Thats not saying there isnt something else we can make here that we all can afford. That is what has kept us a world appart in past. Lots of changes and I imagine the econimic profs at the college's have no shortage of things to talk about in class these days. .
|
|
|
|
Re: Competitive edge - too much nostalgia? [message #55958 is a reply to message #55956] |
Sun, 31 October 2004 10:18 |
|
Wayne Parham
Messages: 18791 Registered: January 2001
|
Illuminati (33rd Degree) |
|
|
I agree with you Bill. I agree 100% I'm usually quick to remark when people talk about the "good old days" and how crime has risen and things are getting worse. It's easy to look at the past through rose colored glasses. But really, what was happening 60 years ago was World War II and the atrocities of that period eclipse those of today. The further back you go, the worse it gets. So I'm not glamorizing the past. What I'm talking about is companies holding back on a good product so they can continue to sell a lesser one. I compared it to the introduction of the overhead valve engine, which was first built in the 20's but not made widely available until the 50's. Companies can get away with that sort of thing if the competition isn't fierce. But if it is, is it really smart to try to eek out profits from an existing (inferior) design if an improved one can be made and with little extra cost? American cars today are better than they have ever been. But the 1980's American car market was in a slump. Todays cars are better than 1960's cars. But 1980's cars weren't. The automobile industry now realizes that if they want to sell cars, they have to be competitive. But in the 70's and 80's, American car companies were complacent and thought people would buy their cars over "cheap Japanese imports." That cheap Honda CVCC is what kicked America's butts in the 1990's. So, yeah, todays car market has rebounded. But that's because it learned not to be complacent, in my opinion. Now what I'm saying is when was the last time you bought an American sound system? There are a couple of American loudspeaker manufacturers, and I hope they're paying attention. I'm not saying I know what's best for them, but my guess is that complacency in the status quo probably isn't.
|
|
|
Re: Competitive edge - too much nostalgia? [message #55959 is a reply to message #55957] |
Sun, 31 October 2004 18:16 |
Bill Martinelli
Messages: 677 Registered: May 2009
|
Illuminati (1st Degree) |
|
|
Oh dont get me wrong. I agree with the whole level playing field idea. I think it is unfair for workers in some parts of the world to have to compete with other parts of the world who are paid slave wages. Mom always said "life isn't fair" and it isnt going to change anytime soon. The corperations set much of the pace and its a tough game. Should CEO's make less? Sure! I'm not one so why not. I think pro athletes who squable about 15 mil vs 16 mil is pretty silly too, considering the people who want to go see them play and support their saleries earn 30k and can hardly afford to take their family to an event. I was always under the impression we did a lot of r&d in this country. After developement the products would then be made some place else. The bottom line I see, is we can't produce economically in this country compared to a lot of others. So I dont try to. I make a lot of parts and then send them places for assembly. The people in other countries who assemble cant develope the parts or produce them. So I keep lots of people employed doing work the lower laber rate countries can't do. I'd love to see some of the rules change. I'm not too happy with the last 4 years worth of rules but I do what I can to keep hiring more people. That involves Making product from raw materials in house, making product into finished parts in house, Importing products, exporting products and assembling and finishing both in house and overseas. It's sure an uneasy fealing sending things out but it's all in balance. What I find is that using more affordable labor rates allow products to made and sold more economically. There is then more sales, more market share and I hire more people to develope and produce things in house. I do agree with you. those are just a few way I work with what I have right now. It was different 10 years ago. and it will be different 10 years from now too. We all hope for the better
|
|
|
|