A company that deserves HATE

[alphageek31337]

Dag, you're so dead right that it actually hurts. These days everyone is floundering about trying to find something to fight, but this Creeping Nihilism(c), along with a generally apathetic short-sightedness, prevents people from either knowing what to do, or having the balls to make the big changes we need to save the world. Stop abortions, not unwanted preganancies, guns, not murder, drugs, not addiction, violence in the media, not violence in the real world. Everyone wants it to end, but no one is willing to admit that they're clueless, take a step back, and really see the big picture. It's like there's a culprit in a crowd of people who needs to die, and we're standing on the outisde edge of the crowd, stabbing randomly into it with our legislative knives, and hoping we hit him, without caring who else is ruined or killed in the process.

[Justin]

although i don't like the title, i guess i would fit into generation y.

I think it's quite ironic that not only are we a useless generation (thus termed generation x), but we are also an utterly unoriginal generation.

[Dagnabit]

It was the baby boomers that stuck us with that tag, as well as the term "slackers". Let's just say they don't have a very high opinion of us. That's okay; we don't have a high opinion of them either. What a bunch of stinking, whining hypocrites -- oh, I forgot, are there any here?

This book I read on generations called gen-X "13th Generation" or "13ers" instead, as we are the 13th identifiable generation in America. They were the ones to say that you guys, Gen-Y, are really "Millenials". I like that term.

[elSicomoro]

I also being of GenX (1975), feel that we proved the critics wrong. When the whole Grunge era was engulfing the US, there was all the talk--the GenXers are slackers, they won't make it...blah blah blah. My personal opinion is that Generation X will clean up the crap of the Baby Boomers. I'm not saying that the Baby Boomers were bad--I'm willing to accept that many of them simply knew no better. I do worry about the dot-com generation though. I have never seen such a lack of work ethic among them. I hope I, being a critic of today, will be proven wrong in 5-10 years.

[Justin]

"Everyone wants it to end, but no one is willing to admit that they're clueless, take a step back, and really see the big picture"

Alpha, i believe the trend you're describing really has little to do with the nihilism and apathy inherent in our generation. People that scream and shout about how this or that is wrong and how we need to do this or that with little knowledge of the situation are lazy. There is a very big difference.

actually, i'm pretty sure that gen-x was coined by Douglas Coupland, a man of your generation. He generally wrote about the tech worker of the 80's and 90's.

sycamore, generally when people speak of lack of work ethic they speak of the lack of "want to" in some people. I feel that my generation is rife with "want to" but i see in myself and my compatriots some questions luming over our heads: "what?", "why?".

these questions remain unanswered.

[russotto]

"Generation X" is just something convenient for the Inky (and other companies pandering to Boomers) to shit on. It's safe mainly because generation X is _small_ in comparison to the Boomers or the later generations.

[tw]

{In continuation of the original post, this more detailed history, demonstrates how some never change. Warning, it is again long - 24 paragraphs}

Radial tire technology was sold as the Michelin X in 1949. So successful was the design that, by 1965, all other European manufacturers had to also sell radial tires - or quit the tire business. Rather than convert their factories and pay patent royalties, American tire manufacturers petitioned the US government to raise tariffs on imported tires. According to Forbes in Dec 1976, "The French invented the radial and Akron has never taken kindly to it."

In 1967, Goodrich introduced a radial for the American market. But since American automakers did not appreciate the tire's advantage, and since Goodrich had limited retail outlets, then the tire was not widely available. Goodrich failed to prosper from their innovation. By 1970, no tire company produced radials in America except Goodrich - and it is not clear whether Goodrich tires were even made in America also being as basic components for radials were not even available in America.

Goodyear had a choice in 1967 - to go with radials or to promote a new technology called Polyglas bias ply. Goodyear made outrageous claims for their new 'innovation' which was actually developed by an independent tire company better known as the chief supplier to Sears - Armstrong Rubber Co. Goodyear spent massively to recapitalize all its factories for Polyglas - a tire that only cost 8% more to build but was sold at 25% to 35% higher price - compared to the obsolete rayon based and bias ply tires. Furthermore, they were estimated to spend between $20 and $45million to promote this new tire. Ironically, a 1971 Consumers Report noted that most polyester / fiberglas tires (from Firestone, Goodyear, Goodrich, Uniroyal, and General Tire) failed prematurely (although how they did not fail is interesting). All this while Michelin's radial was kicking ass in Europe - and all but banned in America.

Radials were sold in 1971 America, but only as imports. Michelin alone had sold 1 million radials through Sears by the start of 1970. Sears sold two radials. One from Michelin, and one under their Roadmaster brand name produced by Armstrong Tire in conjunction with Michelin. Still American tire manufacturers were not producing radial tires in America - instead choosing what an MBA does best - don't innovate. Goodyear invested heavily in an upgraded version of long since obsoleted bias ply tires.

A Michelin X sold for about $47 whereas the Sear's radial for about $44. The Goodyear, an imported radial product (unknown who made this tire for Goodyear) cost about $65. Bias ply tires sold for about $28 to $40. Put this into perspective. That 1 Goodyear radial tire cost about $325 in Year 2000 dollars; being priced higher also due to tariffs demanded by the American tire industry.

Interesting is a story provided, in part, by another. To avoid tariffs, Michelin sold partially completed tires to a Sears domestic supplier who in turn finished manufacturing a tire they sold to Sears. As a result, Sears sales increased, without tariff penalties, so great as to get everyone's attention including GM's - a company then still lead by 'car guys'. Suddenly all those silly reason why Americans don't want radials made little sense - although those reasons were still promoted publicly by American tire manufacturers.

Curiously, Sears was nationwide, first in domestic polyglass tire sales and then nationwide first in domestic radial tire sales - which suggests how the American tire industry overall feared to innovate (and how spottyl Goodrich's retail markets were). Business Week discussed Michelin in July 1965 only as a successful company that was secretive and innovative - not once mentioning reasons why radials were so superior tires and, again, promoting those American tire company 'reasons' for not selling radials in America.

The US press was full of reasons why radials could not be successful such as "if wrongly inflated, badly aligned, or roughly driven, the radial tire will ... cause excessive vibration, fail to last the 40,000 miles ... and in many cases even through off tread or blow out its thinner sidewalls". Today we have the advantage of understanding that to be a lie. Tread separation cannot be permitted since all vehicles - S/UVs and passenger cars - can be overturned by such failures. But the 1960s were a time where corporations never lied (cough); Ralph Nader and consumerism was evil; and the consumer, by today's standards, expected failure as 'situation normal'.

Goodyear could have moved into radial technology in 1967. Instead they moved to make safe, predictable bias belted tires. By 1970, everyone else domestically was making the same obsolete technology, polyglas, bias belted tire. No one in the American tire industry really wanted to innovate. According to Forbes magazine in 1978, "Around Goodyear today, the word is that the money spent prior to 1974 was largely wasted". That includes money spend on Goodyear's first American radials.

By 1970 with profits again falling, they attempted to get into the radial business. Goodyear attempted a hostile takeover of Vredestein, a Dutch company that was a Goodrich partner for radial tires. Goodyear wanted Goodrich radial tire technology; but the takeover failed. Goodyear had already spent heavily on polyglas tire technology and decided they could not afford to recapitalize or design from scratch for radial tires. That cost control (anti-innovation) mentality continued in Goodyear for most of the 1970s.

About 1972, American automakers, especially GM, demanded nothing but radials for future products - as they had warned would happens years previous. In fact both Ford and GM expected to have only radials on every car (except Pinto) manufactured in 1975. American tire manufacturers scrambled to build a radial at all costs.

In 1972, Firestone sold their first American radial when engineers developed a process to make steel belted radials on existing equipment. The Firestone 500 used steel belts vulcanized in rubber, with a tread glued to that belt. Only Michelin also made radials with steel belts. Steel cord still was not produced in America because American tire manufacturers feared to produce radial tires until all but forced to do so. Therefore many later domestic radials used polyglas or nylon - not steel.

But in November 1972, "Development Chief Robertson wrote ... "We are badly in need of an improvement in belt separation performance, particularly at General Motors, where we are in danger of being cut off by Chevrolet because of separation failures." Firestone 500 failures were common and well known that early. All Firestone top management had detailed reports throughout the 1970s of tire failures (according to Time of June 1979) and said nothing - often denying those reports existed. In fact, Firestone 500 failure pictures look just like the current Firestone ATX and Wilderness tire failures - with the same tread disintegration / separation that causes vehicle roll over. Curious that Bridgestone Firestone management today has a response so similar to management of the 1970s.

Previously noted in the 1971 Consumer Reports analysis also was the unacceptable failure rate of obsolete technology belted bias tires. But these failure did not result in tread separation. Firestone 500 tread separation caused passenger cars to overturn - creating paraplegics, quadriplegics, and death throughout the nation. The actual number is still not known since Firestone settlements were routinely secret and publicly denied.

Do you see the similarity between 1970s Firestone and 1990s Firestone? They denied the failures even happened. They even used same excuses; as from Aug 1978 Newsweek: "Firestone maintained at the NHTSA hearing last week that many of the problems with the 500s can be traced to other causes, such as failure to inflate the tires properly". Another excuse was quoted by the Akron Beacon Journal as quality control difficulties that cause the tread and sidewall splices to come apart - IOW blame union workers. Blame everyone else - both in 1978 and 2001.

Firestone knew they had a serious tire problem in the first year of production - 1972. And yet in 1978 still was blaming others, and still was selling the tires. Even non-radial, steel belted Firestone 500s had tread separation- but those were quickly discontinued the same year when Consumer Reports reported those failures in Oct 1974.

Firestone limited radial recalls to tires manufactured between Sept 1975 and Dec 1976, or between Sept 1975 and April 1976, depending on the Firestone 500 model. Other older 500s could be replaced during a limited few months IF the owner paid half the cost of a new Firestone tire. Tires after 1976 were excluded even though they too had the same design failures. This is responsibility to a consumer? Yes, in the 1960 mentality, Firestone was also blaming the Center for Auto Safety and Joan Claybrook of NHTSA for lies and distributing false information. Blame everyone else.

Firestone claimed that only 7.5% of their tires were failing. However documents from retailers, Atlas Tires, Shell, Montgomery Ward, et al indicated failure rates exceeding 17.5%. Firestone's own internal documents claimed a failure rate of 27%.

Notice the same attitude. Ford demanded that all Wilderness 15, 16 and 17 inch tires be replaced. Instead Firestone stopped all future business. This is a company more interested in their profits than in their products - then and now.

NHTSA was prodded in 1977 by both Consumers Union and Ralph Nader to study radial tire failures. In a survey of 87,000 owners, NHTSA discovered a 46% failure rate for Firestone, and a 33% failure rate for most other American radial tire manufacturers. Michelin, as expected, was only 2%.

Tire manufacturers could not afford the public to know this fact, so filed with a friendly Federal District Judge Manos to suppress the survey. Of course the Center for Auto Safety had distributed photocopies of the March 1978 survey to the press. But only Time Magazine (May 1978) and the NY Times (June 1978) had the balls to report these facts- although both buried the articles as small columns well inside the publication. US News, Newsweek, and most other American news publications don't even mention survey's existence. Of course this was the attitude toward consumer responsibility of that era. Firestone, et al certainly could not be lying.

However John Estes, a engineer, and President of GM heard a short TV story of the survey, and ordered all Firestone 500s removed from all GM products the next day - NY Times June 1978. (Estes was the last 'car guy' to lead GM).

By Sept 1978, a subcommittee of the House Commerce Committee issued a report of the obvious. However Firestone's response was, "To the best of our knowledge, there have not been any proven cases where accidents, injuries, or deaths have been caused a by a defect in the tire itself" - Firestone's Robert Troyer quoted by the NY Times. Furthermore Firestone claimed that they had started phasing out the tire in 1976. Ironically, the NY Times still found it for sale in June 1978. 23.6 million Firestone 500 tires were sold. Firestone even refused to recall 12 million. This entire paragraph could almost be reprinted for year 2001 Firestone.

Congress had passed the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 that required Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG). Instead domestic tire companies again united to sue and stifle tire standards for 13 years. After a 1979 Congressional Committee report, the UTQG was to begin, but only for bias ply tires. Rate obsolete technology tires? Eventually the UTQG standards were reduced by the Reagan administration to a manufacturer's self test rather than submitting tires to a standards test circuit in San Angelo, TX. One retailer who claimed to have extensive knowledge of UTQG called the standards only relevant to a company's products and invalid for comparing tires from different companies.

Since 1949, there is one benchmark for consumer responsibility here - Michelin - and one benchmark for corporate corruption - Firestone.

[jaguar]

Wow, seems i missed a bit of discussion here...

I find peopel in my generation (Y) (ii'm born 1985) seem to fit into 3 o so catagories

The we-want-to-do-somthing: People who actaully do give a damn, resposible for the recent sociality/green uprising, i guess i fit into this catagory more than any, although i don't see pure socialisim as the answer i feel its better than the soulless capatilist system we have at the moment, small changes have an impact, im' not for the whole fuck-the-system thing.

The lets-go-back-to-the-1950s: I find this highly disturbing, large number of scared individauls feeling a distinct lack of security who are being draged into this kind of hardcore-christian group that seem to think everything was perfect in the 1950s when everything jsut wasent' talked about, coz obviously if we don't talk about its not there......

THe I-don't-care: By far the biggest, they refuse to ahve nayhting to do iwht the future, they refuse to see, they refuse to aknowledge were thigns are going, jsut close thier eyes, bury their heads in the sand and become MBA's......

Yea, i'm young, bitter, cynical and acidic but goddamn, there is a good reason for it, i think things CAN get better but it requires people to actually give a damn in large numbers, in the last 2 biggest elevctions(US and Britan) around 50% bothered to turn up, that is just.....scary that HALF the population jsut DO NOT CARE who runs the country, what happens......

I was there at the S11 protest, because it was for a dman good cause, the WTO is a virtual oligarchy, a incredible concentration of power and wealth into an organsiation that is neither transparant or open, and it must be stopped.

</rant>

[tw]

Originally posted by jaguar
I was there at the S11 protest, because it was for a dman good cause, the WTO is a virtual oligarchy, a incredible concentration of power and wealth into an organsiation that is neither transparant or open, and it must be stopped.

You have the right idea - just applied an idea to the wrong organization. You have described the US Supreme Court but have erroneously used the letters WTO. The WTO is a transparent organization - except to those who have been reading the Daily News or watching the local gossip - Action News.

[jaguar]

Last time i checked the WTO does not allow any outsiders in on its meetings, and does not publish any minutes, that’s as good as closed in my book.

Before anyone points out the bleeding obvious, some organizations do have to have to operate to a degree without public scrutiny, particularly military, police and in some cases, justice systems. A good example of this was the French courts just before the French Revolution, they were so transparent they got little done, most time was spent sorting out inter-personal disputes between members of staff, comments, and answering to various other officials. But at the same time any authority containing elected officials that has any significant power or any jurisdiction must be open, and in my honest opinion any dealings between our elected officials and any business entity.

For this particular dealing i see as our greatest failure of democracy. We continually question countries with corrupt systems, often refusing them aid on such a basis, how bloody hypocritical when the same thing happens LEGALLY inside our own nations. If anyone can prove to me that there is some kind of significant difference between campaign donations from a major company in the millions and for example bribery of customs officials in Vietnam ill is damn surprised, in both cases you’re giving them money, and expecting something in return. Yes, they do expect something in return, you cannot tell me that these companies give this money on either some kind of ideological ground (the only ideology most companies have is the ideology of maximizing their bottom line at the expense of anything (just take a look at the company this thread was about)) or out of the kindness of their hearts.

While we allow such open bribery, we cannot expect unbiased elected officials and are in no position to look down apron other nations because they make such dealings illegal.

P.S: Yes there are differences between bribery of officials and campaign donations but in reality, they are pretty damn small when you think about it.