Will UAW Strike affect Maverick production / delivery?

[RichardCranium]

Not just Ford, all car and truck manufacturers prices have gone up roughly 30% over the last 4 years, partially because of inflation…

Inflation doesn’t cause price increases, price increases cause inflation. Pice increases are caused by supply and demand. Car supplies are low and demand is up. Prices will increase as long as people are willing to pay.

now, that being said, to @Kagiso point, how does the strike effect his/our maverick production.

Based on news sources (citation needed) Teamsters and rail unions won’t cross picket lines. Transportation may be affected, but not likely because transportation does not need to cross picket lines to deliver Mavericks.

Production has the potential to be affected IF those parts are made by UAW plants. And IF those plants struck. based on information posted here, it sounds like those plants are not striking…yet.

now, from what I have read (sorry, I don’t remember the source) but it sounds like ford has planned on having people step in from different salary positions. Also, there are some union members that will cross the picket line for whatever reason. Whether it be that $500 a week is not enough, or if ford offers benefits to those that cross the picket line. There may be enough coverage to not slow things down too much.

There was a grocers strike near me about 10 years ago, and a friends son was working as a bagger. He didn’t know what to do about the strike and could not afford the strike. He ended up using the opportunity for advancement in the company. Not that I am saying that is right, but I wouldn’t be surprised if people were willing to cross the picket line for personal gain if offered.

On a final note, it sounds like the implications of this strike are going to be very far reaching. From supply shops having to lay people off because no parts are being ordered, all the way to potential disruption of Maverick deliveries. For that reason, I hope they settle quickly and move forward to schedule my Maverick to be built (what can I say, I am selfish )

Sponsored

 

[fossil]

in other news UAW rejects Stellantis offer and says talks with Ford are progressing.

curious, F offered 20% early, G offered 20% last minute, S delayed

F plant struck was smaller than G by a bit and S got hammered.

co-inky-dink?

 

[Kagiso]

Based on news sources (citation needed) Teamsters and rail unions won’t cross picket lines. Transportation may be affected, but not likely because transportation does not need to cross picket lines to deliver Mavericks.

Production has the potential to be affected IF those parts are made by UAW plants. And IF those plants struck. based on information posted here, it sounds like those plants are not striking…yet.

On a final note, it sounds like the implications of this strike are going to be very far reaching. From supply shops having to lay people off because no parts are being ordered, all the way to potential disruption of Maverick deliveries. For that reason, I hope they settle quickly and move forward to schedule my Maverick to be built (what can I say, I am selfish )

Thanks, Richard. There are reasons not to panic. Was it you who said Ford only supplies parts to cover the next 120 days out? That's bad news for many. But my 16 October production date should be covered. So there's that. Good luck everyone!

 

[RichardCranium]

Thanks, Richard. There are reasons not to panic. Was it you who said Ford only supplies parts to cover the next 120 days out? That's bad news for many. But my 16 October production date should be covered. So there's that. Good luck everyone!

No, it was not me. But that is unfortunate to those that work in positions that produce said parts. My hope for all at MTC that are still waiting that they schedule all your orders and deliver them quickly.

 

[Kagiso]

No, it was not me. But that is unfortunate to those that work in positions that produce said parts. My hope for all at MTC that are still waiting that they schedule all your orders and deliver them quickly.

This is my hope.

 

[Gray Goose]

Reading this thread reminds me that capitalism is the worst economic system except for all the others that have been tried.
https://pittnews.com/article/5424/o...st-economic-system-except-for-all-the-others/

 

[GeoJoe]

Inflation doesn’t cause price increases, price increases cause inflation. Pice increases are caused by supply and demand. Car supplies are low and demand is up. Prices will increase as long as people are willing to pay.

Actually, the latest inflation was caused by the government "printing money" when they shouldn't have.

 

[RichardCranium]

Actually, the latest inflation was caused by the government "printing money" when they shouldn't have.

Another fallacy. The government doesn’t print money to make more money. It is cheap loans that create more money in circulation. If the government just printed money to cause inflation, then all they would have to do is destroy some money and it would go back to normal.
Welcome to another Economics with RichardCranium.
when the economy is doing badly, the Fed wants to inject money into the economic system. It doesn’t do this by going and “printing money”. If the government “printed money” that would lead to more than just inflation, but also to a system wide collapse of the world’s most stable currency. In order to inject money into the economic system, the Fed lowers the interest rate. This is the key interest rate that all other loans are based on. Ever hear your credit card say the interest rate is prime plus some number? That means your interest rate is however many percents over that rate.
well here is the question, when people borrow money, where does it come from? Well, how many of you have a savings account? I know I do. Well, there is a reason that banks give you interest in your savings account. It is because they use that money to make loans. “What?” You say, “but my money is still in my account!” That is true. The bank still accounts for your money all while using it to help someone else buy their Maverick. When the money in circulation is counted, your money is counted as well as the money that was loaned to me to buy my maverick. “Wait!” You say, “I didn’t agree to loan my money to RichardCranium to buy a truck!” Actually, you did. Remember those terms of service you never read, but signed anyways? It is in there. So now, not only is their money in your account, but ford has been paid for their maverick and then they put that money in an account, and the whole system starts over again. But don’t worry, you still have access to your money because the bank keeps a reserve. And if there is a run in the bank, they can borrow money from the federal government at the lower interest rate to cover extras.
when there is too much money in circulation, the fed raises the interest rate. This makes people less likely to buy things they can’t afford and less able to afford them. Less loans are made, and the ones that were made are slowly paid back. As the money is paid back returned to the people that loaned the money to the bank (the members) and not returned to circulation.
The problem with inflation is that the fed reacted too slowly to the insane borrowing and spending that was going on. Cheap interest made it so a lot of people were able to buy things they couldn’t afford and since they were able to borrow money for so little, they were willing/able to pay more. Hence house prices doubling in the last 5 years. And the rest is covered in my last post.
Thanks again for tuning into another Episode of Economics with RichardCranium. Tune in next week for “My maverick costs WHAT? After I am done paying for it!”

 

[GeoJoe]

Another fallacy. The government doesn’t print money to make more money. It is cheap loans that create more money in circulation. If the government just printed money to cause inflation, then all they would have ...

I understand the long explanation, thus the reducing it to the short explanation. I also understand banks are allowed to loan X percent over what they have on their books and still be considered solvent.

Anyway you look at it, the government sending out stimulus checks, canceling college kids' beer and pizza debts or approving massive spending projects all result in the same thing. It increases the money supply. That results in the dollar being worth less than before. It is nothing more than a back door tax to punish savers and reward those who never seen a trinket they couldn't live without.

Net effect is the money you have in your bank account can no longer buy what it used to be able to buy.

 

[gwrace14651]

It's a balancing act for the unions. The more plants involved in the strike the more people will be drawing strike pay. The striking workers will deplete that strike fund pretty quickly at $500 per person per week. That should put pressure on the union to settle when people are no longer getting paid. If 13,000 are on strike that is costing them 6.5 mil every week. Growing up in a union family was never any fun.

 

[RichardCranium]

I understand the long explanation, thus the reducing it to the short explanation. I also understand banks are allowed to loan X percent over what they have on their books and still be considered solvent.

Anyway you look at it, the government sending out stimulus checks, canceling college kids' beer and pizza debts or approving massive spending projects all result in the same thing. It increases the money supply. That results in the dollar being worth less than before. It is nothing more than a back door tax to punish savers and reward those who never seen a trinket they couldn't live without.

Net effect is the money you have in your bank account can no longer buy what it used to be able to buy.

You are correct that there is an amount that banks are allowed to loan out and I mentioned the reserve in my post.

I do disagree about the stimulus check. In theory, the stimulus checks have the potential of making more revenue than they cost the government. In theory. The theory is that when a person spends the money on a good or service, the company they purchase said good or service from needs to hire employees. There are taxes paid when employees are paid and taxes paid when the company makes money. Then comes the trickle down effect. Said employee/business owner then goes and spends their money and the cycle repeats itself. There are even some instances, like my own, where the government makes money back in excess of what they sent out. I used my stimulus to start a business and have paid more in taxes than the government gave me in stimulus.

now for my opinion, the first stimulus was sent out at the right time. A lot of people were out of work and the cash infusion helped them to have more money to spend. I, personally, was not upset about the stimulus. Opinion done.

The problem is mismanagement. The way the stimulus was handled and the lack of oversight was the problem. The government went the lazy route and instead of employing people to manage it, just decided not to. People do what the normally do, lie, cheat, and steal.
The big government projects, are all mismanaged. Instead of hiring one company to do a job over a long period of time, many companies should have been hired to finish quickly. Anyone who has been to central California and seen the eyesore that is California High Speed Rail can tell you that this project is being mismanaged. It is already over a decade behind schedule and billions of dollars over budget. This is Because the government hired a few companies and those companies are building slowly so that they can benefit for a long time instead of hiring a lot of people now and getting the project finished.
Again, these are drops in the bucket (millions of dollars compared to the trillions budget) compared to the other mismanagement by our government. The problem with inflation is exactly what I have said before. Supply and demand. Whenever there is a depression, and yes, COVID era was a depression, where people are not working and therefore supply is not being produced, demand builds. People were unable to purchase for whatever reasons (no job, no need, no money) and when restrictions were removed, it was like opening a floodgate. people return to work and they now have the need and ability to make large purchases. People want to buy and there is nothing there to buy. People are willing to pay, often more than what the item is worth. The government failed to predict this, although it has happened in EVERY economic cycle before (think end of WWII) With super low interest rates (thanks, I am saving over $80,000 on my house and paying off 6 years earlier due to refinancing) people were willing to take out loans to make said purchases. The government reacted too slowly and let it go on for too long (inflation vs. unemployment, another Economics topic). It was mismanagement the whole way. The government should have stepped in a long time ago to decrease the flow of money. They needed to reduce demand by raising interest raises which would have raised prices and therefore lowered demand.

And finally, I know you are thinking that I ignored that the government is canceling student loans because you are right. That is just plain stupid. The government should have never done that.

 

[GeoJoe]

You are correct that there is an amount that banks are allowed to loan out and I mentioned the reserve in my post.

I do disagree about the stimulus check. In theory, the stimulus checks have the potential of making more revenue than they cost the government. In theory. The theory is that when a person spends the money on a good or service, the company they purchase said good or service from needs to hire employees. There are taxes paid when employees are paid and taxes paid when the company makes money. Then comes the trickle down effect. Said employee/business owner then goes and spends their money and the cycle repeats itself. There are even some instances, like my own, where the government makes money back in excess of what they sent out. I used my stimulus to start a business and have paid more in taxes than the government gave me in stimulus.

now for my opinion, the first stimulus was sent out at the right time. A lot of people were out of work and the cash infusion helped them to have more money to spend. I, personally, was not upset about the stimulus. Opinion done.

The problem is mismanagement. The way the stimulus was handled and the lack of oversight was the problem. The government went the lazy route and instead of employing people to manage it, just decided not to. People do what the normally do, lie, cheat, and steal.
The big government projects, are all mismanaged. Instead of hiring one company to do a job over a long period of time, many companies should have been hired to finish quickly. Anyone who has been to central California and seen the eyesore that is California High Speed Rail can tell you that this project is being mismanaged. It is already over a decade behind schedule and billions of dollars over budget. This is Because the government hired a few companies and those companies are building slowly so that they can benefit for a long time instead of hiring a lot of people now and getting the project finished.
Again, these are drops in the bucket (millions of dollars compared to the trillions budget) compared to the other mismanagement by our government. The problem with inflation is exactly what I have said before. Supply and demand. Whenever there is a depression, and yes, COVID era was a depression, where people are not working and therefore supply is not being produced, demand builds. People were unable to purchase for whatever reasons (no job, no need, no money) and when restrictions were removed, it was like opening a floodgate. people return to work and they now have the need and ability to make large purchases. People want to buy and there is nothing there to buy. People are willing to pay, often more than what the item is worth. The government failed to predict this, although it has happened in EVERY economic cycle before (think end of WWII) With super low interest rates (thanks, I am saving over $80,000 on my house and paying off 6 years earlier due to refinancing) people were willing to take out loans to make said purchases. The government reacted too slowly and let it go on for too long (inflation vs. unemployment, another Economics topic). It was mismanagement the whole way. The government should have stepped in a long time ago to decrease the flow of money. They needed to reduce demand by raising interest raises which would have raised prices and therefore lowered demand.

And finally, I know you are thinking that I ignored that the government is canceling student loans because you are right. That is just plain stupid. The government should have never done that.

At the risk of being facetious, let me condense your post.

You agree with the inflationary pressures of stimulus because you personally benefited.
You do not agree with the inflationary pressures of canceling what was called "student debt" (way more than tuition and books) because you did not personally benefit.

Then on the inflationary pressures of big government projects, you changed the subject to inefficiently vs efficiently.

An outsider looking on could assume you are for corporate welfare, but against personal welfare.

Regardless of all that, the government increasing the money supply aka "printing money" causes inflation.

 

[RichardCranium]

At the risk of being facetious, let me condense your post.

You agree with the inflationary pressures of stimulus because you personally benefited.
You do not agree with the inflationary pressures of canceling what was called "student debt" (way more than tuition and books) because you did not personally benefit.

Then on the inflationary pressures of big government projects, you changed the subject to inefficiently vs efficiently.

An outsider looking on could assume you are for corporate welfare, but against personal welfare.

Regardless of all that, the government increasing the money supply aka "printing money" causes inflation.

Actually, I was for the stimulus because that is what I felt the economy needed at the time and in theory, they can work. If the economy was not stimulated then many more of the small "mom and pop" stores could have failed and been replaced by large corporations. I chose to use my stimulus to start a business, others chose to spend it on beer and pizza. Ether way, there was a positive effect to the economy at the time. Right now, a stimulus would not be positive.

I am against college loan forgiveness, even though my family would benefit, because I believe in repaying debts. Whether those debts are for college, what college students really spend their loans on, or for buying a Maverick.

An outsider looking on could assume many things. Assumptions are usually made based on an individuals background and beliefs. So I could assume that other onlookers may correctly assume differently.

Big government projects should be handled more efficiently. All infusion of money into the economy causes inflation. negative inflation is very bad for an economy. I believe this is where our viewpoints differ. An infusion of money into the economy is not printing money because that money has to come from somewhere. If the government does not have the money to infuse, then it is borrowed. "printing money" is making money from nothing. If you are saying that lowering interest rates is "printing money" then we are actually in agreement. I just look at it from a slightly different lens.

 

[GeoJoe]

All infusion of money into the economy causes inflation.

Thank you for finally admitting it.

 

[RichardCranium]

Thank you for finally admitting it.

Infusion of money does not mean "printing money". I work, I get paid, I spend money. that is an infusion of money into the economy, it is not "printing money". last time I printed money I went to jail for 5-7.

Sponsored