SkyWlf77@: No doubt, everything I wrote is above your head,
because, you disregarded every point I made, and you continued to make the same points you had made previously.
To begin with, the article itself makes my point that, automobile manufacturers are making less profits with the smaller cars. So, that's not a point that I had to make, but was made by the people who wrote the article; but I do agree with the premise.
Secondly, I'm not employed by any car company, and I'm not employed by anybody in government, and in fact, I'm not employed by anybody. What I do, is all independently of any private or public entity. Mostly, I'm a concerned citizen who gets tires of the bull-droppings that so many with agendas try to mislead the public with.
Car size is not the direct killer of the auto industry, but, one cannot debate the fact that, a smaller vehicle will be less profitable to a car company. And, with more of a manufacturer's vehicle being demanded to be of the gas-saving type, more and more vehicles will be built of the smaller variety, which then makes profits hard to come by. The lesser profits that a company gets, the more probable it is that that company could go out of business. Low profits cannot maintain a healthy business, which then means, fewer jobs in the economy. Those are logical points which should not even be open to debate.
You are correct about the quality of our vehicles becoming sub-par, and a lot of that has to do with union labor, where the unions and the membership become complacent about producing quality products since, for decades, they've had guaranteed jobs with guaranteed benefits and, basically, little chance of getting fired. When there is no incentive to produce quality work, then, the quality will suffer. The unions have been basically, a division of the democratic party, and when they have so much power with Washington politicians, then the major auto companies were stuck between a rock and a hard place, and thus, the companies had to give in, and essentially, give the unions the power which they have wielded so effectively against the auto companies. The unions gained, while the auto companies suffered, and the quality suffered.
Then, the demands for "clean cars" and fuel-efficient cars, drove the car companies to produce the smaller cars, which most people didn't want, and came in more expensively. The bigger cars that are being produced are beyond most middle class and poorer workers, and so, they're stuck with buying the smaller cars, and the manufacturers are making a smaller profit on each of them. Essentially, it was a combination of unions and government demands which is killing the car companies. Even the higher gas prices is because of government intervention into the production of oil.
There is not a single point which I've made which is incorrect or can be debated. You might want to argue and remain in denial, but the history of what has happened to the auto industry and to the economy in general, can't be denied or disputed.