backtop


Print 186 comment(s) - last by The0ne.. on Nov 12 at 11:31 AM

America's two largest automakers are in dire straits -- what will the the government do?

With the good news -- Ford's cool new Fusion and GM's hot upcoming Chevy Volt -- it's easy for some to forget about the dire economic climate for America's top automakers.  Today was a stark reminder of the problems that both Ford and GM are facing -- problems which demand drastic action either internally or externally.

Ford led off the bad news by reporting a $3B USD operating loss.  In the face of dwindling cash reserves, Ford is cutting 10 percent of its salaried worker expenses via pay cuts such as eliminating merit pay, bonuses and the company's matching contributions to their retirement accounts.  It plans on also possibly cutting additional salaried workers.

Hourly workers were hit equally hard.  Ford is cutting an additional 2,600 hourly jobs via buyout packages.  The company already sold two major assets -- Jaguar and Land Rover -- this year to try to generate the cash it desperately needs.  It is looking at potentially selling other brands or resources. 

Ford Chief Executive Alan Mulally says he thinks his company is on the right track, but bemoaned that he sees no end in sight for low demand of autos.  He states, "We believe the downturn in industry volume will be broader, deeper and longer than previously expected."

Losses are expected to continue until 2010.  The quarterly loss was $1.31 a share, much worse than the analyst forecast of 93 cents a share.  Ford's sales dropped 25 percent, while it lost $9B USD in revenue, dropping to $32.1B USD for the quarter.

The only good news for Ford is that it still has the largest cash reserve of any U.S. automaker, with $18.9B USD in cash (despite burning through $6.3B USD in cash this quarter).

The news for rival GM is even worse.  The company is nearly out of cash after posting a mammoth loss.  GM lost $4.2B USD over the quarter, excluding special items.  The loss, which amounted to $7.35 a share, blew away analyst expectations, which were predicting a $3.70 a share loss.

After burning through $6.9B USD in cash over the quarter, GM says that it "will approach the minimum amount necessary to operate its business" during the new quarter.  In a grim assessment, the company reported that its "estimated liquidity will fall significantly short" of the amount it needs to continue operating.

Dave Cole, chairman of Michigan think-tank the Center for Automotive Research says GM is likely to file for bankruptcy unless the government does something.  He states, "This is not something that can go on and be dealt with in the next year, it needs to be dealt with in the next few weeks.  When your cash is gone, you're gone."

Some were speculating a merger between GM and Chrysler, but GM says the talks have been tabled to deal with the cash issue.  GM is planning to cut 10% of salaried employment costs to go with the 20 percent in cuts already planned.  Significant layoffs are expected.  The company is also cutting capital spending in 2009 by $2.4B USD, a move likely to set back many of its programs.

GM is weighing its options after losing $72B USD since 2004.

Both Ford and GM met with lawmakers over the last week to plead for new loans.  They're asking for the lawmakers to allow them to take a slice of the $700B USD bailout pie, something that lawmakers have thus far emphatically refused.  The companies also are asking for the government to double the $25B USD low-interest loans given to them to make fuel efficient cars.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

should...
By nah on 11/8/2008 9:53:26 AM , Rating: 5
some industries be subsidised--however temporarily ? and if some are--who decides what will be ? why should unemployment matter in some industries and not others ? should umemployment be acceptable in industries which are not efficient ?




RE: should...
By mdogs444 on 11/8/2008 9:59:52 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
why should unemployment matter in some industries and not others ?

Because its the backbone of the US manufacturing industry. Its not just the automakers that would be out, but all the other companies who make parts and services for those automakers. You'd see about a 50% -75% rise in unemployment right there.
quote:
should unemployment be acceptable in industries which are not efficient ?

Its not the cars that are efficient. Its the way they are operated - Unions. The health care and retirement costs in those US industries are what makes them not competitive with other countries. Abolish unions in those fields, increase sales & efficiency, and lower costs of the products.


RE: should...
By nah on 11/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: should...
By mdogs444 on 11/8/2008 10:46:58 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
But manufacturing makes up only 25 of the value of the GDP of the US

Um yes, $3TR of the GDP isnt sufficient?
quote:
Hardly--the automobile industry only contributes to around 10 % of total employment

Yes, and if you get rid of 10% of the employment in the US, how much will the unemployment figures increase? Yes - 50-75%.
quote:
Therefore the industry is inefficient--

The way its operated is inefficient, that's what I said - mostly due to union benefits. There's a reason they are requesting $25B to pay for health care costs of retired workers.
quote:
But this exists in other sectors as well--especially the service sectors--why not subsidize call-centres ?

Err..call centers are not unionized, nor do they typically get benefits of salaried workers. Typically, they are hourly jobs. In fact, most IT jobs are not unionized - as those workers realize that Unions only benefit the bottom of the barrel workers and hold back good workers looking to move up the ladder.


RE: should...
By nah on 11/8/08, Rating: 0
RE: should...
By KernD on 11/8/2008 1:27:49 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Other industries have such benefits as well---why aren't they inefficient-- ?


They are, the car-making industry isn't the only one in trouble, I hear news every month about places like paper manufacture that close because the market is down and there not competitive, and that's a kind of factory where you need to have the natural resource near, unlike the cars where you can import part from china.

These kind of place have big unions and have been milking there employer of decades. These companies never managed to stand up to those unions, so they will die with them.


RE: should...
By nah on 11/8/2008 7:04:25 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
hear news every month about places like paper manufacture that close because the market is down and there not competitive,


so they close down--they aren't propped up by subsidies


RE: should...
By TSS on 11/9/2008 7:53:43 AM , Rating: 5
it's not just the unions. it's the entire economy. right from CNN:

"On Friday, the Labor Department reported that the U.S. economy sloughed nearly 1.2 million jobs through October. "

meaning untill october this year. it's an article about another 15,000 job cuts in the first week of november.

let them fail, take the hit and start rebuilding. if they can't afford unions they'll get rid of them, or die with them and the next person that sees a market takes them over. thats the thing about a free market, it has it's ups and downs (and resets) but it's the best system we have up untill now.

if GM+ford BOTH get a 25B bailout, while they burned through 6 billion in cash both, they will ask again for one next year. 6 billion in a quarter x4 = 24 billion in a year. and their both predicting 2009 to be worse.

take the hit, kill the company's. why? because if you save them now, once they will go down (and they will), it will cost you everything it costs now + all the bailouts you've given them, which is money lost then.

i figure they know this. their just getting the bailout, securing the assets for the most rich then go out of business. the exec's will stay rich, everybody gets laid off, and it's all payed for by the tax payer. brilliant!


RE: should...
By Dwayno on 11/9/2008 9:19:16 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
let them fail, take the hit and start rebuilding. if they can't afford unions they'll get rid of them, or die with them and the next person that sees a market takes them over. thats the thing about a free market, it has it's ups and downs (and resets) but it's the best system we have up untill now.

There will be no "hit"...unless the hit you are talking about is the same "hit" you get after leaping from a plane without a parachute! The economic impact and the subsequent "ripple" effects will not be felt for years but for decades. And do you think the companies that are going to "fill" the void are going to do so at the same cost level?

In the world of autos, depending on which month, GM is top dog. GM has made, and continues to make, tremendous advancement in that world (GM drove the battery industries to produce the batteries used in the Volt). GM has enormous buying power. The price of cars WILL go up (imagine Intel or Microsoft going out of busines...do you think that their collapsing would not have an impact on the computer or gaming world pricing or that this void can be filled overnight?).

The economic impact of GM closing has already been estimated to cost the taxpayer a minimum of $150 B. in the first year! All the government of the world either owns or subsidizes their auto industries. We are the only country that does not do so.


RE: should...
By TSS on 11/9/2008 1:18:31 PM , Rating: 4
http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autos...

the reason why their failing is because their too big .

if they can't move a truckload of cars, they can't buy in so many parts to make more cars. right now, the american consumer can't afford more cars. downsizing right now is neccesary, if not completly making sense. the gap will be filled. it wont be fast, it won't be pretty, but the result is exactly what we need.

you want to know why i'm so worried, even though i'm not even an american? because of my age.i am 21 years old. i'll have to work till i'm 65, so that leaves another 44 years untill retirement. here's why i'm worried:

it's impossible to borrow money like america has been doing for another 44 years. within my lifetime,i will start working to pay off the national debt

and that is something NOBODY has thought about. ever. even obama and mccain didn't mention it.

even though i know i'm screwed, for a change, i'll take it upon myself to work and solve it. break the chain of greed, and leave a better world for my children, not a worser one.

letting GM/ford fail will bring the proverbial apocolypse. i don't have a doubt about that. but i'm ready to face that. i'm not ready, nor will i ever be, in letting my children face it.

i'm not an american, but the above doesn't just go for america, it goes for the entire globe. america will just be hit the hardest because in america, everything is bigger. and so the crash will be too.


RE: should...
By stilltrying on 11/9/2008 5:36:54 PM , Rating: 3
I would rather them fail now for me than later when my kids have to face it too. By the way the national debts of countries can NEVER BE REPAYED because every dollar (or most countries money) in circulation has interest attached to it by means of a private central bank.


RE: should...
By Lerianis on 11/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: should...
By cokbun on 11/9/2008 11:58:10 PM , Rating: 2
if you're comparing GM to intel, when intel falls people will use AMD, they will replace with whatever replacement is available, named "Honda","Toyota",etc.. maybe this is just their " pentium 4 phase "


RE: should...
By rudolphna on 11/8/2008 5:02:58 PM , Rating: 3
I really hope you are not as big of an idiot as you appear. If the US Domestic car industry shuts down, the economy will crash completely. They make up such a huge part of our economy, that it would be absolutely devastating, and likely, unrecoverable. It is imperative that Automakers stay in buisness.


RE: should...
By walk2k on 11/8/08, Rating: 0
RE: should...
By mdogs444 on 11/8/2008 6:47:48 PM , Rating: 1
Yes it will, and you're being quite naive.

Those workers "just" getting jobs at Toyota and Honda plants will just send more US money outside of our own domestic economy, cripple ourselves while boosting the economy of Japan.

The wages stay here, but the profits leave. When that happens, so bye-bye to any new manufacturing starting here and the US controlling its own job market.


RE: should...
By Lifted on 11/8/2008 8:16:25 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The wages stay here, but the profits leave.


Are you striving for the Daily Tech 2008 Clueless Award?

To be fair, you'd made a few good points up until this doozie.


RE: should...
By rudolphna on 11/8/2008 10:54:23 PM , Rating: 2
So tell me, how does it work? Explain it to me please since we are all clueless apparently.


RE: should...
By spluurfg on 11/9/2008 3:59:17 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
So tell me, how does it work? Explain it to me please since we are all clueless apparently.


I can tell you how it works. Toyota Industries is a publicly listed company in Japan. Thus the profits go to whoever owns the shares. The same is true of other publicly listed companies such as Ford, GM, Exxon Mobil, Google, etc.


RE: should...
By Ringold on 11/9/2008 4:14:02 AM , Rating: 3
I for one question the utility of debating the national identity of any multi-national corporation.. They have global footprints, so their money will go to places where it is treated nicely and can be put to good use, and their money will flee places where they can't profitably do anything with it or it is treated badly (aka taxed, regulated, etc).

On that basis, I see Toyota & Honda as equally American today as General Motors.


RE: should...
By Dwayno on 11/9/2008 9:52:20 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
On that basis, I see Toyota & Honda as equally American today as General Motors.

Except that GM American profits has been used to build plants in other markets that will only let them sale auto there if they build plants there. This is true of Canada and Mexico (our NAFTA "partners"), it's true of India and China, who charges the auto companies 50% and 100% tariffs (respectively) on imported cars...they must protect their market from the unfair advantage GM had as an auto manufacturer. Toyota use to ship trucks over here in the 70's without their beds to circumvent the tariff placed on them. That is how Toyota started their auto assembly plant history...as a truck bed manufacturing plant in Calif.

Dell doesn't manufacture computers...they assemble them from parts made by other manufacturer. Neither Toyota, Honda, or Hyundai have manufacturing plants in the US...they only have ASSEMBLY plants. Find a engine maufacturing plant from any of these 3 auto companies in America. They also use parts manufactured at Japanese plants that have set up manufacturing in America. By using parts from Nipondenso and the like, they meet the 70% American parts required to define an auto as American made. This is the North America as defined by the NAFTA agreement. That's right, parts made in Canada and Mexico are considered to be American parts and count towards that 70% requirement.


RE: should...
By Hoser McMoose on 11/9/2008 7:49:18 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Except that GM American profits has been used to build plants in other markets that will only let them sale auto there if they build plants there. This is true of Canada and Mexico

So far you're 100% false. There is absolutely NOTHING that prevents GM (or anyone else) from selling U.S. made or assembled vehicles in Canada or Mexico completely free of all duties.

Back in the AutoPact days of the 1960's the American Big-3 did agree to build some cars in Canada to the tune of 3 built in Canada for every 5 sold there. This part of the ruling didn't change production nearly as much as the removal of tariffs anyway which saw the lower paying assembly jobs moved to Canada and higher paying engineering, design and management positions moved to the U.S. The rule was also abolished years and ago had been made irrelevant in the 80's.

quote:
Find a engine maufacturing plant from any of these 3 auto companies in America.

You mean like the plant where they build the Toyota Tundra V8 engines in Alabama? Or the Kentucky plant where they build I4 and V6 engines for the Camry? Honda's single largest engine plant in the world is located in Ohio and they have another in Alabama as well as one in Ontario, Canada. Believe it or not, some of these engines actually get exported back to Japan for sale there.
quote:
That's right, parts made in Canada and Mexico are considered to be American parts and count towards that 70% requirement.

And similarly cars made primarily in the U.S. and Mexico are tariff free when shipped to Canada and cars made primarily in Canada and the U.S. are tariff free when shipped to Mexico. It's called an integrated market and it's a net benefit for all those involved. Without it we would all be paying higher prices for lower wages because we would have less competition and smaller markets.


RE: should...
By rudolphna on 11/9/2008 8:30:27 AM , Rating: 2
Ok. Now, where do you think people own more shares? I dont know who owns shares of who, but dont you think it seems reasonable that people in japan have more stock in Toyota, while people in america have more stock in Ford/GM etc?


RE: should...
By elgueroloco on 11/9/2008 12:42:46 PM , Rating: 2
No. I think the shares of both companies are spread all over the developed world, wherever people have money to buy them. There are investors almost everywhere, and huge, solid companies will draw them. Unfortunately, our automakers aren't so solid anymore, though I hear Toyota is taking losses now too.

As for our companies, I have no sympathy for them. They were once on top of the world, but became complacent, churned out years of dogsh-t cars, and tried to hide their lack of effort behind the flag, telling us we had to buy their garbage to be patriotic.

Once the Japanese entered the market, and their quality surpassed ours, the American auto industry improved their quality significantly because they had to for survival. However, they never have shown any interest in putting out true quality. They used to be the best, but they obviously don't care about that anymore. They put out tech that's years behind everyone else, and their reliability is still inferior. They put forth the bare minimum effort necessary to gull patriotic Americans into buying their still-inferior cars.

I remember reading an article last year about a new concept GM was putting into production. It was supposed to be this really bold new step into the future. Know what it was? A compact car with a small, fuel-efficient gasoline engine. Wow. I seem to recall about 17 years before that, GM introduced a compact car with a small engine that took the market by storm. It was called a Geo Metro, and it got 60 MPG. This new car wouldn't even get that. So they were telling me this new car was a bold step into the future, when it couldn't even match what they did 17 years beforehand. F-ck GM and Ford both. They are embarrassments to our country, and prime examples of the complacency and laziness that have sent us into decline.

Sorry that was so long.

/rant


RE: should...
By Hoser McMoose on 11/9/2008 8:16:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I seem to recall about 17 years before that, GM introduced a compact car with a small engine that took the market by storm. It was called a Geo Metro, and it got 60 MPG

The most fuel-efficient Geo Metro sold has an estimated EPA rating of 43 mpg city/51mpg highway. This was mainly due to the use of a 49hp engine. Most Geo Metros were rated in the 30-40mpg range, even with the 3 cylinder 55hp engine.

These cars probably wouldn't sell very well today, North American consumers haven't shown much interest in sub-100hp vehicles for some time now. The planned Chevy Cruze is expected to get similar fuel economy to the Geo Metro but it'll have a 140hp engine.

Also the old Geo Metro was not entirely GM vehicles, they were designed and originally built in Japan by Suzuki. For the North American market many of them were manufactured at CAMI (joint GM/Suzuki plant) in Ontario, Canada, while others were imported from Japan.


RE: should...
By DrKlahn on 11/10/2008 11:06:56 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
They used to be the best, but they obviously don't care about that anymore. They put out tech that's years behind everyone else, and their reliability is still inferior. They put forth the bare minimum effort necessary to gull patriotic Americans into buying their still-inferior cars.


Absolutely untrue. I can't think of any major technology present in foreign makes not found in Domestic makes. Differences in quality are in the tenths of a percent per 100.

quote:
F-ck GM and Ford both. They are embarrassments to our country, and prime examples of the complacency and laziness that have sent us into decline.


I'm not embarrassed to own either. I would be embarrassed buying a vehicle where the primary design and engineering is done elsewhere and that ships a good portion of it's profit elsewhere.

quote:
Sorry that was so long.


I'd be sorry that this is untrue and hateful.


RE: should...
By Ringold on 11/9/2008 3:10:08 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
but dont you think it seems reasonable that people in japan have more stock in Toyota


That doesn't necessarily have to be the case. Go to you finance website of choice, and look up "TM" and "HMC". They have ADRs, or American Depository Receipts, that trade here. Perhaps they do have greater Japanese ownership, but that certainly doesn't have to be the case.

Also, E-Trade and other platforms let you trade basically where ever you want to trade around the world.


RE: should...
By nah on 11/8/2008 6:46:54 PM , Rating: 2
www.cargroup.org/pdfs/Alliance-Final.pdf

According to the manufacturers themselves--the automobile industry contributed 3.3 % of GDP in 2002--which they themselves agree was well above their average in the 1990s, mostly because 2002 was a recession year.

I'm tempted to add personal insults as well--but I'll pass


RE: should...
By Masospaghetti on 11/8/2008 8:07:38 PM , Rating: 3
And for every job that is directly employed by the auto industry, about 8 more are indirectly dependent on them (suppliers, etc) -- therefore getting back to the 25% mark.


RE: should...
By nah on 11/8/2008 10:15:47 PM , Rating: 2
the industry employs about 1 million people--total civilian (excluding military ) labor force is 151 million. Even if we accept yr *8 figure (some data to back this up) it becomes 8 million---that's still roughly 1/20 or 5 % of the total civilian labor force--check out the BLS links below


RE: should...
By JediJeb on 11/9/2008 3:24:32 PM , Rating: 2
But, since the wages in the auto industry are above average, then the number of people lost on a percentage is lower than the dollars lost as a percentage. You won't find many autoworkers working for minimum wage. The people I know working in the auto industry start out at $20/hour or higher. Here in town we have a plant that makes parts for Chrysler and those people start out over $10/hour. So if all these jobs are lost, that will add up to a good sized chunk of money lost from the economy.

Then the ripple starts, where those out of work from the auto industry cut back on purchasing things like electronics, furniture, clothing, food, housing, entertainment, ect, and that causes losses across the board. It adds up very quickly.


RE: should...
By spluurfg on 11/9/2008 3:54:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And for every job that is directly employed by the auto industry, about 8 more are indirectly dependent on them (suppliers, etc) -- therefore getting back to the 25% mark.


Assuming they are using the GICS or ICB industry classifications, this percentage most likely includes their suppliers (e.g. in GICS: Automobiles and Components).

The suppliers of their suppliers such as auto specific industrials or materials might add something to this, but usually companies who derive most of their income from the auto sector are categorized in the auto sector.

I'm assuming specialty retailers like Audi paraphernalia stores are a negligible part of the economy, if that is okay with you guys.


RE: should...
By Samus on 11/9/2008 5:45:58 AM , Rating: 1
I don't think people are actually aware...

The Japanese motor industry employes MORE American workers than the American motor industry does. People often forget how much bigger Toyota is than GM/Ford/Chrystler, along with forgetting most, if not all Toyota's, Honda's, Nissans, etc, are built HERE.

There are technicalities such as the engines are often built overseas and many components are foreign, but the steel is often domestic (which is good, because Japanese steel sucks, and they know it)

The only Japanese cars I've seen that weren't built here were certain Mazda's. By no surprise, the heads of the bolts on the underbody snap off after only a few years because of the low grade of steel used.


RE: should...
By Dwayno on 11/9/2008 11:16:23 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
I don't think people are actually aware...


Judging by the facts, I don't think YOU are aware:

quote:
The Japanese motor industry employes MORE American workers than the American motor industry does.


From Honda (http://corporate.honda.com/america/):
"Honda has been a major contributor to the U.S. economy for more than 45 years. Today, Honda employs more than 25,000 people in all 50 states."
From Toyota (http://www.toyota.com/about/our_business/toyota_in...
"Toyota in the United States
U.S. Direct Employment: 36,632"

Ford, GM, and Chrysler EACH have laid OFF more employees than Toyota and Honda employ COMBINED!!

quote:
People often forget how much bigger Toyota is than GM/Ford/Chrystler, along with forgetting most, if not all Toyota's, Honda's, Nissans, etc, are built HERE.


Only cars destined for the American markets are made here. The bulk of Toyota, Honda, and Nissan vehicles (including ALL of the Lexus, Acura, and Infinity) are built in Japan.

quote:
There are technicalities such as the engines are often built overseas and many components are foreign, but the steel is often domestic (which is good, because Japanese steel sucks, and they know it)


Actually, Japan imports over 90% of their steel and 100% of their aluminum. Japan gets the bulk of their raw steel from America and use their own steel plants to manufacture it.


RE: should...
By Hoser McMoose on 11/9/2008 8:33:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The bulk of Toyota, Honda, and Nissan vehicles (including ALL of the Lexus, Acura, and Infinity) are built in Japan.

That's not quite true, there is a Toyota/Lexus car plant in the city where I live (Waterloo, Canada.. err technically the plant is in Cambridge) that builds the RX350. Meanwhile there's a Honda/Acura plant about an hour away from me in Aliston, Ontario that builds the Acura CSX and MDX. Honda operates another plant in Ohio that builds Acura TL and RDX vehicles.

I don't know about Nissan, but I believe they've got at least one or two Infiniti models coming out of their Smyrna plant (if they don't, they should since that's pretty consistently ranked as one of the best car plants in the world).


RE: should...
By headbox on 11/8/2008 2:45:52 PM , Rating: 5
Get a grade-school education or a calculator. If national unemployment goes from 5% to 7.5%, that means an increase of 50%. No one is saying 50% of the population would be unemployed. You're what they call an "idiot."


RE: should...
By Alexstarfire on 11/8/2008 2:55:12 PM , Rating: 1
That's true, but you can't say that if you posted that exact line in a newspaper or something that the ENTIRE population is going to misinterpret that. Include the 5% to 7.5% and it then becomes very clear.


RE: should...
By nah on 11/8/2008 6:52:10 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Yes, and if you get rid of 10% of the employment in the US, how much will the unemployment figures increase? Yes - 50-75%.


the original post was this--if you got rid of 10 % of the total employment---the level of unemployment would increase by 200 %

Perhaps you should get a calculator and double check before making asinine comments


RE: should...
By MamiyaOtaru on 11/9/2008 11:37:00 PM , Rating: 2
I'm staring at it, and it says 50-75% You have no point.


RE: should...
By nah on 11/10/2008 5:54:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm staring at it, and it says 50-75% You have no point.


It's astoundingly easy to argue out of ignorance...right now unemployment is at around 6 %---if total unemployment increases by 10 %--the rate of unemployment jumps from 6 % to 16 %---thats a 200 % plus rise


RE: should...
By mdogs444 on 11/10/2008 6:45:35 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
right now unemployment is at around 6 %---if total unemployment increases by 10 %--the rate of unemployment jumps from 6 % to 16 %---thats a 200 % plus rise

No it doesn't. You need to go back to middle school to learn how to translate written math problems.

If it is currently at 6%, and increases 10%, then basic algebra shows:

0.06 + (.06 * .10) = 6.6%

If someone says they just increases their profits by 50%, you do take 50% and add .5 to whatever their current number it. It means you multiply it by .5

Therefore, if current unemployment is at 6% (or .06) and increase it by 50% then...

0.06 + (0.06 * 0.50) = 0.09 or 9%

These are very simple calculations and understandings. Perhaps you need to raise your D average in math.


RE: should...
By mdogs444 on 11/10/2008 6:47:43 AM , Rating: 2
p.s - its too early in the morning for grammar checks on myself, but the math principals are correct :)


RE: should...
By Jim28 on 11/10/2008 1:36:44 PM , Rating: 2
Your math is too hard! Folks what actually have to THINK for 5 seconds or so to figure that out. (That have paid attention in 3rd grade.)


RE: should...
By BZDTemp on 11/8/2008 1:18:35 PM , Rating: 2
You blame the unions but doesn't car makers in other countries have a work force that are in strong unions?

Unions are not the reason the US car industry is in trouble - it's their products. Forever they have been focusing on the home market and even that market is one they only kept somewhat successful in due to government aid with selling trucks and so forth all of which is basically old technology in shiny packaging.

For the government to start putting cash directly in the pockets of Ford, GM and Chrysler would just be to prolong the death march. Plus it would also pretty un-american!

Sure it was done with the financial system but in a sense that is simply infrastructure just like road, bridges, harbors and airports. Car markers are not infrastructure and car makers only really good at making gas guzzlers where only the engines are of really good quality are relics best left dying.

For the US economy it would make more long run sense to focus on environmental friendly cars regardless of who makes them. Anything is socialism or worse!


RE: should...
By mdogs444 on 11/8/2008 2:04:38 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Anything is socialism or worse!

For the hard worker who wants to move up the ladder and save for his family's future while providing an upscale current lifestyle... nothing is worse than socialism.


RE: should...
By oab on 11/8/2008 2:15:37 PM , Rating: 3
Except for communism right?


RE: should...
By Tamale on 11/8/2008 8:28:15 PM , Rating: 3
socialist nations everywhere are crying as they read this clueless drivel


RE: should...
By SavagePotato on 11/9/2008 3:57:08 PM , Rating: 1
Fallout 3 recently gave me a great many laughs and made me think of the hardcore capitalist psychos that litter dailytech.

I was almost rolling with laughter for entire liberty prime sequence where he is spouting ultra conservative/capitalist propaganda.

Or the town of cannibals still pretending to live the american dream, where the one guy has a line something like "It's every Americans duty to vote for his or her favorite republican candidate, not for those damn liberal hippy commie bastards"

Or the old guy in megaton that goes around saying "God bless the united states of america!, and nowhere else!"


RE: should...
By TheFace on 11/8/2008 2:18:11 PM , Rating: 5
Other nations such as Japan and Germany have higher percentages of mechanization in their processes for making automobiles. These advances in mechanization that other nations have taken advantage of have been blocked by the unions of America, as they would require less workforce.

To put cash into the pockets of auto manufacturers is un-american. But what are the alternatives? We just let them die or be bought by other companies? The automotive industry is very essential to the US economy. It directly employs maybe 7-10% of the American workforce. Then you include the parts manufacturers, the maintenance people (mechanics etc..) and other various indirect jobs related to the automotive industry and you have, by most estimates, almost 15-20% of the American workforce. Obviously a lesser percentage of the indirect jobs would be lost but there would still be a definite hardship suffered by those people.
Then you could figure in the cascade effect that this amount of loss would have on a nation, well throwing money at the problem is an investment worth attempting.


RE: should...
By ebakke on 11/8/2008 3:37:32 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Then you could figure in the cascade effect that this amount of loss would have on a nation, well throwing money at the problem is an investment worth attempting.

We've been throwing money at the problem for years. GM and Ford don't have sustainable business practices. Let them change, or let them fail.


RE: should...
By ebakke on 11/10/2008 9:56:31 AM , Rating: 3
Instead of a drive-by down rating, take a few minutes to defend your position. Tell me why you disagree, and why we should dump $25 billion more into these two.


RE: should...
By nah on 11/8/2008 7:24:32 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
It directly employs maybe 7-10% of the American workforce.


According to BLS http://www.bls.gov/cps/tables.htm#annual
total manufacturing employment was at 16.47 million--which was around 10 % of the total civilian work force-excluding the military-car manufacturing's share of that--according to the manufacturers themselves
http://www.cargroup.org/pdfs/Alliance-Final.pdf
is at roughly one million--this includes both motor vehicles and equipment-- so car manufacturers share of total employment is 1/16 of 10 %--or roughly 1 %


RE: should...
By Ringold on 11/9/2008 3:39:49 AM , Rating: 3
Your view of "car manufacturers" is far too myopic. Car manufacturers just assemble. The bulk of the job losses would be in the more broad manufacturing sector. CNBC has been reporting on this the last couple weeks in detail, and it's become pretty clear that if one auto maker fails then the entire shared supply chain of all the manufacturers would grind to a halt in North America. Estimates were 2.5 million jobs lost if a single auto-maker went in to bankruptcy, or about 1.5 - 2% of total active labor force. Then you have to consider feedback throughout the economy, which would be substantial given that a lot of these union jobs pay a lot of money. If a car manufacturer failed and the government did nothing to soften the blow, I think 5 to 10 million could easily lose their jobs over a period of a year or two, mostly in the rust belt where some entire local economies would have their base taken out from under them.

Of course, that 5-10m number is my own estimate, and impossible to substantiate, but obviously there would be a large feedback in parts of the country where substantial incomes are still derived from the industry and its supply chain.


RE: should...
By nah on 11/9/2008 5:10:20 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Your view of "car manufacturers" is far too myopic.


It's not --maybe you should read this--its a far better statistical treatment than vague 'estimates'

quote:
the industry employs about 1 million people--total civilian (excluding military ) labor force is 151 million. Even if we accept yr *8 figure (some data to back this up) it becomes 8 million---that's still roughly 1/20 or 5 % of the total civilian labor force--check out the BLS links below


RE: should...
By Ringold on 11/9/2008 3:13:09 PM , Rating: 2
No, it is obviously too myopic, and you didn't even try to deny that the supply chain is really the greater concern than the car manufacturers themselves, though what you quoted does at least acknowledge that total related employment would be larger than just the manufacturers themselves.

There's also probably other industries that get contract work, such as media and advertising firms, plus these days companies with environmentally minded technologies such as battery companies. Those are also hard to quantify, but obviously not zero.


RE: should...
By nah on 11/9/2008 9:44:46 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
No, it is obviously too myopic,


Why ? I'm pretty sure that all of the companies you mentioned don't employ more than 7 times the auto industry's total number of workers---obviously there would be spillover effects, known in economics as the effects of the multiplier,but that's a different thing entirely--we were arguing about unemployment--not it's cumulative effects on the economy


RE: should...
By technohermit on 11/8/2008 10:39:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Other nations such as Japan and Germany have higher percentages of mechanization in their processes for making automobiles. These advances in mechanization that other nations have taken advantage of have been blocked by the unions of America, as they would require less workforce.

Prove that.
I am union, and I despise that statement. Union people, contrary to the popular opinion, DO want machines that keep their companies competitive. We know that a competitive employer pays our bills as well as theirs. A shitty boss means a short term job, no matter how hard you work.
Maybe you don't realize that union members are human just like the salaried ones? Do you think unions are just big anti-corporate entities trying to put companies out of business?? That is illogical. A worker is a worker, and I as a union member give a good days work for a good days pay. It is up to my company to buy me the machinery that will keep his business growing and keep his overhead down. Sometimes those two things dont go together.
Maybe Ford and GM thought they could just keep the same old crap machinery making the same old crap cars, while other AMERICAN plants like HYUNDAI, HONDA AND TOYOTA (thank Reagan for his foreign policy) did invest billions, with the UAW to keep the workplace happy and their businesses making money. Ford thought building in Mexico would make them more money than new tools in Detroit. Guess what? It didn't. They are now burning more cash than a Union could suck out of them by having to re-tool their US plants, and bring their innovative European cars here. Good luck Ford! I for one don't like to see any employer out of business, and I own Ford stock, so especially them. I just hope they can get their shit together before it truly is too late.


RE: should...
By Dwayno on 11/9/2008 3:08:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Maybe Ford and GM thought they could just keep the same old crap machinery making the same old crap cars,...


Ford and GM tried to update their factories. Yhe UAW told them they could do so, but they couldn't replace a single UAW member with a robot...they had to keep the same number of employees. So, economically, it made no sense to update machinery when the workforce stay the same.

quote:
...while other AMERICAN plants like HYUNDAI, HONDA AND TOYOTA (thank Reagan for his foreign policy) did invest billions, with the UAW to keep the workplace happy and their businesses making money.


Hyundai just built their first plant this decade. Toyota built their first plant in the 70's. Honda was the only plant to be built during the start of the Reagan years. Everyone of these auto companies built their plants new from the ground up using the American car manufacturers as the models for their ASSEMBLY plants, not manufacturing. The American car companies actually were building cars from raw materials; the Japanese/Korean companies were shipping their parts from overseas. The Japanese/Korean car companies came with billions of dollars earned from the sales of their cars in their home and world market (especially from sales of their cars in the US market...a market that severely restricted the importing and selling of American cars).

quote:
Ford thought building in Mexico would make them more money than new tools in Detroit. Guess what? It didn't.


Actually, Mexico is still profitable for Ford...that's why Ford is converting its Mexico City plant to production of the European Fiesta for '010. All of the European cars that Ford will be selling are being tooled up for production in North America...NOT imported!


RE: should...
By DrKlahn on 11/10/2008 11:16:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Unions are not the reason the US car industry is in trouble - it's their products. Forever they have been focusing on the home market and even that market is one they only kept somewhat successful in due to government aid with selling trucks and so forth all of which is basically old technology in shiny packaging.


Really? I thought all manufacturers complied with CAFE requirements. I didn't realize that Domestic manufacturers got a pass. You should probably let them know.

Enlighten us as to this shining new technology that Foreign makes possess that Domestic makes do not. I've been an auto enthusiast for years and can't think of any major technologies not present in Domestic autos.

As for labor have you done any cursory research on cost union vs. non-union? What were your findings?


RE: should...
By Some1ne on 11/8/2008 2:07:56 PM , Rating: 5
I say let them die. They're not in trouble just because of the sagging economy, they're in trouble because they ignored their core market for so long, and failed to adapt quickly to changing demands. If a company does that, for as long as the American automakers have, then it deserves to fail.

Case in point, people have been clamoring for more fuel efficient vehicles for years now ("more fuel efficient" meaning vehicles that can get around 40+ MPG), and the best American automakers have been able to offer has been lipservice in the form of "mild hybrids" that only deliver something like ~25 MPG. Sure it's a small improvement, but it's ignoring what most people really wanted, and it was stupid of the automakers to think that sticking "hybrid" on their vehicles would cause people to start buying again, when the fuel economy wasn't even close to being competitive with real hybrids. The consumer landscape has changed, and the American automakers failed to react to that change swiftly or effectively.

Granted, the Volt is a nice gesture, but it's not slated to even become available for purchase until 2011. If a company is trailing the market by that many years, there's no way it can remain viable, even with government subsidies.

Companies survive (and thrive) through innovation, but a lot of American companies seem to have convinced themselves that the road to success is instead paved by doing the exact same thing that used to work in the past. So I say let them die, and good riddance to old philosophy. Hopefully whoever steps up to replace them will understand the importance that constant innovation plays in running a successful business.


RE: should...
By Chaotic42 on 11/8/2008 7:13:56 PM , Rating: 2
A couple of things here. GM and Ford did release fuel efficient vehicles 15 to 20 years ago. No one wanted them. Gas prices were low and everyone wanted large, safe vehicles. GM and Ford produced them.

The clamor for small, fuel efficient has come up very quickly. Gas prices shot up and have now collapsed.

I don't know how they have "ignored their core market for a long time". Their core market wanted trucks and SUVs. That's what was made.

I'm also not sure about your theory of 25MPG hybrids. I have an 08 Impala with a V6 and my mileage is in the mid to upper 20s (I've yet to go through a whole tank). My 95 Mazda 626 got 30, and they aren't even the same class of vehicles.

What exactly are you looking for?


RE: should...
By kilkennycat on 11/9/2008 12:06:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
A couple of things here. GM and Ford did release fuel efficient vehicles 15 to 20 years ago. No one wanted them. Gas prices were low and everyone wanted large, safe vehicles. GM and Ford produced them.


One other reason why nobody wanted to buy them was the truly awful reliability of any car at that time from any US manufacturer. Dig into back issues of Consumer Reports if you do not believe me....That was the time when Toyota, Honda and Datsun started grabbing huge chunks of the US market, starting with the small (reliable) fuel-efficient cars and then later working up to their own versions of gas-guzzlers.


RE: should...
By Masospaghetti on 11/8/2008 8:16:56 PM , Rating: 1
I don't back the current GM management at all - in fact, I think they've blundered far too many times - but remember the EV1? Despite what some greenies will say, the EV1 project was cancelled because demand was far too low, IE NOBODY WANTED IT. Everyone was driving a huge SUV. People only started "clamoring for fuel efficient vehicles" for about the past year, maybe two when gasoline became so expensive. The unions also add a lot of red tape to their operations and make them slower to adapt because its more difficult to change workforces at different plants and they often get paid even when not working.

Tell me this -- Who supplied all of the military vehicles and tanks during WWII? If the domestic industry goes under, where are we going to get Humvee's from? How about tanks? When WW-III rolls around, it might be a bit harder to convince Toyota to build us some trucks.

I think the government needs to step in, abolish unions and change upper management. GM and Ford have proven they CAN produce world-class vehicles. The 2009 Malibu (non-hybrid) gets 33 mpg which is the highest in its class, the Silverado gets 21 mpg which is also highest in class, the Cobalt gets 37 mpg which is, again, highest in class. These companies are failing due to past faults and legacy costs and they need help.


RE: should...
By flurazepam on 11/9/2008 4:39:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Despite what some greenies will say, the EV1 project was cancelled because demand was far too low, IE NOBODY WANTED IT.


Really? Guess you didn't see Who Killed the Electric Car. Point is, the people who bought (actually leased, as you could never own the EV1) the GM electric, loved it so much, they protested and rallied to save the car. Why was the project killed? Well many reasons, mostly oil industry based though. GM at the time purposely poorly marketed the car with disturbing, if not frightening advertisements. Moreover, there was a deliberate lack of marketing as well. If you actually wanted to sell a car, why not showcase it as the greatest new vehicle to own not market it with disinformation. Anyway, I digress...

Fast forward to 2008, watch the interview with Bob Lutz on 60 mins. He admitted it was a huge mistake to kill the (electric car EV1) project. They could have had a whopping 16 year lead in research and development in electric car technology had they kept the project going. Now, they're scrambling with no infrastructure in place. The Volt is going to come out with no "real life" testing (i.e. people living with the cars - not environmental testing). Hopefully it will succeed for them, otherwise it will be difficult to portray an image of innovation and concerns for fuel efficiency and alternative energy given the competition, including competition from little car manufacturers like Tesla, which incidentally was started by silicon valley execs and not car guys.


RE: should...
By Hoser McMoose on 11/9/2008 8:53:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the people who bought the GM electric, loved it so much, they protested and rallied to save the car.

Yup, all 20 of them!

Masospaghetti was absolutely correct, the EV1 was a disaster as a commercial product. The prospect for sales at $40,000 were dismal and it cost GM closer to $80,000 to build the thing! THAT is why GM canned their project just like Toyota, Honda, Ford and EVERYONE else canned their electric vehicle projects!

Hindsight being 20/20 I'm sure GM now wishes they kept developing the EV1 as a prototype; if they had they might be able to sell the Volt this year instead of in 2010. However GM was hardly alone here, EVERY major car manufacturer in the world missed the boat on this one. Keeping the EV1 on sale as an actual product though? That was a non-starter, the thing was nothing but a giant money pit for the company.

The real irony about the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car" is that they gave GM such a hard time because GM actually TRIED to build the car and failed. They let companies like Toyota, Honda and Ford off lightly because those folks gave up WAY before GM did.


RE: should...
By flurazepam on 11/10/2008 2:31:40 PM , Rating: 2
The real irony about the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car" is that they gave GM such a hard time because GM actually TRIED to build the car and failed.

Then why wouldn't GM allow anyone to own the car? Why did the car have to be destroyed? What harm would it have been for people to hang on to their cars? The ones in the museum contain no internals. Why?

As for everyone missing the boat - you'll have to talk to the oil companies about that one.


RE: should...
By Reclaimer77 on 11/10/2008 6:01:39 PM , Rating: 2
I agree.

Let them die. Look folks, you were told there is a " bailout " for this. You were lied to. There is no quick fix. We can either let it fix itself now, or keep putting off the problem for future generations.

Its going to hurt either way, so lets just get it over with. No more handouts or bailouts.



RE: should...
By tubalcain on 11/8/2008 3:27:39 PM , Rating: 3
Unions are the only way to stand up to unchecked corporate power. They hate unions, ask Walmart. If we had universal healthcare in the U.S. that is one less thing the auto industry and many other industries would have to worry about. The real enemy in this is globalization and so called free trade, why should GM or any other company open more plants in the U.S. when they can pay Mexicans, Chinese & Indians way less? You can't compete with that.


RE: should...
By mmntech on 11/8/2008 4:47:03 PM , Rating: 5
Unions are partly to blame for the problem. I worked in civil construction for a number of years, which is unionized. (I worked in the office doing data entry for accounting and payroll) There, a senior skilled labourer might make $30-$50 an hour tops. At GM in Canada, unskilled labourers make $30-$70 an hour depending on seniority. The unions demanded those inflated wages, not to mention cradle to grave benefits. Effectively, the workers and their fat cat union priced themselves right out of the labour market. Nobody else in private sector manufacturing makes that much.

Of course one cannot place the entire blame on the union. It's still mostly the fault of the management at the Big Three. European and Japanese automakers saw the writing on the wall 10 years ago while North Americans still kept poring huge sums of money into SUVs and light trucks. Now they just sit on the lots rusting. Both the US and Canadian governments have bailed them out time and time again and what have they done with that money? Absolutely nothing. GM's latest idea to help the Canadian auto industry, build the gas guzzling Camero in Oshawa when fuel was sitting at $1.40/L. It's a shame that people are loosing their jobs but we are seeing no return on the taxpayer dollars we've been investing in these people. The money just ends up in the hands of the greedy management and union bosses. We might as well just nationalize the North American auto industry at this point. Public money is the only thing keeping it afloat already. Maybe if we stopped giving them handouts each time they screw up, it might force them to innovate instead.


RE: should...
By Regs on 11/8/2008 7:20:05 PM , Rating: 2
The union had more adverse effects other than employee compensation. Really, what's 30-50 dollars an hour now to a huge corporation?

The real problem was the legal quagmire in the middle. How can a company like GM be able to change their product line and be as versatile as the over sea's manufacturers when they spend months if not years dealing with union lawyers trying to get a robot to take a workers place? Even if they did get the robot to do the job, they had to make up some un-useful job for the employee that got the boot from the robot. If GM actually introduced something more efficient, and more profitable for their company, they'll then have to deal with works walking out on the job and striking. How productive can this be?

How about UAW coercion and extortion from the union? GM lost litterly billions!!! To get a worker not making his cut, they had to offer them a service package (ransom) to get them to leave.

How about equal pay? Why should I work harder when everybody else gets the same rate? There is no incentive to progress, refine, retool, or expand.

"What is happening is cruel justice, imposed by a reality that willfully ignorant people thought they could choose to ignore as long as it suited them: the reality that prosperity comes from the making of goods, not the making of work; that it comes from the doing of work, not from the shirking of it; that it comes from machines and methods of production that save labor, not the combating of those machines and methods; that it comes from the earning and reinvestment of profits not from seizure of those profits for the benefit of idlers, who do all they can to prevent the profits from being earned in the first place." - Daily Article by George Reisman

I'm all for comeptitive pay and employees rights. Though there has to be a limit and a balance.


RE: should...
By FITCamaro on 11/8/2008 10:56:51 PM , Rating: 3
What's $30-50/hr?? Are you serious? Many engineers don't make $50/hr. But someone doing a job barely requiring a 5th grade education deserves that kind of pay? No. Most auto industry jobs are maybe worth $20/hr. Not $30-50/hr or higher.

Hell GM probably has some people designing the cars that make less than the workers building them.


RE: should...
By andrinoaa on 11/8/2008 11:51:35 PM , Rating: 3
Fit, you surprise me with your ignorance and blinkered logic. You live in a capitalist system where the object is to get what the market will bare. If Gm can sell a box of shit for $100k, why would they sell for $20k? Same as Unions, when the going is good, they get what they can get. Same as politicians, they make sure they get what they can get! I certainly don't think politicians are worth more than 2 x the average wage. If their wealth was tied into the average Joe Blow, we would all be better off!
Gm's problem is multi faceted.
1/ they painted over the crystal ball and were flying blind.
2/ people are not buying their cars in quantities they were used to.
3/Maybe a certain amount of vehicle saturation has occured too.
4/ Looking at their modus operandi, I don't think they actually made any money for a while.
The only solution is massive downsizing until they make money. If the government is stupid enough to bail them out, the minimum requirement is totally new management.


RE: should...
By omnicronx on 11/9/2008 12:24:35 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Same as Unions, when the going is good, they get what they can get. Same as politicians, they make sure they get what they can get! I certainly don't think politicians are worth more than 2 x the average wage.
Just a little fact for you here.. In canada, an elected representative gets paid around 140K a year at the highest level. Yet a 20 year worker at GM can make more money. Canadian auto workers get paid 20% more money than any other developed nation when it comes to auto workers, yet they complain when GM tells them they have to cut jobs. Face it, the workers get paid too much money, with most of the workers having little to no education, and whats worse is they think they deserve it.

P.S The President of the United States only gets paid 400k a year, or a little more than 2x the top paid GM line workers. Your entire logic is flawed if you think because we live in a capitalistic system that a line worker should get paid half the salary of the President of the United states.

Whats worse is that 50+ year old workers are just refusing to retire, and it is the younger workers that get asked to leave. I live in a city that is home to a GM plant, and union officials were told to try and trick workers into signing release documents they did not have too, so that they did not have to give the normal severance packages. Auto unions are just plain out of control, they are even going as far as moving into markets that have nothing to do with the auto industry, just to collect union dues. And when these people are layed off, they are told they are out of luck because they are not true auto workers.. something has to be done about this.


RE: should...
By andrinoaa on 11/9/2008 5:31:35 AM , Rating: 2
There you again, why do people extrapolate what others say.
Please show me an example where an auto worker gets more than $140k. I would have thought the average would have been around $50k. There are exceptions but everyone? All politics of envy here. If GM is sick, they should renegotiate with the unions, how hard is that? But if Wagner slashes wages then increase his, I think the union labour would be entitled to play hard ball!
The president gets more in other benefits. Accomodation, free flights to his holiday home, free use of servants and many more I am sure. I don't think the president is even aware what the average wages are.


RE: should...
By Regs on 11/9/2008 11:30:20 AM , Rating: 2
I agree that's it's more like 50k a year, but the benefits for them is what really is costly. The pensions that GM can't afford, the severance pay for firing/laying them off, and the added overhead for legal disputes. 50k is more than with-in reason, though that's highly opinionated. I know most of us started working in tougher higher-skilled jobs making less. Hell, I'm sure there are people working for Wal-Mart that work harder that get 9.50 an hour so you can enjoy a 6 dollar piece of crap that you don't need. Though some one has to pay for these 25k cars that they're selling or that 2k monthly mortgage for a 2 bed room town house.

This is what happens when a country goes 7 trillion in debt and the rate of inflation sky-rockets, hence our own way of life is threatened. That 50k is not worth much anymore when we're paying thousands of dollars of tax and inflation penalties each year. Education is not the problem, and should not be a meal ticket either. The real problem is keeping productivity at it's maximum. You can't possibly blame employees for trying to make a living. How hard would you work in a factory for 25k a year with no health benefits or vacation? I'm not saying everybody should be paid more than they worth in society or paid more than their employer can afford. I'm saying that for the past decade everybody has been living with tunnel vision that these problems no longer effect them because they're a Harvard grad. There are larger problems at hand which has to be fixed which are now starting to trickle down to micros of our economy.


RE: should...
By FITCamaro on 11/10/2008 9:00:33 AM , Rating: 1
Except the going has gotten good to the point where the employer can't afford to stay in business anymore much less pay these ridiculous wages.

If the automakers fall, it will be the fault of the unions. Their strong arming has jacked wages up to a ridiculous height and that doesn't even take into account the health benefits and pensions. That has left less money for the automakers to put into their products and made them unable to lower their prices.

So UAW workers. Enjoy the jobs while they last. Either you're going to lose those high wages or you're going to lose your jobs.


RE: should...
By Reclaimer77 on 11/10/2008 6:08:03 PM , Rating: 2
Your are ignorant if your list of Gm's problems doesn't include GROSS corporate mismanagement and excessive amounts of retirement, bloated pension plans, and Union's driving labor costs to insane amounts.

Gm wastes billions a year by actually paying people NOT to work.

And Fit is dead on. No way someone with a high school education should be guaranteed 30-40k$ a year. By your merits ? Sure, this is America. But because of Union bullyism ? No, thats not the way. And Gm is paying the price, big time.

Your analogy is flawed in that respect. Union driven wages are not what the market would naturally bare without their interference. To argue otherwise is pointless.


RE: should...
By Reclaimer77 on 11/10/2008 6:09:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
30-40$ an hour


Edit


RE: should...
By lagomorpha on 11/10/2008 6:11:20 PM , Rating: 1
"You live in a capitalist system where the object is to get what the market will bare. If Gm can sell a box of shit for $100k, why would they sell for $20k? Same as Unions, when the going is good, they get what they can get."

Except that when businesses come together to agree to certain prices it's called PRICE FIXING. Workers coming together to fix prices are no different.


RE: should...
By Dwayno on 11/8/2008 7:44:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
European and Japanese automakers saw the writing on the wall 10 years ago while North Americans still kept poring huge sums of money into SUVs and light trucks. Now they just sit on the lots rusting.


Eh...Toyota just open up a large truck manufacturing plant in Texas. Now their trucks are sitting on THEIR lots and rusting as well.

quote:
Both the US and Canadian governments have bailed them out time and time again and what have they done with that money? Absolutely nothing.


Chrysler was the only American auto manufacturer that was bailed out by the government...and that was in the form of a loan which they paid back. That was over 20 years ago. And what they got back was that for a while, Chrysler was an independent company.

quote:
We might as well just nationalize the North American auto industry at this point.


Every auto manufacturer in the world is either nationalize or supported by their government, with the exception of one country. Would you like to venture a guess which country? Do you think that Toyota was able to bring the first hybrid vehicle (Prius) to market for only $20,000 WITHOUT government subsidies (I read that each vehicle was subsidizes to the tune of $10-15K).


RE: should...
By Hoser McMoose on 11/9/2008 9:03:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
At GM in Canada, unskilled labourers make $30-$70 an hour depending on seniority.

Average cost of employment for GM in Canada is about $70/hour of which wages make up roughly 1/3rd of that. Average wages for GM Canada workers are about $25-$30 an hour. Someone with seniority might be making up to about $40/hour ($80,000/year, all in Canadian dollars). Car assembly workers CAN make a lot of money, but they do it by working a lot of overtime for which they are paid VERY well.

The problem with unions has little to do with wages, non unionized places tend to pay the exact same wage. It's not even the benefits that are usually killing unionized places, though the Big-3 have run into a lot of issues with that due to poor planning.

No, the real problem with unions is the work restrictions and overhead required to deal with all the paper work, contract obligations and similar nonsense that unions cause. This is why Toyota can pay the same wage as GM but their average cost of employment is about $55/hour while GM's is about $70/hour, there's just a lot more overhead involved. It also tends to reduce the flexibility of a facility which is one small part of the reason why Toyota, Honda and Nissan plants tend to be MUCH quicker at switching product lines to meet demand than their North American counterparts.


RE: should...
By Ringold on 11/9/2008 4:08:28 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The real enemy in this is globalization and so called free trade, why should GM or any other company open more plants in the U.S. when they can pay Mexicans, Chinese & Indians way less? You can't compete with that.


Paul Krugman. Nobel prize winning international trade economist, famous for opposing NAFTA and he trades places annually with Ann Coulter as being the partisan columnist in America. He tried and failed to prove with actual data that trade was contributing to wage inequality between skilled and unskilled labor. If he can't do it I'm pretty sure you can't. Other economists reckon trade may explain perhaps 5 - 10% of wage inequality since 1979, in other words, its basically irrelevant, while the gains from trade are easy to quantify.

The real issue is that by allowing foreign companies in to the US, as all cars sold in the US have roughly the same domestic content, the endemic problems within America's labor force, regulation and some old-guard companies have been brought in to the brilliant, cleansing light of day. If we propped them up with trade barriers and subsidies, the inefficiency would still exist, it would just be hidden under the veil of lower national real income levels. (Someone not of a business background would need to look up 'real income' to get the gist of that statement; price levels basically would be higher, or actual income just lower)

By saying we can't compete with third world countries, what you're really saying is that you are too lazy to compete. They have abundant labor, we have abundant capital in money and equipment. If we are too stupid to figure out how to leverage these advantages, plus all the others we have (such as natural resources and most of the best universities on Earth), then we deserve to be taken down a notch.


RE: should...
By Hoser McMoose on 11/9/2008 9:11:29 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks Ringold for reassuring my faith in humanity! This was the best post on this topic I've read in any forum in ages, I only wish more people would read up on, and understand , these same concepts!

Worth a +6 in my books!


RE: should...
By Rodney McNaggerton on 11/9/2008 3:35:10 PM , Rating: 2
Everyone wants to make unions the problem when quite frankly they are not. The ridiculous union contracts had to be signed by management in order to be passed and now management wants to blame unions for the problem. It's the actions of an failed company to blame their unions for the problem that was really created by inefficiency, low quality products, and plain ugly designs.


RE: should...
By Lerianis on 11/9/2008 11:16:50 PM , Rating: 2
Well.... I've seen some Honda's and they are pretty ugly. One everything else however, you are totally right.


RE: should...
By Lerianis on 11/9/2008 11:15:45 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah right.... abolish unions so that the people in that industry, like the people in most other industries today, can be taken advantage of, threatened with the loss of their jobs to take less benefits and less wages, etc..... I don't think so, and you need SLAPPED for even suggesting that.


RE: should...
By foolsgambit11 on 11/10/2008 7:29:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If I went to work in a factory the first thing I'd do is join a union. - Franklin D. Roosevelt

Or negotiate a better position with the unions based on the fact that they'll all be losing jobs if they don't.

Or create a national health care and retirement system to control costs - Japan's got it, and their car industry seems to do well. (To be clear, corporations pay for health insurance for their employees, buying into a government program.) This would keep health care costs normalized, and keep care levels from spiraling upward in union negotiations.

Isn't Chrysler discontinuing lifetime insurance at the end of this year? I think it was Chrysler.....


RE: should...
By RoberTx on 11/10/2008 8:53:57 PM , Rating: 2
You left out GM builds crappy ego pumps. Let them fail.


RE: should...
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 11/8/2008 10:01:50 AM , Rating: 3
All good questions. On the one hand, I say let them fail -- they've had tunnel vision for years when it comes to SUVs and pickups. Their cars, until recently, haven't been competitive with the best from Japan.

It's only now that we're really starting to see vehicles from Detroit that are the equal of their Japanese or European counterparts (Malibu, Cruze, second generation CTS, Enclave/Outlook/Acadia, etc.) -- it sure did take them long enough.

On the other hand, the failure of the Big 3 coupled with job losses from parts suppliers would send our economy even further down the tubes.


RE: should...
By Dwayno on 11/8/2008 10:29:42 AM , Rating: 2
The failing of GM has been predicted to have an economic impact cost of $150 B…this is the statement given to Obama and his economic staff yesterday from Michigan Gov. Granholm. This does NOT factor in the trickle down economic effect to the businesses that are supported by the factories/dealerships that will be closed across the US, Canada, and Mexico…the business taxes from these factories/dealerships, the trucking/trains transport services, the restaurants, the dry cleaners, party/grocery/liquor/electronic stores…which will have their own trickle down effects. Just as with the failing of the banks, the impacts from the failed auto companies will stretch worldwide. And I guarantee that even the people that are saying that the auto companies should fail will be affected as well!


RE: should...
By mdogs444 on 11/8/2008 10:42:37 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
This does NOT factor in the trickle down economic effect to the businesses that are supported by the factories/dealerships that will be closed across the US, Canada, and Mexico…

Very true. And what I find ironic, and stupid, are the people who see that damages to the economy trickle down...but they honestly believe in their heads that trickle up economics starting with the poor actually has a positive effect on the economy. Makes no sense.

Tell me the last time someone making 20k per year and on government assistance ever created any well paying jobs.


RE: should...
By cg72 on 11/8/2008 11:08:45 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Tell me the last time someone making 20k per year and on government assistance ever created any well paying jobs.


...okay, every time they can afford to visit a doctor, buy a prescription, rent an apartment or house, purchase a car, get an oil change, replace a flat tire with a new one, go out to eat, get a new pair of shoes, pick up a toaster (or blender or microwave or tv or refrigerator)...obviously I could go on and on, but the point is that people BUYING things is what creates jobs in this country, not giving a bunch of money via tax breaks and government loans to rich people and hoping they will open up a new business and trickle down some of their good fortune on the rest of the country. I feel very confident that those folks fortunate enough to have the funds to start a new business will wholeheartedly do so as long as they see that enough demand for their product/service exists.


RE: should...
By LeftSide on 11/8/2008 11:31:04 AM , Rating: 3
The same problem applies to the trickle down theory. I know the owner of the company I work for quite well. I can guarantee you that if he got a huge tax cut tomorrow, and saved $60,000 on his taxes he would not say 'Hey I need to hire a new secretary and pay her so I can spend this money.' He is going to spend the money on a new car, take a vacation, gamble it away. There is no reason for him to hire a new worker unless the demand is there for a new worker. If he gets the tax cut, he is going to spend it just like the poor worker who gets the tax cut. So why not get a little money to the masses, instead of a lot of money to the few rich elite out there. The effect is just the same.


RE: should...
By BladeVenom on 11/8/2008 12:55:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
He is going to spend the money on a new car...

Which will help the auto industry. Tax increases sure won't encourage people to buy new cars. People spending money helps someone somewhere. That's the way capitalism works.


RE: should...
By Nik00117 on 11/8/2008 1:43:18 PM , Rating: 2
I just had a customer today want to delay buying her car until tax return because they are expecting 10k and can get another 6k for their current car. On top of this they'd be able to pay cash for their cash and not finance a single penny.

ANy car sales man will tell you tax time is golden time poeple get their tax returns come in and go "I got 8k from the Gov heres 5k as a downpayment I need a car"


RE: should...
By tubalcain on 11/8/2008 3:45:09 PM , Rating: 2
What tax increase? The U.S. probably has the lowest tax burden in the world. How are they going to pay for the bailout? somebody's taxes are gonna go up. And you can't squeeze the guys at the bottom anymore if you want to walk outside and feel safe. The problem is that people fail t understand that tax cuts for the wealthy end up in a reduction of services that the government usually provides to make up for the lost revenue. These same wealthy people sit back and count their money. The guys on the bottom get hit with increased fares, gas prices, health insurance costs, groceries, etc. That is how they get you. "We won't raise taxes, but everything else would go up, sorry."


RE: should...
By Ringold on 11/9/2008 4:24:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The U.S. probably has the lowest tax burden in the world.


Are you familiar with the concept of accuracy or facts?

Your first mistake is saying "the world." There are a lot of countries out there with vastly smaller tax burdens, including a lot of FEZ's (Free Economic Zones) with zero taxes. You should've instead said "the developed world," or "the high-income world," in which case you'd of still be wrong but not hilariously wrong. For example, on corporate taxes, we have the second highest in the world (Japan has the highest), and if you combine state taxes with federal corporate taxes then 24 of our states have the highest tax burden on business in the world. Go figure that some of those states, like Rhode Island, also lead the US in unemployment.

And yes, I'm staring at a multitude of links with proof, but not going to spoon-feed them to you.


RE: should...
By Jim28 on 11/10/2008 2:26:30 PM , Rating: 2
Evidently not. Notice he did not answer that typically the poorest do not pay taxes at all, but they are being squeezed by the tax burden and can't be squeezed any more?
Hell most make money at tax time, not loose it. I guess the facts that ~40% of the population does not pay taxes slip him? Or the fact that the top 10% wage earners pay almost ~%70 of the income tax burden?


RE: should...
By bpurkapi on 11/8/2008 12:09:05 PM , Rating: 5
Ironic that we talk about Ford and you don't realize that Henry Ford talked about about the effect that people making decent wages have on their own company. Ford paid his workers a good wage so that they could afford to buy his cars, and thus propel the company. So the issue is paying workers decent wages so they can consume, rather than paying one CEO absurd wages. Basically it boils down to having a large middle class or a large under class. The large middle class is better for the economy and will consume more than the other option.


RE: should...
By Ringold on 11/9/2008 4:30:04 AM , Rating: 2
Thats all well and good, but what people on the other side forget isn't Henry Ford but France. They went down that path a bit too far, and have been rewarded with consistently high unemployment and relatively low rates of growth. Sarkozy said something along the lines of "the chief consequence of keeping a few from becoming rich was to make everybody poor." I think the European failure of socialism is one of the most ignored but relevant issues in recent history here in America. Must we learn for ourselves the hard way instead of learn vicariously from those who have already been there and done all that?


RE: should...
By icanhascpu on 11/12/2008 2:03:42 AM , Rating: 2
I like how you base your entire argument on a 100% relative statement made by some guy you don't even know the exact quote of.

The definition of poor to him is alot richer then much of our poor. Perchance, his definition of poor could be our definition of lower middle-class, and that would not be bad at all.


RE: should...
By andrinoaa on 11/8/2008 11:56:51 PM , Rating: 2
And your stupid for thinking its the opposite too. Its a classic case of the chicken and the egg. You need BOTH to happen. You guys just keep thinking "inside" the box.


RE: should...
By joeindian1551 on 11/8/2008 11:51:13 AM , Rating: 4
I have no problem with Darwin economics, but considering the present state of our economy I don't think its the best course of action.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/05/autos/auto_job_los...
50% cut in operations directly results in 1,050,000 job losses.

Do we lend money to alchemist bankers while turning our backs on the auto industry? At the very least the Auto industry is trying to change, albeit slowly. Do you think the banking industry will change? No, they will continue to look for ways to manipulate the system into thinking their iron is really gold.


RE: should...
By tallcool1 on 11/8/2008 12:05:50 PM , Rating: 4
I agree, let them fail.

Once that 700B bailout got apporoved, now you got other struggling companies lining up for a handout.

This is a free market economy, if they can not build the products people want, poor quality, bad management, or whatever, its their freakin fault and should not be the US citizens burdon.


RE: should...
By theflux on 11/8/2008 1:28:32 PM , Rating: 1
Actually the majority of their problems come directly from a total perversion of the free market economy - unions. Every car they make and sell is saddled with an enormous financial price to pay to pension plans and abnormally high auto worker salaries. Their foreign competitors do not share this burden.


RE: should...
By kmmatney on 11/8/2008 5:37:13 PM , Rating: 2
I pretty much agree - I will soon need a new car, and have a hard time justifying buying an American car knowning all the money that goes into the Unions and pension plans. I remeber reading about some autoworker reductions where they paid the worker $140K to stop working. What other industry does this? I'm a failry high paid engineer with an advanced degree, and I don't get anything like that. To make matters worse, a lot of the people regretted taking the $140K payout, as they found working in the "real world" (with the rest of us) difficult.


RE: should...
By Dwayno on 11/9/2008 11:44:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I remeber reading about some autoworker reductions where they paid the worker $140K to stop working.


That $140K was for workers, who had to have a minimum of 25 years senority, to completely divorce themselves from the company. These workers were buying out of their medical as well as pension plans.

quote:
To make matters worse, a lot of the people regretted taking the $140K payout, as they found working in the "real world" (with the rest of us) difficult.


That $140K WAS tempting, too tempting to some of the employees that accepted it without talking to a financial advisor before they accepted. They found out too late that it cost them money in the long run. GM worked out the economics of that $140K...they didn't offer it because they were doing what was best for their employees...


RE: should...
By winterspan on 11/9/2008 3:54:16 AM , Rating: 2
Oh yes, all their problems are from the Unions... Since America is the only country with unions and worker benefits..

I'm not a union member, and while I'll certainly agree that many union policies are over the top, they are a necessary force to fight against unchecked corporate abuse of workers. The fact is that unions wouldn't even be necessary if it weren't for the long history of abusive labor practices. I think most people would agree that they just want to see some semblance of fairness, not that there is any easy way to achieve that..


RE: should...
By Dwayno on 11/9/2008 1:32:40 PM , Rating: 3
I am not a union member either although I spent over 30 years in an auto company.

The unions were needed last century when abuses were rampant. But federal laws are in place that keep employers from abusing employee. The 8 hour work day and the 40 hour work week are defined by both state and federal governments. The safety of the employees on the job are also protected. There are always employers trying to beat these laws...this is particularly evident with illegals and migrant workers. The laws ARE in place to protect them...catching the abuses is the problem.

The problem with the unions is that they protect the workers that should be fired. My daughter has worked in several auto plants with UAW workers...despite the fact that she fired employees that had comitted firing offense as defined by the UAW, these workers were always back to work within days while they had their delegate argue on their behalf. My daugther told me she fired one employee 3 times...he still is at work today!


RE: should...
By derwin on 11/8/2008 2:45:24 PM , Rating: 2
Not that I am any sort of warhawk here or anything, but has anyone considered what bankrupting the majority of our automitive manufacuring business would do for our military? GM and Ford helped win us WWII big time when we nationalized their manufacturing. What if those plants are no longer owned by US companies? Could we nationalize them if Russia invaded eastern europe? What if they were owned by chinese companies?

I may be a fool here, and I know I am speaking on a subject I know little of, but it does not seem anyone has given any mention to this concern.


RE: should...
By Alexstarfire on 11/8/2008 3:06:37 PM , Rating: 2
Well, it's not like they were exactly forced out of business. They failed to run their company properly and are now paying the price for it. Is it a good thing that they are going bankrupt? No. Do I believe that the government should help them? HELL NO. It is not the governments problem that private businesses are failing. It happens EVERY DAY with hundreds of small businesses in this country. Do they get government funded help when things look bad? No. Though you could argue that now since the government owns part of the banking system.

I never agreed with the 700B bailout either. Course that's largely due to the fact that the government doesn't have that kind of money to spend. In the end, people need to stop being stupid. In this case, I'm talking about CEOs and others in charge at these companies. It is their own fault that they ended up needing these bailouts in the first place.


RE: should...
By encryptkeeper on 11/9/2008 12:37:17 AM , Rating: 1
Maybe US auto makers should have spent the last few years designing more fuel efficient cars rather than trying to build bigger and badder SUVs and perfect the DVD player in the back of a headrest.


RE: should...
By CommodoreVic20 on 11/9/2008 6:17:54 PM , Rating: 2
Ford and GM makes the crappiest built and designed cars on the planet. I say let these arrogant old school lame companies BURN!


RE: should...
By lagomorpha on 11/10/2008 7:13:17 PM , Rating: 3
Come now. Chrysler makes much worse cars than Ford and GM.


RE: should...
By JosefTor on 11/9/2008 10:35:21 PM , Rating: 1
I would let them fail. They did this to themselves and always blamed others (aka... the consumer or foreign competition).

Especially this latest movement towards green vehicles. People were demanding it over 20 years ago but... the automakers responded that people crave gas guzzlers and more power. The only reason consumers kept buying though was because it was their only option (plus it was unsafe to drive like the pinto because of all the other power cars out there). This is my own opinion but I know that I've been sitting with my car for over 8 years waiting for a suitable replacement but there are none. If I had to chose one to safe it would be GM though since they are making the most forward progress.

ps... jeep I'm eyeing the new Jeep wrangler electric vehicle.


Greedy Corporatists
By Rational Observer on 11/8/2008 10:27:28 AM , Rating: 1
It occurs to me that the big three auto makers should fail. They should have marketed electric cars to the public for years, but they let their pocketbooks alone dictate their decision not too. In the current economic climate, the first start-up company that can provide an affordable electric car with specifications similar to the Tesla, will end the fleecing of American car buyers and end the big three domination of the market. Tesla takes ten minutes to charge, it takes ten minutes to get gas anyway.




RE: Greedy Corporatists
By mdogs444 on 11/8/2008 10:31:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
but they let their pocketbooks alone dictate their decision not too.

That's about as dumb a statement as I've read this week. Go back to the charts and tell me when the last time these companies have been turning significant profits, and what their over/under profit has been in the last 15 years.

There has been no increase in pocketbook size to dictate any decisions.


RE: Greedy Corporatists
By Dwayno on 11/8/2008 10:47:47 AM , Rating: 3
Having worked in R&E for 34 years at an auto company, I can tell you that they HAVE worked on alternative sources. The requirements to build a new vehicle are enormous. One of the biggest stumbling blocks in the US, besides safety and evironmental concerns, is litigation. No other country in the world has to deal with the litigation that the US manufacturers have to face. The car companies are still being sued today because of issues occuring 25+ years ago.

It takes 6800 batteries to power that the Tesla car...multiply that times the 13-17 milliom vehicles produce each year and you can see why we don't have an electric car in every home (ignoring the fact that this stage of battery development just came on line in the last few years). Also that 10 min. "quick charge" is done with 220 volts...do you have an outlet?

BTW...I find it ironic that you would mention Tesla. They recently closed their operations in Michigan and gave 90 employees their pinkslips thru their email!


RE: Greedy Corporatists
By jive on 11/8/2008 4:43:20 PM , Rating: 3
Could you give pointers to these requirements? I know CA has tighter emission regulations than EU but what kind of safety regulations are posed to the car manufacturers? Are those government or state level regulations?

I agree that from the European point of view the litigation is absurd. Do you really need to warn people that the coffee is hot or that live voltage can get you electrocuted?

And I agree that the handling of hazardous waste and even the supply for the rare earth metals required by the new battery cells would not survive 13 million Teslas.

Otherwise I would argue that if you head collide a Volvo/MB/Audi/BMW hell even Renault to a US manufactured car of the equivalent size and mass, you too would pick up the non US make to be in without any haste.


RE: Greedy Corporatists
By rudolphna on 11/8/2008 5:16:08 PM , Rating: 2
Its not so much a wast thing as the electrticity production. The american Power grid is aging badly, with some parts of the country experiencing rolling black/brown outs on a regular basis when it is hot, or even not. A good example is california, and the southwest. Our power infrastruction cannot at the moment, support that many electric cars.


RE: Greedy Corporatists
By Dwayno on 11/9/2008 3:29:55 AM , Rating: 2
Crash standards are determine by the federal government...states can only screw with emission standards. I didn't work in Crash safety, so I don't know the details of EU standards...I think that they are just different. I know that EU's rollover standards are different than ours.

Working my entire 34 years in R&E, I do know that thr company I worked for had very stringent and very demanding standards. All of our criteria for safety had to exceed the government standards by a minimum of 10%.


RE: Greedy Corporatists
By ImJustSaying on 11/9/2008 4:07:56 PM , Rating: 2
Is that R&E or R&D (Research & Development)? I'm not sure what R&E means.


RE: Greedy Corporatists
By Aloonatic on 11/10/2008 4:43:23 AM , Rating: 2
The only difference in standards between the US and EU that I have ever heard of, other than emissions standards, is that safety bumpers on cars in the US have to be at a similar height.

I don't think that there is any sort of standard in the EU in this regard, but I guess as many cars are sold in the US and EU we inherit the standard anyway.


Losing our car companies would hurt us quite a bit
By Hulk on 11/8/2008 10:24:02 AM , Rating: 2
It would mean we'd have to rely on foreign cars completely. That's bad as cars are something just about everyone owns.

The government can help by lowering crash restrictions to European levels so they can bring their European models here inexpensively.

In addition the Unions must go.

I would say no governemnt funds of any kind unless the Unions go and the auto makers can show why the temporary cash infusion would make them turn the corner.




By Dwayno on 11/8/2008 11:44:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The government can help by lowering crash restrictions to European levels so they can bring their European models here inexpensively.


This will only make a profit for the European car market at the expense of the American car market...the parent company would see that profit, but it doesn't help the American manufacturer. Besides, the first time someone is injured or killed because of reduced safety (real or perceived),litigation would completely nullify any profits.

India charges a 50% tariff, China charges 100% tariff on imported goods. Our low tariff to countries such as these are hurting all American manufacturs.


By Masospaghetti on 11/8/2008 8:29:54 PM , Rating: 2
What he means is to lower the US safety standard to European levels so that GM and Ford's european vehicles (that are generally small and fuel efficient) can be brought here to the states without any delay at all. Currently, they have to meet a different crash spec, different head/taillighting spec, different bumper spec (pedestrian safety), emission spec, and so on.


By Dwayno on 11/9/2008 8:40:11 AM , Rating: 2
Ford is currently rushing the Euro designed cars to market here. What Ford has been doing behind the scenes was testing on a lot of the Euro model cars (as well as some Austrialian models) for the requirements you stated. That is why Ford announced that they were switching over a few of their plants to manufacturing of the Euro models here. They are doing this in a very short amount of time...all 5 models are to be on the market by 2010 model year.

This is the reason that Ford is burning thru a lot of cash...switching a single plant over to the manufacturing of a different vehicle can run into the $100+ M range extremely quickly!


By Davelo on 11/8/2008 1:34:16 PM , Rating: 3
In addition the Unions must go.

The Unions are going... to the unemployment line.

The Unions better wise up and understand that their members need to compete in the global market now. Give the auto makers a reason why their wages should be so much higher than those auto workers in other countries.


By tubalcain on 11/8/2008 10:56:46 PM , Rating: 2
Ignorance is indeed curable. There are different standards of living in other countries. Are you gonna convince an American worker that he or she should get paid at the equivalent amount that a Chinese or Mexican would? Good luck selling that.


By rdeegvainl on 11/9/2008 3:48:32 AM , Rating: 2
Unskilled (or manual for the politically correct) labor is a global market. When the companies can no longer afford to bleed out of their pockets, Americans will lose the jobs altogether to foreign workers. Good luck selling anything to the guy without a job.


By Mathos on 11/8/2008 1:26:44 PM , Rating: 5
Lets see, I've lived in Michigan most of my life, up until 2006. My guess would be their operating costs are so high because they have several hundred factories sitting vacant and doing nothing. Regardless of whether the plant is still producing it still costs money to maintain and pay taxes.

The failure of the american auto industry is of it's own making. Both on the part of the unions and the auto companies themselves. You can point fingers and throw blame around all you want, but in the end, you end up pointing at a mirror, and you know where the finger is pointing then, right at yourself. So lets see, gas prices have been sky rocketing ever since GWB went in to office, yet, what type of vehicles have Ford and GM been pushing right up until very recently?? Trucks and SUV's. Chrysler is having their own problems due to the break off from Deimler(sp?). Yet at the same time, most of the foreign auto makers are pushing high fuel efficiency, which wait, fits right in to take advantage of the rising gas price crunch. They've been pushing vehicles that are substandard when compared to the foreign companies in fuel economy, safety and price for god knows....the last 20 years? And yet they've done nothing to try and improve... They balk and whine any time the EPA has tried to pass laws to enforce improved fuel economy and emissions and have gone as far as trying to sue the federal government over it. The irony now being that they're trying to ask the federal government for a bailout. That's just golden.

Now as far as someone blaming the unions. You have no idea what this world would be like today if it weren't for them. Oh yes, unions are a double edged sword. But I will say this, if it weren't for them, you and I would be working 20 hour shifts every day 7 days a week, for little pay and have no job security. Not to mention all those little amenities such as cold water fountains, and 15 minute breaks or regular meal breaks, let alone a break room to sit in if you're lucky. Because I will tell you that those union auto workers have had to fight tooth and nail for every single one of those. Most GM foundries didn't have cold water fountains within safe range of where work was being done, until..... 10 or 15 years ago. Not to mention they're responsible for bringing about many of the safety and other such needed labor laws we have now. On the other hand, and the thing I have a problem with, is they also tend to protect some of the most worthless slobs that I've ever seen on a job site. They have a tendency lately to strike due to greed. And they're partially responsible for the cost of the auto's.

And as far as benefits go, so you're saying noone that works and makes less than X amount of money should be allowed medical coverage, or should receive it without paying the full amount for it? Or is it just people who don't work in a white collar field?




By KernD on 11/8/2008 1:40:00 PM , Rating: 2
We all know there are more than one reason there not doing well, the whole SUV thing has been a big joke for a long time now, they have shot themselves in the foot. But what you talk about the condition in the factory 15 years ago, well if it was the case, then your just in a bad country, 15 minute brake in any job where ever it is, is mandatory by law over here in Canada, but having big hourly wages and full medicare never works out good together, can't they pay themselves medicare at these wages? can't they accept lesser wages since they have medicare? one or the other would have been enough, but from a unions point of view, the world is not enough...


By Mathos on 11/9/2008 2:50:54 AM , Rating: 2
Well, there is a reason the US is rank #28 on the worlds rating of medical systems and coverage, coming in behind a few 3rd world countries. Yeah, wages are what I'm referring to when saying that the unions got greedy. Hell, I'm lucky wally world actually helps pay for medical insurance. You gotta remember though, Canada has socialized national medical insurance, the US doesn't, and doesn't want to do it that way.


By Lerianis on 11/9/2008 11:31:52 PM , Rating: 2
Too bad, it's simply time for the world to go to socialized health care, period and done with.


By Jim28 on 11/10/2008 2:38:52 PM , Rating: 2
If our health system is so poor why do so many people come to the US from other countries for medical care? Those countries being Canada and Europe.


By Ringold on 11/9/2008 4:39:17 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with most of that about what unions have given us. Unfortunately for them, they face a situation similar to dentists. Dentists lobbied for and screwed themselves by having fluoride put in to the water supply. Likewise, most of what the unions fought for is now law. Also, labor markets are liquid enough that most of the time an employee with skills that are in demand can say "up yours" to an abusive employer. Obviously not during recessions so much, but we spend far more time out of them than in them on average post-WW2.

To draw yet another analogy, kings and emperors played their role. Their role isn't entirely done, either; I for one don't think Somalia, and some other places, can yet function as a democracy. But for most of the world, unrepresentative government has long since reached the end of its useful lifespan. Honor unions history and achievements, honor the kings of past millenia, but move on.


To those who say that they should fail.....
By rudolphna on 11/8/2008 5:09:17 PM , Rating: 2
You need to take a good look around. The US Auto makers make up a huge chunk of the US Employment market. They have an enormous impact on the economy. If GM and/or Ford fail, the economy will crash so hard, it will be near impossible to recover from for likely decades. Ford and GM have been putting out much better cars lately since theyve seen how important they are. Previously, people were buying big Trucks and SUVs, I am one of them, and I have no intention of trading in my SUV, I love it. They realize they need to change, the problem is that you cant change your manufacturing and entire core products on a dime. It takes time, they have to evaulate how it will affect them in the short, medium and long term. Anyone who feels that these companies failing would no affect the economy, Im sorry but you need to dunk your head in a bucket of ice water. It would absolutely devastate us. Employment would jump in the 10s of percents. Such a disaster must not be allowed to happen. Normally for most companies I would not support loans, but for such huge and important companies essential to the US economy and employment, I would say that the government really, really should loan them the money.




RE: To those who say that they should fail.....
By kmmatney on 11/8/2008 6:02:19 PM , Rating: 2
You still have foreign automobile plants - my Camry was built in the U.S. (Kentucky, I think) and several other foreign automakers have plants. Toyota is building a new plant where Hybrids will be built, starting in 2010.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Motor_Manufact...

These plants are generally run more effiently, with sensible retirement plans and benefits. This plant will be Toyota's 8th plant in the U.S.

Let these companies file for bankruptcy and restructure to be operated more efficiently. It's the only way they can be viable in the long run.


By Masospaghetti on 11/8/2008 8:32:52 PM , Rating: 2
GM alone operates more than 50 plants, but more importantly, they have their R&D here rather than in Japan...thus meaning most of their high-education, high paying jobs are here.


RE: To those who say that they should fail.....
By Mathos on 11/9/2008 3:03:02 AM , Rating: 2
Looking at those pics, as far as the child getting injured, I can't really say whether it's more the parents fault for not installing the car seat properly or the vehicle that hit it. By the way, what was the vehicle hit by? Or what year was that taurus? I know my 97 Taurus was pretty much a tank, hit a deer almost head on and all it did was break the headlight assembly. shape of the front end pretty much flung the deer up in the air over the car. But back to the reply, there is a reason why almost everyone puts car seats in the middle of the back seat. Number one thats the safest place in case of side impact. Number 2 its the spot that makes it easiest to keep an eye on the child. From the pics I saw, a rear side airbag killed the child upon release. People don't seem to realize what kind of force those things release with. I've taken one to the face before in a front end collision, only real accident I've ever had when I was 18.


By Dwayno on 11/9/2008 10:20:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I know my 97 Taurus was pretty much a tank, hit a deer almost head on and all it did was break the headlight assembly. shape of the front end pretty much flung the deer up in the air over the car.

The Taurus WAS built like a tank...it was used as THE crash vehicle whenever a car to car crash was performed at Ford replacing the Crown Vic.


Ugly products
By notninja on 11/8/2008 12:45:18 PM , Rating: 1
If the American auto companies designed a good looking product they wouldn’t be in this fix. The reliability is at a high level. The looks are what hurt them. You think after all these years they would have copied a German or Lexes type design. I don’t care who makes it as long as it looks good and is reliable, if it is American made all the better.




RE: Ugly products
By rudolphna on 11/8/2008 5:12:16 PM , Rating: 2
And how expensive are Lexus/BMW/Audi etc? Much more expensive. Ford cars are very reliable in my experience, and they look good too. The thing is, everyone has a different opinion of what looks good. Some people would die for the honda element, Pontiac Aztec, Scion xB and others. personally I think they are the absolute uglliest cars on the road. Some will not agree with me, and you are entitled to your opinion. The point is, some people find Ford/GM cars nice looking, some people dont.


RE: Ugly products
By A5un on 11/8/2008 11:53:10 PM , Rating: 2
HEY! Leave the Aztec alone!

Just kidding. That's got to be the ugliest car ever produced. My neighbor couple of blocks down has one. I shiver every time I drive by it.


RE: Ugly products
By BikeDude on 11/10/2008 5:15:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If the American auto companies designed a good looking product they wouldn’t be in this fix


GM owns SAAB. SAAB makes the safest cars in their class. The German death traps have nothing on a SAAB. The new SAAB Turbo-X comes with the most advanced four wheel drive system ever seen in that type of car, making it compete directly with the best that BMW and Audi can offer, while putting the driver in a car that is a bit unique... More German right-wing nationals would be alive today, had they driven SAABs instead of VWs. (uhm, OK, that would not have been a good thing, but goes to show that nationalism is bad, mmhOK?) SAABs rarely roll over, and if they do, the driver walks away.

On the environmental side, SAAB has for a long time pushed models with a nice powerful ethanol (E85) powered engine. That Toyota hybrid crap has nothing on ethanol, unless you buy into the "ethanol raises global prices for food" propaganda. (look at the amount of land still not being utilized for food production due to the ridiculous low prices of food, and then we will talk)

Long story cut short: Superior product. And with the recent amount of discounts in the US market, there is absolutely no reason not to buy a SAAB. Everybody and their grandmum drives a beamer. What a boring car! SAAB offers a unique design coupled with road safety unmatched and a very nice driving experience.

GM has delayed SAAB's R&D efforts and used SAAB's technology in their other brands, so maybe that is part of the 'why?'.


RE: Ugly products
By lagomorpha on 11/10/2008 9:34:09 PM , Rating: 2
GM hasn't simply delayed Saab's R&D, they flat out canceled Saab's variable compression ratio technology program that was almost at a point where it could be sold in actual cars. Had they allowed the completion of that project GM could have put that tech in all of their cars and finally had a technological advantage over every other manufacture in the world (both in power and gas mileage). Unfortunately GM isn't interested in producing anything good, they're just looking for a handout and they are pretty sure the American people will continue to give them one.


You can price fix any market.
By Hulk on 11/9/2008 2:21:41 PM , Rating: 2
No matter what the Democrats believe you can't price fix any market. You can't say something "should be" and then complain when that company or industry is put out of business.

You put an import tax on foreign cars then they do the same to our exports. We also limit competition and "protect" our industry. The end result is an inferior product for us and less exports. No solution there.

Okay so the Unions get all they want and the US auto industry dies. No solution there.

Electric cars? Give me a freakin' break. If I hear one more non-engineer/scientist person talk about this I'm going to puke. We are just getting to the point where electric/hybrids, with the emphasis on electric may be feasible. I'm all for electric cars, solar energy, or any other alternative technology that will work. But please for the love of God look at the numbers before you start spouting off your nonsense. I spent 4 years of my life training to be a mechanical engineer so I have at least some idea of realistic energy production from solar or wind energy vs. traditional fossil fired or nuclear power plants. Look at the numbers and please realize that those alternatives can help but we need proven technologies now.




RE: You can price fix any market.
By lagomorpha on 11/10/2008 9:46:09 PM , Rating: 2
"You put an import tax on foreign cars then they do the same to our exports."

Last I checked Japan already has massive protective tariffs. England has some pretty heavy tariffs on cars made outside the EU as well. Not that I want tariffs protecting the American auto industry as I will likely never have enough confidence in their quality to buy a car from the big 3...


RE: You can price fix any market.
By The0ne on 11/12/2008 11:23:33 AM , Rating: 2
Yes they do. You don't want to buy cars :)


By clockerspiel on 11/8/2008 11:37:24 AM , Rating: 4
Saw a program on TV the other day showcasing the current CEO Rick Wagoner. During the entire program, his emphasis was on "style" and "design", along with focusing on the Chevy Volt. He just doesn't get it. It's all about quality! During the entire length of the program, he mentioned quality, only in passing and clearly expressed the belief that "style", "design", and to some extent fuel economy are the key attributes for future cars.

The Japanese have done well world wide because they have focused on quality and therein, a lower cost of ownership. Over the past 10 years, this has created the image that American autos are substandard in quality, cost a lot to maintain (particularly with regards to repair), and have lower trade-in and resale value (which they do).

While fuel economy is looming large as a key element for current and future auto sales, quality and overall cost of ownership (fuel ecoonomy being just part of this equation) will ultimately determine failure or success in the auto industry.

Ford is beginning to get the picture, starting back with the slogan "Quality is job one", but have come up short in changing the subconscious notion that FORD stands for "Fix or Repair Daily". However, they are probably ahead of GM in terms of trying to build more quality into their product lines.

Until GM gets a CEO that can push for and establish world class quality into their vehicles, any governmental bailout or loan guarantee will just be a waste of the taxpayers money.




www.mises.org
By NeoConned08 on 11/9/2008 11:13:08 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4sLx5O_3M0

Please folks, listen to Peter Schiff. Everyone laughed at the guy back when he was saying the Housing Bubble was going to burst. About 5 years later, there it went. Also, listen to Gerald Celente. He was right on the money about a wide variety of economic events.

http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=1473&categor...

I hope you people advocating all these bailouts understand that if we continue to bailout these incompetents we are only taking capital away from those who are competent and that we might also potentially CRASH our CURRENCY doing this sort of stuff. The end result of all this intervention into the economy is the EXACT same thing that Hoover/FDR did during the depression and is what caused it to become the Great Depression and last for many more years than it should have.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policie...

http://mises.org/rothbard/agd.pdf

Also, back then we had a much sounder economy and currency. Now we have a phony service sector economy that survives off debt-based consumption that makes up 72% of our GDP, currency backed by nothing but a bankrupt government's promise that the paper with numbers they are printing is actually worth something, and a nation full of state indoctrinated dimwits that crave socialism and intervention by the State into the economy.

Hopefully they'll understand that it was the US's almost century long experiment with socialism and a foreign policy of interventionism that bankrupted us and is what eventually crashed our currency. Most likely they'll just blame it all on Bush or Obama or Clinton or Reagan etc.

The US does not have the ability to bail out all these companies without VERY SEVERE ADVERSE EFFECTS that are going to be a LOT worse than if we just let those inefficient businesses fail. I repeat, all these bailouts are going to quite possibly CRASH OUR CURRENCY i.e. total devaluation of ALL of your savings, riots in the streets for food/gas/water, Martial Law.

If our debt to GDP ratio flips, which it most probably will over the next 3-5 years due to all of these bailouts, the baby boomers retiring and collecting soc security/medicare, our current debt of almost 11 trillion dollars, our foreign policy of interventionism that is costing us almost a trillion dollars a year and I could go on and on with other things that are dragging us down........that will send a sharp signal to the rest of the planet who are financing our exorbitant consumption.

We can't have everyone working at starbucks or stocking shelves at the nail salon. We need people manufacturing and creating goods that we can export. That is how wealth is generated. I understand that the Big 3 are part of the very small manufacturing base that we have left in this country, but they are woefully inefficient with unions hanging around their necks like concrete slabs. We need to let them fail and have them restructure their business otherwise, we are going to destroy our currency.




RE: www.mises.org
By andrinoaa on 11/10/2008 2:19:47 AM , Rating: 2
You certainly have been living under a rock, haven't you? This post makes Fit, Ring and even Masher sound half human.
"Hopefully they'll understand that it was the US's almost century long experiment with socialism ". I nearly gagged.


Bank bailout began this
By Davelo on 11/8/2008 1:26:59 PM , Rating: 3
Now every corporation in the USA will be begging like a hobo drunk with a sob story about just needing a couple of bucks for a bus ticket home. "Hey looky! The Fed's handing out free money! Better go get some while the gettin's good."




Unions
By Ammohunt on 11/10/2008 3:00:46 PM , Rating: 3
The need to get rid of the UAW and other unions. That alone would bring down their operating costs and the price of automobiles in one fell swoop. Paying a UAW moron $40 hour to tighten a few bolts on an assembly line amounts to robbery.




By JonB on 11/8/2008 10:12:28 AM , Rating: 2
The car makers are at the top of the food chain. So many small companies make parts that become subcomponents that become major components and then become autos. The airplane manufacturers are another example but not everyone has an airplane. Major appliances and Home Construction are other Top of the Food Chain groups.

Note that we have off-shored much of the Auto and Major Appliance industry - to our long-term detriment though we really like the short-term savings.




By SpaceJumper on 11/8/2008 12:35:43 PM , Rating: 2
American TV makers were out of TV making business for the same reason. American is behind the Japanese and Korean in the automobile engineering, artistic design, and long term ownership cost.

I can guarantee that the big 3 CEOs will not agree with my comment.




.
By bbomb on 11/8/2008 1:13:15 PM , Rating: 2
Three letters are the single biggest reason for the downfall of the American auto industry.....U.A.W. They fight for the hourly workers to get paid $30/hr with full medical paid to push a button on a robot. There is very little skill required in today's automated manufacturing.

They were needed back in the day but have failed to keep up with the times and in the end when Chevy, Ford, and Dodge go under they will have no workers to use to squeeze the last little drops of life out of the big 3.




Time to restructure
By kmmatney on 11/8/2008 5:52:51 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe than they can allow the companies to go bankrupt, and then restructure, with a modern labor plan. For instance, this is what United Airlines and US Airways had to do to stay in business - the old employees had ridiculous pensions, such as pilots getting $200K/year for life after retirement (and they could retire at 60). The government took over the pensions, but at a reduced rate (which was still $6.6B for UAL, and $3B for US Airways).

By contrast Southwest Airlines has 401K plans - employee contributions with matching company contribution. Well defined, and no pension debt. Until the auto industry does somehting similar, I have a hard time seeing myself buy an American car.




One thing people forget
By FITCamaro on 11/8/2008 11:02:52 PM , Rating: 2
Japan gave Toyota billions to help them develop the Prius. I believe Germany gives its automakers money to help with their development costs. Many foreign companies are getting assistance from their governments to help them develop cars.

I'm not for giving them loans. But it's hard to compete and an insanely unfair playing field.

GM and Ford need to get the UAW out of their shops though. They're still paying an average of $10/hr more for labor here than Toyota or Hyundai.




New ideas
By vailr on 11/9/2008 11:09:45 AM , Rating: 2
What about the Ford Foundation? Can't they lend back some cash to the Ford Motor Company? Their meddling (via cash grants) in national & international political affairs has always seemed quasi-legal, to me. For the Ford Foundation to completely go out of existence, would be fine by me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Foundation
quote:
In fiscal year 2007, it reported assets of $13.7 billion

Here's an idea: impose a new "import tax", which is scaled based on distance.
For example: if a car is entirely produced in Japan or Germany, the import tax would be calculated on the literal "as the crow flies" distance from the foreign manufacturing plant to the geographical center of the contiguous 48 United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographic_centers_of...
If a new Toyota assembled in Georgetown, Kentucky is 25% (by weight) made in Japan, then the import tax would be reduced to 25% accordingly. In other words: the closer to the geographic center of the U.S. that a given foreign car part (or fully assembled vehicle) is produced, the lower the import tax.
In other words: there needs to be a new & "simply calculated" method of GREATLY encouraging U.S.A.-based manufacturing, instead of imports from foreign countries.
This new "distance based" import tax should apply to everything found in Wal-Mart, as well.




Hopefully Ford sells Mazda
By SerafinaEva on 11/9/2008 9:02:50 PM , Rating: 2
I am so glad this is happening. Hopefully Ford sells off its stake in Mazda to a more competent auto company like Toyota or Nissan. As it is, Ford is just leeching off the success of Mazda. If Toyota or Nissan buys Mazda, that would be incredible...Toyota's engineering and Mazda design...mmmmmm.




Reorganization and/or Rebate
By SnakeBlitzken on 11/12/2008 9:47:31 AM , Rating: 2
Bankruptcy doesn't mean you go away. Ford and GM need a structured bankruptcy to renegotiate their obligations. They're going bankrupt becuase they spend more on pension benefits than they do making vehicles. They can't survive like that. I'm making no comments on the good/bad of rich employee benefits, just stating what I've read.

If the gov't does go for a bailout, I'd prefer they offer a $10,000 rebate to anyone who buys a GM or Ford vehicle. Why not give the consumer the benefit and let them actually sell cars. This would save some dealers also and put some cash in the auto-financing market.




everyone buys an SUV or a truck
By lucyfek on 11/8/08, Rating: -1
By lagomorpha on 11/10/2008 9:52:19 PM , Rating: 1
I have to admit I lolled. Would rate up but already posted.


Nice job, rednecks.
By reader1 on 11/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: Nice job, rednecks.
By shabby on 11/8/2008 11:17:57 AM , Rating: 2
Im not going to buy an american car simply to save their ass, i buy what i like and if it happens to be made in japan so be it.
Go rummage through your house and find how many appliances/clothes/electronics are made in america... i doubt you'll find many. So you're "buy american" excuse doesn't stand even for yourself.


RE: Nice job, rednecks.
By sprockkets on 11/8/2008 11:41:29 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry buddy. I'm not going to buy any Chrysler vehicle after having my Dad's 1998 Caravan need a transmission after 32k miles, an evaporator after 50k, which to get to required taking out the entire dashboard (btw it could have been covered under a TSB/internal recall but did Chrysler want people to know so as to get it fixed for free, no), needed 5 timing pulleys due to poor engineering (they are on the 3rd or 4th revision of it), major peeling of paint and corrosion due to it, too cheap to put in headrests which are not there for comfort, but as a safety feature for backlash, used an aluminum frame at the front (and boasted about how they were the first to do so in their brochure) only to have the worst crash rating, and I can go on and on.

I'm not going to spend my hard earned money on GM/Chrysler/Ford products, spend just as much on their vehicles when they are new compared to imports, then end up spending not a few bucks, but thousands more to keep them working.

I'm not going to shoulder their inept engineering, and especially Chrysler's mentality they had with say, their Neon, which main feature was how cheap we could build this vehicle. How many Neon's do you see on the road? In fact, it garnered such a bad reputation, they killed it completely and came out with the Caliber!

Ford's quality at least is improving, and Mazda's use of their parts doesn't dampen their reliability on most of their cars, such as the Mazda3. GM? Well, they sell Opel's and Holden's now, they being German and Australian, probably because GM can't make anything worth buying otherwise, except maybe for trucks, that's very American of them. Chrysler? What good is your lifetime warranty if you are going out of business soon?


RE: Nice job, rednecks.
By joeindian1551 on 11/8/2008 12:03:11 PM , Rating: 2
I'll agree to Chrysler. Their vehicles are consistently at the bottom of every quality study by JD Power.

But I don't understand why GM can't rebadge Opel & Holden vehicles. You own it so why not take advantage of it? It saves money and it doesn't compete with models here, so what's the downside?

Do you think the people at Jaguar felt the same way about Ford? It's well known that Jaguar's quality (style not so much) went up dramatically when Ford took over and implemented their manufacturing processes.

If it gives you a better car to buy who cares where it comes from?


RE: Nice job, rednecks.
By jive on 11/8/2008 4:22:46 PM , Rating: 2
It's mainly due to the fact, that European Ford is independent from the Ford US. And If you haven't noticed they are doing fine, economically and quality wise. It's sad to see the original Ford to go but As I own few of Ford's European models I sure hope they won't take the Ford Europe down with them.

Jaguar was a prime example of the UK car making, which once was grand and powerful, but now most of it is owned by the German and Indian car manufacturers. In UK they the industry fall and some call the Britons conservative and stiff...


RE: Nice job, rednecks.
By Generic Guy on 11/10/2008 7:43:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
why GM can't rebadge Opel & Holden vehicles.


They do... Look at what they're doing with the Saturn brand. Mostly Opel re-badges these days, with new front grills.


RE: Nice job, rednecks.
By SnakeBlitzken on 11/12/2008 9:50:53 AM , Rating: 2
I've only had bad luck with Fords. My Chevy's have been OK. My lumina is over 170K and doin great. Our Town&Country only has 47K but so far it's been trouble free.


RE: Nice job, rednecks.
By sprockkets on 11/8/2008 11:49:23 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry buddy. I'm not going to buy any Chrysler vehicle after having my Dad's 1998 Caravan need a transmission after 32k miles, an evaporator after 50k, which to get to required taking out the entire dashboard (btw it could have been covered under a TSB/internal recall but did Chrysler want people to know so as to get it fixed for free, no), needed 5 timing pulleys due to poor engineering (they are on the 3rd or 4th revision of it), major peeling of paint and corrosion due to it, too cheap to put in headrests which are not there for comfort, but as a safety feature for backlash, used an aluminum frame at the front (and boasted about how they were the first to do so in their brochure) only to have the worst crash rating, and I can go on and on.

I'm not going to spend my hard earned money on GM/Chrysler/Ford products, spend just as much on their vehicles when they are new compared to imports, then end up spending not a few bucks, but thousands more to keep them working.

I'm not going to shoulder their inept engineering, and especially Chrysler's mentality they had with say, their Neon, which main feature was how cheap we could build this vehicle. How many Neon's do you see on the road? In fact, it garnered such a bad reputation, they killed it completely and came out with the Caliber!

Ford's quality at least is improving, and Mazda's use of their parts doesn't dampen their reliability on most of their cars, such as the Mazda3. GM? Well, they sell Opel's and Holden's now, they being German and Australian, probably because GM can't make anything worth buying otherwise, except maybe for trucks, that's very American of them. Chrysler? What good is your lifetime warranty if you are going out of business soon?


RE: Nice job, rednecks.
By Mozee on 11/8/2008 12:44:56 PM , Rating: 2
I can understand not wanting to purchase a Chrysler product based upon reliability. They've had a horrible track record for some time now, including coming in at the bottom 1/4 of all manufacturers in this year's JD Power Initial Quality surveys (Jeep finished dead last). But using that as a blanket reason for not purchasing from GM and especially Ford is idiotic.

If you look at two of the best barometers for quality from this past year - JD Power's Initial Quality Study (first 90 days of ownership) and JD Power Dependability Study (3 year old vehicles), the Ford brands come out looking pretty by finishing in the top half of all brands for the surveys, including #6 and #2 finishes by Mercury - who everyone thinks Ford should dump.

On the Initial Quality Study (36 brands listed), here are the top 15:
1. Porsche
2. Infiniti
3. Lexus
4. Mercedes-Benz
5. Toyota
6. Mercury
7. Honda
8. Ford
9. Jaguar
10. Audi
11. Cadillac
12. Chevrolet
13. Hyundai
14. Pontiac
15. Lincoln

On the Dependability Study (37 brands listed), here are the Top 15:
1. Lexus
2. Mercury
3. Cadillac
4. Toyota
5. Acura
6. Buick
7. BMW
8. Lincoln
9. Honda
10. Jaguar
11. Porsche
12. Mitsubishi
13. Hyundai
14. Ford
15. Infiniti

Ford's safety is second to none. Ford has more 5 star government crash test ratings than anyone - including the FIRST convertible (08 Mustang) EVER to receive a 5 star rating for rollovers. Ford also currently has more IIHS Top Safety Picks than any manufacturer.

Add to that the number of US Jobs every 2500 vehicle sold supports (data from the Level Field Institute).
Chrysler - 83
Ford - 81
GM - 72
Toyota - 32
Honda - 45
Nissan - 37

Don't be so quick to judge based on what you remember from the past. Ford has made huge strides lately, and GM is starting to do the same with their newer entries to the market as well. Some people don't believe in the "Buy American" concept, but when you're looking at an industry that accounts for almost 1 in 10 US jobs and is both the largest exporter and largest source of corporate R&D in the United States, you can bet it does effect you or someone you know. And when you can get a vehicle with quality and safety as good as anywhere else and at the same time support your friends and neighbors livelihood - why not?


RE: Nice job, rednecks.
By StevoLincolnite on 11/8/2008 11:19:38 PM , Rating: 2
Pity there was no Holden Commodore on that list. (GM).


RE: Nice job, rednecks.
By Lord 666 on 11/9/2008 12:34:02 AM , Rating: 2
Anytime someone makes claims about Ford's safety record, I have to share the picture of my friend's 2002 Taurus post accident. Unfortunately, the 2.5 year old (his age at time of accident in 2006) in the child seat is now paralyzed on his left side. http://www.flickr.com/photos/23386028@N08/page3/

Maybe Ford improved after getting sued too many times, but still their efforts are not enough. How many Fords have rear side door airbags? How many cars even offer them? There are only three car companies I can think of that do; Mercedes, Audi, and VW. Not even Honda/Acura offer this option which to me is absurd since the cost is minimal.

PS - After my friend's accident with the Taurus, I quickly sold my 2002 Accord for a 2006 Jetta TDI with rear side airbags. Never had any real problems with that car and just clicked over 52,000 miles since having new Nov 2006.


RE: Nice job, rednecks.
By rdeegvainl on 11/9/2008 5:15:37 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry, and that is a truly horrible event, but the fact that there are pictures and stories for every car manufacturer... I have to take that with a grain of salt when you are trying to pass it off as indicative of the overall safety of a company.


RE: Nice job, rednecks.
By juuvan on 11/10/2008 5:00:28 AM , Rating: 2
The impact has been the worst kind there is. Directly on to the door. As it seems the problem isn't the lack of air bags in the doors, in fact if the car would have had those the child seat would have catapulted. Without roll cage no car can withstand this kind of side impact. If someone should have been sued it's the Graco for producing sub standard child seat.

I have a 10 month aged toddler so I think I can relate to the paraent's.


RE: Nice job, rednecks.
By BikeDude on 11/10/2008 5:31:26 AM , Rating: 2
The crash tests are synthetic and not reflected in real world performance.

Check out the Swedish insurance company Folksam's web pages: http://folksam.se/testergodarad/bilen/valjrattbil/...

Ford is about average.

Compare with SAAB. Old models of SAAB 9-3 and 9-5 are 30%+ safer than the average car when looking at a statistically significant number of real life accidents.

But Sweden is a bit peculiar, since there are a number of moose collisions in the mix, and SAAB is the only manufacturer simulating collisions with a moose. (it can be compared to hitting a small car with your windshield first...) Which also translates into being a safe car to roll over in... (too bad SAABs are hard to roll)

Anyway... Drag your Ford over here. We will both try to hit a moose while driving around 80 kph. I think this argument will be quickly settled.


RE: Nice job, rednecks.
By Lord 666 on 11/10/2008 8:52:14 AM , Rating: 2
I would quickly purchase a diesel XC90 if they were offered in the US. Currently looking at the petrol models as another child is on the way.


RE: Nice job, rednecks.
By Davelo on 11/8/2008 1:15:45 PM , Rating: 2
My Toyota was made right here in California. My Pontiac, on the other hand, was made in Canada. Which one is the import?


RE: Nice job, rednecks.
By Darkskypoet on 11/8/2008 2:28:17 PM , Rating: 2
Assembled... Not made. The parts industry for most car manufacturers tends to be increasingly based in China. Yes especially Toyota and Honda. Very few parts, if any are made in Japan any more. The exception to this is quite probably engines and transmissions which are probably Assembled in Canada or the US. The North American Auto industry is exceptionally integrated ever since the Auto Pact.

In both cases, wages have been exceptionally high in the manufacturing sector in Canada and the US, this however is what propelled the North American middle class to any sort of real prosperity. However, this of course is being eroded via outsourcing, as North American manufacturing workers aren't really any better then their foreign counter parts, and with the removal of many protection mechanisms efficiency rears its head for good or for bad and moves manufacturing to cheaper labor locales.

NAFTA allows for GM / Ford / Chrysler to centralize production of shared chasis models / platforms into certain factories to allow for a greater realization of Economies of Scale. Without NAFTA, or the Auto Pact before it, such realization of EoS would result in tariff inefficiencies, logistic headaches, etc; the same moves occurred in the parts industry, and as such allowed US and Canadian parts to be shipped across the border without extra tariffs, duty, etc.

So Again to answer your question, both were only assembled in their factories, and the parts content is probably US / Canadian / Mexican and Chinese.


RE: Nice job, rednecks.
By sprockkets on 11/8/2008 5:38:12 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry about the double post. But, my Mazda3 has according to the sticker, has 97% Japanese parts, and is made in Hiroshima Japan. Both Mazda and Toyota use a lot of the same parts from a Japanese company; I can't remember the name, but I know both have the same alternator.

Most German cars use Siemens and Bosch parts.

Ironically, most tires are made in Japan, including Goodyear. Not sure about Continental.


RE: Nice job, rednecks.
By Mathos on 11/9/2008 3:22:36 AM , Rating: 2
Neh, depending on where you live, you can get locally made tires. There was a place near where I lived in Michigan, think it was in Owosso of Perry. But they also buy back used tires for recycling. A lot of parts for ford I know are made in US, especially body and frame parts. I use to work in a manufacturing plant as a press operator. One of the press lines I had to run was for the frame mount brackets on Ford trucks. Another line was for the some of the break master cylinder housings and such.

Now what people don't think about when it comes to auto factory labor and pay rates is. GM still employs it's own Die makers and setters, which are the ones at the upper end of the pay scales. And a lot of people at parts plants are there to do quality control on the parts lines. My step father for example used to work at the Delphi plant in Michigan. His line was doing spark plugs, and when your line is putting out hundreds of thousands of parts per hour someone needs to be there to catch defects and keep the machines running well. Then before he retired he transferred down to the Truck Plant in Shreveport, LA. Now on the other hand, my grandfather use to work at the main Buick plant in Buick michigan. In fact he was one of the people who started the UAW at that plant.


RE: Nice job, rednecks.
By Dwayno on 11/9/2008 10:38:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
However, this of course is being eroded via outsourcing, as North American manufacturing workers aren't really any better then their foreign counter parts, and with the removal of many protection mechanisms efficiency rears its head for good or for bad and moves manufacturing to cheaper labor locales.

Countries like Mexico, India, and China had very poor history of manufacturing. It took and is taking a lot of training to bring them to the skill level required. I'm not saying that they were untrainable, its just that they had no experience in manufacturing. In these countries, most manufacturing was limited to their militaries.

I agree with your points about NAFTA. The Japanese used the low tariffs of Mexico and Canada to build both auto parts manufacturing as well as auto manufacturing plants. This way, Toyota and Honda can still buy parts made by Japanese suppliers and still meet the 70% domestic requirements to call their autos American made. Nipondenso is one such company.


RE: Nice job, rednecks.
By The0ne on 11/12/2008 11:31:18 AM , Rating: 2
I have to disagree a bit in your comments. I can only comment on China however as I still travel for business from time to time each year.

I think the workers have the skills, it's the company culture and managerial staff that makes it difficult to get the work done...right. I have many Chinese friends now that I know they are exceptional in their engineering fields. However, they are being kept in check, prevented from exploring or sharing ideas and worst of all being pay less than they're worth. Imagine how you would feel if someone tells you you're no worth what you think you are. most people would not fight back. Being in China, Mexico, etc doesn't help your decision as well.

Here in the US we're a little spoil in that if you don't like your job you have the option to go elsewhere. Well, not now >< but it was the case :D

In the end it's up to the company to want to change the culture. It doesn't start where the workers are, it starts from top down or it'll never succeed. Chinese companies are notorious for their claims in Quality but they are actually quite bad. All those certificates, awards, charts, numbers don't mean squat unless you experience their expertise firsthand. No amount of training will go anywhere when the managers refuse to let the employees implement or change anything. Showmanship is what most care about.


RE: Nice job, rednecks.
By lagomorpha on 11/10/2008 9:50:55 PM , Rating: 2
If anything it's people like you that kept buying low quality vehicles from Chrysler/Ford/GM that got the American auto industry into this mess in the first place. They've had 3 decades to sell poor quality cars to people who will buy them just because they're 'merican. Now that they need to actually be competitive they're finding it hard. If people like you had demanded competitive quality 30 years ago we wouldn't be in this mess now (either that or the American auto industry would have collapsed the same time British Leyland did).


"My sex life is pretty good" -- Steve Jobs' random musings during the 2010 D8 conference














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki