Another multi-poster... <sigh>
I posted the below in rec.autos.makers.honda, in reply to your identical
I'll bet it's an annoyance. But it's not a defect, it's a
Remember that new 35mpg CAFE standard? Guess how many hoops
Honda's trying to jump through to meet that standard and still
offer you a 3.5L V6 engine?
Read Honda's carefully-worded press release, here:
Not that fuel economy is mentioned twice in the battery section.
Honda did something similar in the early-'90s, with a cruder form
of the "low battery" light. It was called the Electrical Load
Detector (ELD). It too was intended to increase gas mileage,
and it too caused myriad problems until Honda got the bugs
You guys may feel confident and reassured when your elected
representatives ditch the gridlock and take decisive action,
but you sure don't like the side-effects!
It's a fleet average no? So sell more Fits and Civics. They don't make
as much money on those I guess.
I really don't understand your point of view. We're running out of oil
so we either need to destroy natural areas to get a bit more or trade
with despots. Water is also a vital resource that is getting scarce in
many areas, and disposal of waste water is also a problem, unless we
want to dump it into the oceans and pollute those some more.
It seems to me that toilets that waste large amounts of water are
against our national interest. Yes, it did take a bit of time for
manufacturers to come up with good low-flow toilets, but I sure have
no problem with them and haven't for many years. Maybe your plumbing
needs a look.
really? so why are they spending trillions* of taxpayer dollars bailing
out "free market" operations such as the auto industry? the [public and
private] banks? the insurance industry? the housing industry [fannie
and freddie]? i know i didn't vote for it. did you?
* that's trillions with "T", not a typo.
yeah, but you said "free market" we don't have a free market. we have
"public risk, private profit" /illusion/ of a free market where the
institutions that are supposed to be "by the people for the people" are
now simply tax collection mechanisms to feed the corporations that these
institutions now actually serve. to put it another way, your issue with
"overstepping boundaries" is misdirected - it's not government that's
the problem, it's who that government actually serves that is the problem.
The fact remains that the federal gov't has it's tendrils into areas
that should be under the authority of the individual states. Who they
serve is another issue that has been brought about partially by the
archaic two party system, where one tries to out do the other making
anal decisions that is in direct opposition to the other.
The house of cards is an almost all service economy. Politicians
speak about job creation, but speak nothing of what kinds of jobs are
The main training for a majority of newly created jobs will probably
be learning to say "would you like to large size that, sir" with the
Politicians do not create jobs. They can prevent them from being created,
or they can force the creation to move from one place to another, but they
cannot, on net, create jobs.
The increase in service jobs is a result of increased productivity. An MIT
study in 2004 determined that it takes the average manufacturing worker 10
hours to create what it took 40 hours to make in 1950. Even with
significant increases in our standard of living since 1950, we do not need
4 times the stuff to be manufactured. So the excess labor has migrated to
other things, and that usually means service.
Think of the service industry as adding luxury and convenience to life:
People not /making/ things for you, but /doing/ things for you. And I don't
mean working the counter at a fast-food restaurant. For example, IT
professionals are service-industry workers, as are paralegals, research-
and-development, and other trades that generally make much more than
My own day job is in the service industry. There /is/ manufacturing in the
background, but manufacturing productivity is now several times what it was
30 years ago (e.g.: a machine that had a crew of four 30 years ago now
requires two and runs 3x as fast), so we've adjusted the employee mix to
focus more time on selling and servicing customers, which improves our
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -
What you say about productivity is correct, but the
increase in demand due to the upward mobility of wages
and population growth did pretty much cover the increase
The thing that brought on this recession has never been
mentioned, The free trade agreements our govenment
signed. First came NAFTA, the result of wnich was
american manufacturing started plants in
Mexico,Honduras,Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic.
Then came the World trade Organization agreement that
open the doors to Chinese goods with no duties.
Manufacturers quickly learned that they could buy
finished goods cheaper than they could manufacture them.
First the Textile industry collapsed. A year or two
later the Furniture industry followed. Now furniture is
bought from China and relabled by American companies.
I retiired from a Knitting company that I helped build
in 2004 because I forsaw what would happen in January
2005 when the doors would open to China. Our few
remaining customers would surely close up shop. They
Did you own part of this company? If so, you must have been bought-out by
somebody, like the other principals. What did you do with the money you
got? Where did you put it, and why? Did you put your money into something
where competition was high, margins low, and prospects for growth slim?
Most people with money obviously won't do that, and that's why old
businesses go under and new ones start up. "Creative destruction", like
And where did your people end up going? Well, they eventually found other
jobs in industries that could survive competition. This is inevitably true,
or unemployment would be near 100% now, not 9%: Almost no companies that
were in existence in 1950 remain in existence now, and yet there are
thousands more employers, and millions more citizens, than in 1950.
Take your thinking to its logical end: Why should you buy things not made
in your state, or your city, or your street? Or your own house? Why stop at
Where does the /smart/ money go? What would you invest in with your /own/
No, I did not own part of the company. It was a family owned company and
not my family.
I should have said ' our few remaining LARGE customers would close up shop.'
The company I worked for is still in business. It was sold recently to a
family member who owns another company that sells to the government for
Most of the machinery now sits idle and a lot of people I worked with for
years are no longer there, and are no longer needed. Had I stayed, I would
be no longer be needed as well. On the other hand I was 67 years old and
would have retired by now anyway.
Clinton/Gore pushed and passed NAFTA and GATT. Remember Ross Perot and
the, "Giant Sucking Sound?" They scoffed at him at the time but time
surely has proven him correct.
All the political parties are complicit. Government creates the climate
to do business and the current climate points to China...
Most manufacturing is off shore. The service jobs you speak of
require some sort of functional education, which may be out of reach
for quite a few of the most current generation based on the current
state of the economy.
While it (service jobs) may make our lives easier/better/more
comfortable, a good portion of it isn't or can't be exported to or
copied by other countries.
I see this everyday...I work in manufacturing for medical device
companies, and components that used to go directly to hundreds of US
sites now go to Puerto Rico, China, Mexico and Costa Rica while all of
their US employees get laid off except for the R&D centers.
That's unintended effects as when (shown in studies) that people are now flushing more than once. There was a reason for plumbing engineers to calculate the amount of water in the tank. Some political fiat that one could use less water results in the unintended effect that more flushes are needed. Her ladyship might only need one for her royal pee, but his lordship requires more than one for his royal dump, hence there is no savings of water. On the other hand it gives more work for the Squire of the Roto-Rooter.
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.