I have a Dodge Avenger as a rental. It's not a horrible car.
Could we please try to be more positive.
How is the Avenger "Not a Horrible Car"?
I kind of like the style of the Avenger, and it appears to be a lot of car for the money. But, what is good or bad about it?.
It seems to be a lot of car for the money...about $17k
Edmunds gives the 2014 a C rating, with these comments;
Pros
Strong V6 engine; composed ride and handling.
Cons
Not as roomy as many of its rivals; smallish trunk; SE's outdated four-speed automatic; behind-the-times electronics interface; limited rear visibility.
It's called Damning With Faint Praise.
In reality, it gets a bad rap from many magazines, websites, et al saying it's just terrible. I find it's not that terrible at all. It has a 2.4 I4 which is pretty raspy and unrefined but is peppy. The 6 speed auto seems ok. The interior is bleak and stark. The trunk fits my two catalog crates and samples. The C pillar blocks the view over my shoulder. It's getting about 23 mpg in suburban driving. It smells like disinfectant. The seat is comfy. For a 2013, it should have blue tooth capability.
It's vanilla and reminds me of what a boss of mine once said about a co-worker "he doesn't have a good attitude nor a bad attitude. He has no attitude."
It has been proven moving oil by train is far riskier than moving it by pipeline. Unlikely to get enough votes to override the veto....need 67, will possibly get 63. Too bad!
Then let them build a pipeline through Canada instead of the US.
However, a thought did occur to me. I put our home address and Florida address into the GPS so I can find my way home. It wouldn't be good if my car was stolen....the thief would know how to get to my house and would know I wasn't there!
I wouldn't worry too much about your home address in your GPS. Doesn't your registration have your home address too? Maybe the thief will leave some stuff behind as a thank you for saving him the effort of having to input your home address into the GPS himself.
When I rent a car, all I ask for is either a full size car which comes with a response from the rental company, "...by full size car we provide Chevy Impala, Ford Taurus, etc.". I usually don't request a type or model mainly because they can't guarantee which model will be available. Additionally, I really don't care. I am going to drive it for 4-6 days - so just about anything will work.
When I rent a car, all I ask for is either a full size car which comes with a response from the rental company,
I do too. The last few times I've rented, the difference between economy and full size is maybe a dollar. I do use a specially negotiatied leisure rate for employees only by my company, so maybe that's why there's such a small diference.
I have a Dodge Avenger as a rental. It's not a horrible car.
Could we please try to be more positive.
How is the Avenger "Not a Horrible Car"?
I kind of like the style of the Avenger, and it appears to be a lot of car for the money. But, what is good or bad about it?.
It seems to be a lot of car for the money...about $17k
Edmunds gives the 2014 a C rating, with these comments;
Pros
Strong V6 engine; composed ride and handling.
Cons
Not as roomy as many of its rivals; smallish trunk; SE's outdated four-speed automatic; behind-the-times electronics interface; limited rear visibility.
It's called Damning With Faint Praise.
In reality, it gets a bad rap from many magazines, websites, et al saying it's just terrible. I find it's not that terrible at all. It has a 2.4 I4 which is pretty raspy and unrefined but is peppy. The 6 speed auto seems ok. The interior is bleak and stark. The trunk fits my two catalog crates and samples. The C pillar blocks the view over my shoulder. It's getting about 23 mpg in suburban driving. It smells like disinfectant. The seat is comfy. For a 2013, it should have blue tooth capability.
It's vanilla and reminds me of what a boss of mine once said about a co-worker "he doesn't have a good attitude nor a bad attitude. He has no attitude."
It's perfect for a rental car.
Thanks for your thoughts about the Avenger. I sometimes look at an Avenger and think....I wonder if I could be satisfied just buying one of those....do I really need the MB. You reminded me why I prefer my E400.
I forget which credit card provides me with the "corp" rate (AMEX I believe), but it does save me at least $100 on a weekly rate on a full size car at two or three of the big rental companies. I rent only when I fly into LAX or PSP or ONT. It's just when I go out to CA to see the kids and grandkids.
It has been proven moving oil by train is far riskier than moving it by pipeline. Unlikely to get enough votes to override the veto....need 67, will possibly get 63. Too bad!
Then let them build a pipeline through Canada instead of the US.
The pipeline won't quite get to the right place if it goes through Canada. Actually, it will go through quite a bit of Canada, from Northern Alberta to the U.S. border. But, the oil has to get to a refinery, and there isn't enough capacity in Canada. Refineries are expensive to build, and not that profitable, so no one will build a refinery in Canada to process that oil.
It could go to China, and that is still a possibility, but would make more sense to send it to US. They use trains to carry oil now....way more accidents with trains and there will only be more trains carrying oil over the next few years.
Pipelines are efficient, and we (Canada and US) need to be as self sufficient as possible in our oil supply. Some say it is the railroad lobby driving the resistance, that could make sense.
Matthew McConnahay has been doing endorsement commercials on TV for Lincoln for quite some time now. He starts out by stating he's been driving Lincoln products for quite some time - even before he got paid to make commercials. The commercials are more emotional rather than technical/specification type - something one would expect when Matt McConnahay is paid to endorse their product.
After just watching another one of his endorsement ads (sometimes he drives an MKZ, sometimes an MKX or MKT), some interesting thoughts came to mind:
*What segment(s) of the population are the ads trying to attract or motivate to buy a Lincoln automobile?
*If he drives most of the models, which he does, are the ads more for Good Will or is there something more subliminal as an objective.
As for market segment, I would think the 35-50 year olds are the target. I also believe the targets to be both single male and single female (male because of his macho image and female due to his sexual appeal).
Since he drives most of the models in his commercials, Lincoln is not targeting the SUV or Luxury Sedan segments, but rather more of a mass appeal for luxury "anything we build" approach.
Quite frankly, I find his endorsement commercials to be quite effective in drawing consumers to the Lincoln Showroom because if Matthew truly believes in the product, why not give it a look?
I've driven the sedan and found it pretty nice for the money. They are not as pricy as one would think - an AWD upgraded (Black Tie I think it's called) nicely loaded up MSRP's around $53,000 (V-6 version) and can be had for $48K to $49K I would think.
So, it would seem that these commercials are quite well done and probably achieve what they are intended to achieve - Look One Over.
However, a thought did occur to me. I put our home address and Florida address into the GPS so I can find my way home. It wouldn't be good if my car was stolen....the thief would know how to get to my house and would know I wasn't there!
I wouldn't worry too much about your home address in your GPS. Doesn't your registration have your home address too? Maybe the thief will leave some stuff behind as a thank you for saving him the effort of having to input your home address into the GPS himself.
That is true. I gave up worrying about such things though. Even parking, I try to find the best place possible...say on an end so there is only a 50% chance the car next to me will hit me...but, I don't go overboard any more. If you try to hard to avoid getting hit, or getting your ID stolen, it seems more likely to happen. Protect yourself as well as possible, but, don't go overboard - if it happens it happens.
Matthew McConnahay has been doing endorsement commercials on TV for Lincoln for quite some time now.
I would think the 35-50 year olds are the target. I also believe the targets to be both single male and single female (male because of his macho image and female due to his sexual appeal).
Since he drives most of the models in his commercials, Lincoln is not targeting the SUV or Luxury Sedan segments, but rather more of a mass appeal for luxury "anything we build" approach.
Quite frankly, I find his endorsement commercials to be quite effective in drawing consumers to the Lincoln Showroom because if Matthew truly believes in the product, why not give it a look?
I've driven the sedan and found it pretty nice for the money. They are not as pricy as one would think - an AWD upgraded (Black Tie I think it's called) nicely loaded up MSRP's around $53,000 (V-6 version) and can be had for $48K to $49K I would think.
So, it would seem that these commercials are quite well done and probably achieve what they are intended to achieve - Look One Over.
The ads are working....sales went up since Matthew started. I think all your reasoning is right on. If McConnahay thinks for himself and likes a Lincoln then I guess I could too.....that's the thinking and I think it would work. And yeh, if it is good enough for Matthew then most women are going to think a Lincoln is a great car. Even if the husband says he is thinking of getting a Lincoln his wife will say if it is good enough for MM it is good enough for us.
I have sat in a Lincoln and I kind of like them. You get a fully loaded luxury car for a decent price. I'd consider one if I wanted to save a few bucks on a luxury car purchase...and if it is good enough for Matthew it should be good enough for me.
When I rent a car, all I ask for is either a full size car which comes with a response from the rental company, "...by full size car we provide Chevy Impala, Ford Taurus, etc.". I usually don't request a type or model mainly because they can't guarantee which model will be available. Additionally, I really don't care. I am going to drive it for 4-6 days - so just about anything will work.
All I cared about is that it costs less than $30 per day which is what my insurance company covers.
I have rented Avengers on two occasions and taken fairly long trips in them. They are not, IMO, "horrible" cars---just white bread that tastes a day old. If I won one by mailing in the top of a cereal box, I'd keep it around as a beater, sure. Lend it to guests, or park it on the streets of San Francisco.
When I rent a car, all I ask for is either a full size car which comes with a response from the rental company, "...by full size car we provide Chevy Impala, Ford Taurus, etc.". I usually don't request a type or model mainly because they can't guarantee which model will be available. Additionally, I really don't care. I am going to drive it for 4-6 days - so just about anything will work.
All I cared about is that it costs less than $30 per day which is what my insurance company covers.
It has been proven moving oil by train is far riskier than moving it by pipeline. Unlikely to get enough votes to override the veto....need 67, will possibly get 63. Too bad!
Then let them build a pipeline through Canada instead of the US.
The pipeline won't quite get to the right place if it goes through Canada. Actually, it will go through quite a bit of Canada, from Northern Alberta to the U.S. border. But, the oil has to get to a refinery, and there isn't enough capacity in Canada. Refineries are expensive to build, and not that profitable, so no one will build a refinery in Canada to process that oil.
As noted above, KMP has been trying to upgrade it's existing pipeline from Edmonton to Vancouver. But there's much Canadian opposition to expansion of the existing Trans Mountain pipeline or building a new pipeline to carry the tar sands oil. Further, the tar sands oil is of a quality that requires greater refining and hence a higher cost to turn into viable products.
tar sand oil is very nasty stuff to begin with and the refining process produces more nasty stuff. And then there's the very nasty stuff used to extract it in the first place. This ain't "easy oil".
I just completed one of those multi-page surveys on my new car (Maritz I believe) that requires many, many responses. I think it took me 30 minutes to complete.
One series of questions I responded to was extremely interesting. They dealt with:
"...at what price point per gallon of gasoline would you trade your car in for a more economical vehicle?" Then the question changed asking at what price point per gallon of gasoline would I consider a hybrid? An all-electric? A diesel? A hydrogen cell?
My responses even surprised me! I always maintained I would never buy a hybrid or a diesel (electric is out at any price per gallon because I have no way to charge the batteries). But to my surprise, if gasoline reached $7.00 per gallon, I'd consider a hybrid or a diesel or a hydrogen cell vehicle over anything that used only gasoline.
My point is that there is a price point per gallon of gas that all of us would consider an alternative energy vehicle. The only difference between us would be at what price point? $5.00? $6.00? $7.00? $8.00? etc.
I guess that survey helped me to realize there is a point at which I would purchase an alternative fuel vehicle.
tar sand oil is very nasty stuff to begin with and the refining process produces more nasty stuff. And then there's the very nasty stuff used to extract it in the first place. This ain't "easy oil".
Nope. That stuff can be vile, depending on oil content and the condition of that slime.
Just like mining ore, there is a point at which it becomes too costly to mine or drill for the ore or the oil tar due to the low yields.
That's called "the pain point" and if I recall correctly, a national survey put you right about the same place as most folks in the USA. Interestingly, some countries have already passed your pain point in $ per gallon.
Maybe it's like the proverbial frog-in-the-frying-pan. If the price went up ever so slowly over the years, perhaps even we could endure $7 a gallon.
I just completed one of those multi-page surveys on my new car (Maritz I believe) that requires many, many responses. I think it took me 30 minutes to complete.
One series of questions I responded to was extremely interesting. They dealt with:
"...at what price point per gallon of gasoline would you trade your car in for a more economical vehicle?" Then the question changed asking at what price point per gallon of gasoline would I consider a hybrid? An all-electric? A diesel? A hydrogen cell?
My responses even surprised me! I always maintained I would never buy a hybrid or a diesel (electric is out at any price per gallon because I have no way to charge the batteries). But to my surprise, if gasoline reached $7.00 per gallon, I'd consider a hybrid or a diesel or a hydrogen cell vehicle over anything that used only gasoline.
My point is that there is a price point per gallon of gas that all of us would consider an alternative energy vehicle. The only difference between us would be at what price point? $5.00? $6.00? $7.00? $8.00? etc.
I guess that survey helped me to realize there is a point at which I would purchase an alternative fuel vehicle.
It has been proven moving oil by train is far riskier than moving it by pipeline. Unlikely to get enough votes to override the veto....need 67, will possibly get 63. Too bad!
Then let them build a pipeline through Canada instead of the US.
The pipeline won't quite get to the right place if it goes through Canada. Actually, it will go through quite a bit of Canada, from Northern Alberta to the U.S. border. But, the oil has to get to a refinery, and there isn't enough capacity in Canada. Refineries are expensive to build, and not that profitable, so no one will build a refinery in Canada to process that oil.
It could go to China, and that is still a possibility, but would make more sense to send it to US. They use trains to carry oil now....way more accidents with trains and there will only be more trains carrying oil over the next few years.
Pipelines are efficient, and we (Canada and US) need to be as self sufficient as possible in our oil supply. Some say it is the railroad lobby driving the resistance, that could make sense.
Not only would the oil coming thru Keystone be refined in the U.S., but much of the gasoline would be used in the U.S. Not all of it would be exported. Just another source for the U.S. to help free us from the Middle East.
It'll be interesting to see if the displaced Venezuelan and Mexican crude gets displaced or if capacity elsewhere on the Gulf Coast is expanding fast enough to absorb it.
"Moreover, as we have noted before, U.S. companies control about 30 percent of the production in Canada’s oil sands region. Thus, contrary to Obama’s suggestion, it is not strictly Canadian."
"The crude oil would travel to the Gulf Coast, where it would be refined into products such as motor gasoline and diesel fuel (known as a distillate fuel in the trade). Current trends suggest that only about half of that refined product would be exported, and it could easily be lower.
"Finally, note that Obama said Keystone was just for Canadian oil, and “we should be focusing on American infrastructure for American jobs and American producers.” But actually, Keystone would help U.S. oil producers in North Dakota and Montana. TransCanada, the builder of the pipeline, has signed contracts to move 65,000 barrels a day from the Bakken area –and hopes to build that to 100,000. That’s nearly 10 percent of the region’s production.
"The Congressional Research Service in 2013 estimated that about 12 percent of the pipeline’s capacity had been set aside for crude from the Bakken region. Of course, delays in the Keystone project have sent oil producers in search of other methods of transport, potentially making this link less relevant, but the president can’t argue the project was not proposed without U.S. producers in mind.
"Moreover, as we have noted before, U.S. companies control about 30 percent of the production in Canada’s oil sands region. Thus, contrary to Obama’s suggestion, it is not strictly Canadian.
"We have poked fun at TransCanada for suggesting the pipeline would reduce reliance on foreign energy — when in fact Canada is a foreign country — but that does not give Obama license to suggest there is no possible American benefit from the pipeline.
"(Incidentally, while the president spoke of 250 to 300 permanent jobs, the State Department report actually says 35. But this is a construction project. How many construction projects result in very many permanent jobs?)
"The White House declined to provide an on-the-record defense of the president’s statement. That certainly suggests officials are unwilling to make a public case contradicting the State Department findings. The Pinocchio Test
"When Obama first started making the claim that the crude oil in the Keystone pipeline would bypass the United States, we wavered between Three and Four Pinocchios — and strongly suggested he take the time to review the State Department report.
Clearly, the report remains unread.
"The president’s latest remarks pushes this assertion into the Four Pinocchios column. If he disagrees with the State Department’s findings, he should begin to make the case why it is wrong, rather than assert the opposite, without any factual basis. Moreover, by telling North Dakota listeners that the pipeline has no benefit for Americans, he is again being misleading, given that producers in the region have signed contracts to transport some of their production through the pipeline."
tar sand oil is very nasty stuff to begin with and the refining process produces more nasty stuff. And then there's the very nasty stuff used to extract it in the first place. This ain't "easy oil".
It is nastier trying to buy oil from people who want to obliterate you!
It has been proven moving oil by train is far riskier than moving it by pipeline. Unlikely to get enough votes to override the veto....need 67, will possibly get 63. Too bad!
Then let them build a pipeline through Canada instead of the US.
The pipeline won't quite get to the right place if it goes through Canada. Actually, it will go through quite a bit of Canada, from Northern Alberta to the U.S. border. But, the oil has to get to a refinery, and there isn't enough capacity in Canada. Refineries are expensive to build, and not that profitable, so no one will build a refinery in Canada to process that oil.
It could go to China, and that is still a possibility, but would make more sense to send it to US. They use trains to carry oil now....way more accidents with trains and there will only be more trains carrying oil over the next few years.
Pipelines are efficient, and we (Canada and US) need to be as self sufficient as possible in our oil supply. Some say it is the railroad lobby driving the resistance, that could make sense.
Not only would the oil coming thru Keystone be refined in the U.S., but much of the gasoline would be used in the U.S. Not all of it would be exported. Just another source for the U.S. to help free us from the Middle East.
Funny thing that angers me and makes me laugh at the same time. I saw that oil trading in the U.S. went up $2/bbl today. Blame was placed on some conflict going on in Libya. The stupid part of this, we don't buy Libyan oil. Besides, Libya is one of hte countries who have been trying to drive down oil prices to those who buy from them, which isn't us.
You can see the oil industry excuses starting to be prepared now trying to artificially boost prices. They're going with the oldies but goodies....
-some conflict in the middle east -shutting down some refineries (no one knows if they do or they don't) -reformulation (interesting, they've been reformulating oil for decades for different parts of the country, but somehow can't quite get it right with all that experience) -I'm expecting a tanker to have some problems, somewhere. Fact is, since we're oil independent, this shouldn't even matter.
What a corrupt industry that we turn a blind eye to.
@driver100 - The issue for me with Lincoln is that they are too transparently just a dolled-up Ford.
I think you just have to accept that the Lincoln is a Ford with lipstick. The basic Fords they are derived from are basically very good cars. You are going to pay a premium to have the Lincoln name, and to get some styling enhancements. If I couldn't afford to go whole hog and get a real luxury car, but, I could afford $8 to $10k more to get a Lincoln, then I would consider it and I would be quite satisfied.
I have a friend who has always wanted a prestigious car.....an American car of his dreams. He has to be careful with his retirement savings, so he can afford a Lincoln....it makes him happy and I think it is a pretty nice car.
well, we can't single out Ford for that practice, that's for sure. I don't believe there is any manufacturer who has a mainstream brand and luxo brand where they don't share platforms, underpinnings, or what have you. Lexus/Toyota, Nissan/Infiniti, Honda/Acura, Chevy/Caddy ... did I miss anyone? (and, yes, there are even those separate manufacturers under the same corporate umbrella who share, such as Audi/Porsche, to name just 1)
Although, yes, some are better at disguising it than others.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
"We have poked fun at TransCanada for suggesting the pipeline would reduce reliance on foreign energy — when in fact Canada is a foreign country — but that does not give Obama license to suggest there is no possible American benefit from the pipeline.
Imid, what a great post spelling out the situation perfectly....and I like the Pinocchio ratings. One thing I would like to add to your comment above, Canada is a foreign country but it is a friendly foreign country....one of the few you guys have. In business, I always loved when cooperation leads to benefits for both parties. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be that spirit of cooperation when it comes to this matter.
"Moreover, as we have noted before, U.S. companies control about 30 percent of the production in Canada’s oil sands region. Thus, contrary to Obama’s suggestion, it is not strictly Canadian."
"The crude oil would travel to the Gulf Coast, where it would be refined into products such as motor gasoline and diesel fuel (known as a distillate fuel in the trade). Current trends suggest that only about half of that refined product would be exported, and it could easily be lower.
"Finally, note that Obama said Keystone was just for Canadian oil, and “we should be focusing on American infrastructure for American jobs and American producers.” But actually, Keystone would help U.S. oil producers in North Dakota and Montana. TransCanada, the builder of the pipeline, has signed contracts to move 65,000 barrels a day from the Bakken area –and hopes to build that to 100,000. That’s nearly 10 percent of the region’s production.
"The Congressional Research Service in 2013 estimated that about 12 percent of the pipeline’s capacity had been set aside for crude from the Bakken region. Of course, delays in the Keystone project have sent oil producers in search of other methods of transport, potentially making this link less relevant, but the president can’t argue the project was not proposed without U.S. producers in mind.
"Moreover, as we have noted before, U.S. companies control about 30 percent of the production in Canada’s oil sands region. Thus, contrary to Obama’s suggestion, it is not strictly Canadian.
"We have poked fun at TransCanada for suggesting the pipeline would reduce reliance on foreign energy — when in fact Canada is a foreign country — but that does not give Obama license to suggest there is no possible American benefit from the pipeline.
"(Incidentally, while the president spoke of 250 to 300 permanent jobs, the State Department report actually says 35. But this is a construction project. How many construction projects result in very many permanent jobs?)
"The White House declined to provide an on-the-record defense of the president’s statement. That certainly suggests officials are unwilling to make a public case contradicting the State Department findings. The Pinocchio Test
"When Obama first started making the claim that the crude oil in the Keystone pipeline would bypass the United States, we wavered between Three and Four Pinocchios — and strongly suggested he take the time to review the State Department report.
Clearly, the report remains unread.
"The president’s latest remarks pushes this assertion into the Four Pinocchios column. If he disagrees with the State Department’s findings, he should begin to make the case why it is wrong, rather than assert the opposite, without any factual basis. Moreover, by telling North Dakota listeners that the pipeline has no benefit for Americans, he is again being misleading, given that producers in the region have signed contracts to transport some of their production through the pipeline."
I always loved when cooperation leads to benefits for both parties. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be that spirit of cooperation when it comes to this matter.
Step back a foot and what it boils down to is that it's just labor vs the greens in this fight; the Dems are trying not to alienate either voting block. I doubt that the party much cares what the loyal opposition thinks.
It has been proven moving oil by train is far riskier than moving it by pipeline. Unlikely to get enough votes to override the veto....need 67, will possibly get 63. Too bad!
Then let them build a pipeline through Canada instead of the US.
The pipeline won't quite get to the right place if it goes through Canada. Actually, it will go through quite a bit of Canada, from Northern Alberta to the U.S. border. But, the oil has to get to a refinery, and there isn't enough capacity in Canada. Refineries are expensive to build, and not that profitable, so no one will build a refinery in Canada to process that oil.
It could go to China, and that is still a possibility, but would make more sense to send it to US. They use trains to carry oil now....way more accidents with trains and there will only be more trains carrying oil over the next few years.
Pipelines are efficient, and we (Canada and US) need to be as self sufficient as possible in our oil supply. Some say it is the railroad lobby driving the resistance, that could make sense.
Not only would the oil coming thru Keystone be refined in the U.S., but much of the gasoline would be used in the U.S. Not all of it would be exported. Just another source for the U.S. to help free us from the Middle East.
Funny thing that angers me and makes me laugh at the same time. I saw that oil trading in the U.S. went up $2/bbl today. Blame was placed on some conflict going on in Libya. The stupid part of this, we don't buy Libyan oil. Besides, Libya is one of hte countries who have been trying to drive down oil prices to those who buy from them, which isn't us.
You can see the oil industry excuses starting to be prepared now trying to artificially boost prices. They're going with the oldies but goodies....
-some conflict in the middle east -shutting down some refineries (no one knows if they do or they don't) -reformulation (interesting, they've been reformulating oil for decades for different parts of the country, but somehow can't quite get it right with all that experience) -I'm expecting a tanker to have some problems, somewhere. Fact is, since we're oil independent, this shouldn't even matter.
What a corrupt industry that we turn a blind eye to.
Yes, we are running out of places to store gasoline here in the U.S....and the price of gas keeps going up !!
Going way off the reservation here. But, I know some of you have made some pretty major career transitions in the past few years which I was hoping you'd throw you're 2¢ woth in.
I've been with my current company for decades. It's a smaller company that does defense work. It's profitable, but not necessarily a growth industry (unless a major war breaks out). I have some equity in the company via my vested stock options....not enough equity that I can steer the company, but not an insignificant amount, either.
Over the years, we've gone through probably 4-5 different exec management regimes. They either do a bang up job and move on being courted by a higher bidder/bigger company. Or, they fail miserably and are promptly replaced by the next person "who will put us over the top".
There was a point where I thought I'd like to give it a shot to run the company. But, in addition to being astute in business, being an effective leader, and being something of a visionary to guild the company into the latest and greatest thing, you have to be politically aware and willing to "play the game", with those who want your job, with investors, with Board members, etc.
I'm pretty good on everything except that last point. I'm miserable at the political part of the requirements.
Over time, I've been lucky enough to be approached by other companies to join them. I usually listened to them but after some cursory thought, usually rebuffed their advances. I've always subscribed to the thought of trading the devil I do know for the devil I don't know.
This activity of approaching me has died down over the last few years, mainly because our business slowed due to being a defense contractor, and while we're in some skirmishes, we aren't really in any full scale conflicts. Thus, our business is steady, but we're in a plateau period, which has happened serveral times over the years. We have long term contracts, so there's no chance of us being faced with any profitability issues, at least not for a long time. But, as these things go, the board wants higher growth....they always do when a plateau occurs. Let's face it...no one wants a person associated with a company that's steady. They want the guy that's on top.
Except, a large tech company, outside the defense industry, has been pursuing me over the last month or so. I didn't disuade them from doing so. And, have actually had several interviews with them. They're throwing some impressive duties and dollars out there...enough to make me take note.
I'm kind of reminded of the type of guys we've all known....ones that have been with a company for a long while, get recruited by another company, with different culture and fail because they couldn't/wouldn't adapt.
Anyone gone from a company they've been with for a long period of time to a new company? Difficult adjustment? Happy you did it? Regrets?
I guess the reason I'm posting this here is some of you guys worked in the auto industry/dealerships and did indeed go from one dealership to another. Would like to hear those experiences.
At the store where I worked, we had several guys jump ship only to return with their hats in their hands. Some they took back and others they did not. A large fancy Lexus store opened about five miles from us and they managed to recruit three or four of our top sales people. Only one is still there but there is a reason.
This guy is Korean and Lexus has a huge Korean following as I understand things. He is fluent in Korean and he has that market tied up in that store.
When I was a very young Division Manager for the largest Sears store on the West Coast, Montgomery Wards was still around and struggling. They managed to recruit a number of mid level managers from Sears. They picked their brains and after a short time let them go. Sears wouldn't take them back.
So, I don't know, Don, no good answer here. You'll need to trust your instincts.
Remember, once they get you, they've got you and they know that. Those "nice" people would no longer have to be quite as nice.
Going way off the reservation here. But, I know some of you have made some pretty major career transitions in the past few years which I was hoping you'd throw you're 2¢ woth in.
I've been with my current company for decades. It's a smaller company that does defense work. It's profitable, but not necessarily a growth industry (unless a major war breaks out). I have some equity in the company via my vested stock options....not enough equity that I can steer the company, but not an insignificant amount, either.
Over the years, we've gone through probably 4-5 different exec management regimes. They either do a bang up job and move on being courted by a higher bidder/bigger company. Or, they fail miserably and are promptly replaced by the next person "who will put us over the top".
There was a point where I thought I'd like to give it a shot to run the company. But, in addition to being astute in business, being an effective leader, and being something of a visionary to guild the company into the latest and greatest thing, you have to be politically aware and willing to "play the game", with those who want your job, with investors, with Board members, etc.
I'm pretty good on everything except that last point. I'm miserable at the political part of the requirements.
Over time, I've been lucky enough to be approached by other companies to join them. I usually listened to them but after some cursory thought, usually rebuffed their advances. I've always subscribed to the thought of trading the devil I do know for the devil I don't know.
This activity of approaching me has died down over the last few years, mainly because our business slowed due to being a defense contractor, and while we're in some skirmishes, we aren't really in any full scale conflicts. Thus, our business is steady, but we're in a plateau period, which has happened serveral times over the years. We have long term contracts, so there's no chance of us being faced with any profitability issues, at least not for a long time. But, as these things go, the board wants higher growth....they always do when a plateau occurs. Let's face it...no one wants a person associated with a company that's steady. They want the guy that's on top.
Except, a large tech company, outside the defense industry, has been pursuing me over the last month or so. I didn't disuade them from doing so. And, have actually had several interviews with them. They're throwing some impressive duties and dollars out there...enough to make me take note.
I'm kind of reminded of the type of guys we've all known....ones that have been with a company for a long while, get recruited by another company, with different culture and fail because they couldn't/wouldn't adapt.
Anyone gone from a company they've been with for a long period of time to a new company? Difficult adjustment? Happy you did it? Regrets?
I guess the reason I'm posting this here is some of you guys worked in the auto industry/dealerships and did indeed go from one dealership to another. Would like to hear those experiences.
I'll put my .02 into this discussion.
Are you looking for a new challenge - are you bored with your current job and responsibilities? Very early in my career I got some advice - you change jobs for one of two reasons:
1. more money 2. a chance to work for a company or on a project that will look good on your resume
Do either, or both, of these apply to your opportunity?
I've known my wife for almost 19 years. She's had 5 jobs in that time .. and one of them she held for 12 years. She's always on the lookout for the next best thing ... not always from a money perspective, but something that will challenge her and allow her to use her skills to help the organization succeed.
I'll be curious what others have to say on this topic.
My career path has been somewhat odd. I moved to Colorado to take a new job ... over a period of about 4 years in the late 1990's, I lived through one merger and two acquisitions and ended up being part of IBM. The company I originally joined 20+ years ago was spun off from IBM a few years ago.
My job role has changed twice in the 15 years I've been with IBM .. started in technical education, moved to tech support and then to a role as an Operations Manager (less techy, more number crunching).
Anyone gone from a company they've been with for a long period of time to a new company? Difficult adjustment? Happy you did it? Regrets?
I guess the reason I'm posting this here is some of you guys worked in the auto industry/dealerships and did indeed go from one dealership to another. Would like to hear those experiences.
GG, you are at a real crossroads. I can't give you an exact answer. I worked for a major book publishing company for 16 years. I loved my job, but sometimes opportunities came up, or, I knew I could make more if I switched.
Not being too ambitious, I just took the path of least resistance and rode it out. In the 16th year my employer lost a major line they were distributing, and my job disappeared. I did work for a customer who had been pursuing me for several years....and that was an awful job, but at least I got another job right away. I told them it was their lucky day and now they could have me.
That job ended, and I worked for another customer who knew my skills, and that lasted one year and they went under.
The only thing left was to start my own business. The knowledge I gained from the 3 companies allowed me to create a unique company that did quite well.
I guess, there is no right answer....you never know how it will end up. I think you might try for that top job, and if you don't get it you can reassess your situation. I also think if you feel you are in a dead end situation it might be better to try something else. Not to be sentimental, but, life is an adventure. If you don't take a risk your situation won't change, but, risk can end up leaving you better off or worse. I do think, if you see your present situation as a negative, it is time to carefully move on.
I don't think there is a right or wrong answer....you have to assess it carefully, make a decision, and hope for the best. Good luck!
I can't justify that level of paranoia because most US oil doesn't come from the Middle East anyway--we get 53% of our oil from the Western hemisphere and 16% from Africa. I don't think Mexico and Norway are out to annihilate us, at least not last time I looked.
Given the number of huge explosions and oil spills, I'd tend to find more evidence that Exxon is trying to annihilate us.
Anyway, as the oil junkie goes farther and deeper to "score" his fix, sooner or later the costs will no longer be justified. We'll go from the age of steam through the age of oil into the age of ????
You can already see that automakers are getting the message long before some world governments. Just look at the auto shows in 2014 and 2015. The automakers are definitely looking toward a future that doesn't run entirely on oil. And look at powerhouses like Google and Apple and what they're up to. And Uber.
The types of vehicles and types of transportation choices being offered to us right here right now also contain a message for us.
Which is why I'm currently gravitating back to V8s with a stickshift. I want that Last Free Ride.
tar sand oil is very nasty stuff to begin with and the refining process produces more nasty stuff. And then there's the very nasty stuff used to extract it in the first place. This ain't "easy oil".
It is nastier trying to buy oil from people who want to obliterate you!
If I'm comfortable in my position, I will only leave if it feels completely "right."
Fortunately or unfortunately, I've only been faced with that very recently. Early on my in career, I was with a few different companies that failed, so I was forced to move on. Other changes I have made based solely on disliking my manager, and I made some hasty decisions as a result. I am right now in my longest run, breaking 7 years this past Thanksgiving with the same organization. I am pretty ambitious, so I'm always looking for that next thing. Fortunately, this organization has given me a great deal of room to grow and I'm soon moving onto my 6th title since joining. I have, however, had other opportunities.
In my 3rd year here, they made the mistake of holding me back for political reasons, and I pretty quickly found another job in a neighboring building. My current company then realized they were mistaken in forcing my hand, so they stepped up and gave me everything I asked for in order to keep me.
Within the past year or so, I've shopped around and received a couple of offers, but I wound up turning them down because the risk:reward just didn't make sense to me. They were both bigger roles, but with smaller companies and worse benefits. One of those I really wanted but when we got to the salary negotiation stage, my would-be boss said some things that rubbed me the wrong way. So even though they upped their offer, I turned him down because it no longer felt like a perfect fit (decided I would not want to deal with him). I still feel I have room here to grow, so I'll stick it out as long as it makes sense.
Now, all that being said, we have had people over the years who have left and returned when they found out the grass was not, in fact, greener. If you are really good and you leave on good terms and keep those channels open, there is no reason a company in need wouldn't hire you back. As a matter of fact, my 2nd-in-charge is a woman whom I worked side by side with in my 2nd year here. She was top-notch. She left because our manager was psychotic. I stuck it out, and when I worked my way to the top of the dept, I relentlessly pursued her for about 2 years until I hired her back. Best thing I ever did for this company.
Anyway, in short, my advice is, as long as you are comfortable and secure in your current position, only make the leap if it feels totally right.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
I've known my wife for almost 19 years. She's had 5 jobs in that time .. and one of them she held for 12 years. She's always on the lookout for the next best thing ... not always from a money perspective, but something that will challenge her.
My wife had 10 jobs over 30 years before she retired at 53. Longest lasted four years. Always got bored and moved on, yet somehow managed to cobble a little pension together with great health benefits. Always made more money than me too, (except for her liftguard stint one year) but that was never a reason for a change.
Life is short; if you have your family obligations under control and a bit of a fall back position, why not try something different if you have the itch?
I have an easy answer of this US vs Canada on who gets the good deal on the KXL pipeline. Let's annex Canada! Combine the best in both countries and while we're at it outlaw those cold air masses they keep hurling at us. So maybe a few people would be upset - like Texas who'd go down a few notches in the biggest states list (heck, they're still pretty touchy about Alaska - "that's not a real state!").
What I'd actually like to see if some real assurance, as oppose to fluff pieces on how they will make this "the safest pipeline is the world." They all leak and the consequences can be devastating. Heck industrial contamination is what quite nearly killed me so I do not take this lightly.
I am not nearly so concerned as to whether the Canadians or Americans make the big money. We're two countries but not by a wide margin.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
Anyone gone from a company they've been with for a long period of time to a new company? Difficult adjustment? Happy you did it? Regrets?
No real answers below, but some thoughts for you.
You say you've been at your current employer for decades. That implies to me that either retirement or some sort of slowing down is on your horizon in a few years time. Be careful not to do anything that puts that at risk. Everyone is different, but the last few years at my job just prior to retirement were the most vital to my retirement security - highest income, etc. I also found that I had a very sudden change in mindset in the last few years before retiring. Up to that point I thought that I could be the CEO or at least a contender for it if ours left or was fired. About 2-3 years prior to retiring I lost that ambition and energy. I can't say why but it was a feeling that I had enough and I had better figure out when to leave. That might happen to everyone, I don't know.
Culture is a huge thing to adjust to. A tech company can be a big change from a govt contractor in that respect. Tech companies offer big bucks but little security long-term unless you get very lucky. I guess a big part of that would be the financial offer and the exit package being known up-front. I have known several people who worked in the tech world and I don't think any of them stayed in a stable employment situation for more than 2 years. They seemed to live off their severance packages more than their employment and bounced around from firm to firm. Having said that they appeared to be financially OK, but it was certainly a different mindset with little loyalty to the companies involved.
I knew a few people who moved from government jobs to the place I worked, which had a bit of a reputation for hiring and firing people indiscriminately for a few years. The smart ones took a leave of absence rather than quitting their old job, so they could see how they fit in and whether they wanted to work in our environment. That is not an option for many, I know, but worth mentioning.
Being looked upon favorably by the Board is something that a CEO really must cultivate. In our case I was never too impressed with the skills and knowledge of most of the Board members - they just weren't that good - though I tried not to let that show. Our CEO wasn't the best CEO and certainly no management genius, but he had a couple of skills that really served him well. He could make the Board members think he respected their intelligence and judgement, and knew how to schmooze with all the right people really well. He could also get up in front of a large group and sound totally confident and in control. I could do that but not the way he could, and I never felt like it was something I wanted or liked to do, whereas he seemed to enjoy it. I think that was his best skill.
In the end, it all comes down to the $$$ and whether a bird in the hand in a comfortable environment is worth the two in the rather uncomfortable bush that might be taken away before long. It all depends on your risk tolerance, future plans, financial situation, and level of comfort in new and different work environments.
I have an easy answer of this US vs Canada on who gets the good deal on the KXL pipeline. Let's annex Canada! Combine the best in both countries and while we're at it outlaw those cold air masses they keep hurling at us. So maybe a few people would be upset - like Texas who'd go down a few notches in the biggest states list (heck, they're still pretty touchy about Alaska - "that's not a real state!"). .
Thanks for my morning smile fezo. There is information available that shows pipelines at least have an element of safety/control that trains just don't have....and they always seem to derail right into a nice lake or water supply. Pipelines can be turned off and controlled, at least in theory.
I can't justify that level of paranoia because most US oil doesn't come from the Middle East anyway--we get 53% of our oil from the Western hemisphere and 16% from Africa. I don't think Mexico and Norway are out to annihilate us, at least not last time I looked.
Given the number of huge explosions and oil spills, I'd tend to find more evidence that Exxon is trying to annihilate us.
It is nastier trying to buy oil from people who want to obliterate you!
Mr S., the US is not dependent on Middle East oil because the writing was on the wall for several years....US had to become self reliant.
However, if other countries need oil (such as China and India once they start booming) then oil may become more expensive again. Best not to get complacent...need a good reliable supply.
I don't panic...man will find a way to create new energy sources, probably ones we don't even know about yet. But, always best to be prepared......Keystone XL gives more options.
Anyone gone from a company they've been with for a long period of time to a new company? Difficult adjustment? Happy you did it? Regrets?
No real answers below, but some thoughts for you.
You say you've been at your current employer for decades. That implies to me that either retirement or some sort of slowing down is on your horizon in a few years time. Be careful not to do anything that puts that at risk. Everyone is different, but the last few years at my job just prior to retirement were the most vital to my retirement security - highest income, etc. I also found that I had a very sudden change in mindset in the last few years before retiring. Up to that point I thought that I could be the CEO or at least a contender for it if ours left or was fired. About 2-3 years prior to retiring I lost that ambition and energy. I can't say why but it was a feeling that I had enough and I had better figure out when to leave. That might happen to everyone, I don't know.
In the end, it all comes down to the $$$ and whether a bird in the hand in a comfortable environment is worth the two in the rather uncomfortable bush that might be taken away before long. It all depends on your risk tolerance, future plans, financial situation, and level of comfort in new and different work environments.
Excellent info to consider ab. The part about giving up ambitions as you get older is very real. I thought I would always want to work if given a choice. Since I have been out of work totally for about 3 years now I can say I don't miss working, and I have no desire to do it any more. There is more to life than trying to carve out a career. There are newspapers to read, movies to see, books to read, emails to write, posts to post, TV programs to watch, a swimming pool to go to - like this afternoon, tennis games to play - Mon, Wed and Fri, Euchre games to play, walks to go on, a dog to take out every few hours, bikes to ride, day trips to go on, libraries to visit, shopping trips to go on, friends to see, sites to go to,...................I don't know when I would find time to work - and the truth is, I just don't care any more.
I can't justify that level of paranoia because most US oil doesn't come from the Middle East anyway--we get 53% of our oil from the Western hemisphere and 16% from Africa. I don't think Mexico and Norway are out to annihilate us, at least not last time I looked.
Given the number of huge explosions and oil spills, I'd tend to find more evidence that Exxon is trying to annihilate us.
It is nastier trying to buy oil from people who want to obliterate you!
driver100 also went on to say:
"Mr S., the US is not dependent on Middle East oil because the writing was on the wall for several years....US had to become self reliant.
However, if other countries need oil (such as China and India once they start booming) then oil may become more expensive again. Best not to get complacent...need a good reliable supply.
I don't panic...man will find a way to create new energy sources, probably ones we don't even know about yet. But, always best to be prepared......Keystone XL gives more options."
Going way off the reservation here. But, I know some of you have made some pretty major career transitions in the past few years which I was hoping you'd throw you're 2¢ woth in.
I've been with my current company for decades. It's a smaller company that does defense work. It's profitable, but not necessarily a growth industry (unless a major war breaks out). I have some equity in the company via my vested stock options....not enough equity that I can steer the company, but not an insignificant amount, either.
Over the years, we've gone through probably 4-5 different exec management regimes. They either do a bang up job and move on being courted by a higher bidder/bigger company. Or, they fail miserably and are promptly replaced by the next person "who will put us over the top".
There was a point where I thought I'd like to give it a shot to run the company. But, in addition to being astute in business, being an effective leader, and being something of a visionary to guild the company into the latest and greatest thing, you have to be politically aware and willing to "play the game", with those who want your job, with investors, with Board members, etc.
I'm pretty good on everything except that last point. I'm miserable at the political part of the requirements.
Over time, I've been lucky enough to be approached by other companies to join them. I usually listened to them but after some cursory thought, usually rebuffed their advances. I've always subscribed to the thought of trading the devil I do know for the devil I don't know.
This activity of approaching me has died down over the last few years, mainly because our business slowed due to being a defense contractor, and while we're in some skirmishes, we aren't really in any full scale conflicts. Thus, our business is steady, but we're in a plateau period, which has happened serveral times over the years. We have long term contracts, so there's no chance of us being faced with any profitability issues, at least not for a long time. But, as these things go, the board wants higher growth....they always do when a plateau occurs. Let's face it...no one wants a person associated with a company that's steady. They want the guy that's on top.
Except, a large tech company, outside the defense industry, has been pursuing me over the last month or so. I didn't disuade them from doing so. And, have actually had several interviews with them. They're throwing some impressive duties and dollars out there...enough to make me take note.
I'm kind of reminded of the type of guys we've all known....ones that have been with a company for a long while, get recruited by another company, with different culture and fail because they couldn't/wouldn't adapt.
Anyone gone from a company they've been with for a long period of time to a new company? Difficult adjustment? Happy you did it? Regrets?
I guess the reason I'm posting this here is some of you guys worked in the auto industry/dealerships and did indeed go from one dealership to another. Would like to hear those experiences.
What you describe above and what others have submitted are pretty much standard in the larger metropolitan areas where there are a multitude of companies and employment options. In the rural areas of our country, the reverse was true - one of the reasons most people who live in those regions stay with the same company their entire lives. An example of this would be Caterpillar. They are located in west central Illinois and the cities and towns adjacent to the factories are filled with Caterpillar employees whose fathers and grandfathers worked for Caterpillar. It was similar in West Virginia, Kentucky and Pennsylvania with the coal mines and the Company Towns.
With the advent of the expansion of the United States westward and convenient air travel to and from just about anywhere in the country (not to mention the interstate highway system, the automobile and the railroads), the mobility of the American worker enabled a wider/broader job market to choose from. Coupled with the expansion of industrial corridors (Boston/NY/Washington; San Diego/LA/San Francisco; Chicago/St. Louis/Detroit, to name a few) which attracted large corporate entities, suburban expansion took place providing housing and schooling for the multitude of workers (and their families) employed by these corporate giants. Thus, the American worker had mobility and was no long tied to the town, village or city where he/she was born.
In today's job market, it is not uncommon to see a worker who has had 5 or 6 different jobs by the time he/she is 45 years old. I experienced it in the field of Education as well as in the Automobile Sales Industry.
When I first started in auto sales, the dealership would hire 30-40 sales people at a time and within 4 weeks, the dealership was lucky if there were 4 or 5 remaining. I was one of the lucky ones - I lasted in the sales position for almost 4 years and made some good money. I was one of the top performing sales people and averaged 25-35 new cars each month. But after 4 years, it became much too stressful and the ability to make some nice commissions was slowly but surely disappearing due to changes in compensation.
I was offered a sales manager's job across the street from my first dealership and the most difficult job I had was advertising for sales people, interviewing hundreds of applicants, training a re-training those I hired, and at the end of a month, I was lucky if I ended up with 2 or 3 good sales people. The turnover of sales people in the auto sales industry is mind boggling. I'd hire 10, and 1 would remain after 2 weeks, if I was lucky. There are, of course, a core of sales people who remain at the dealership for years - but very few. Historically, the reverse was true - my Dad would go back year after year and buy cars from the same salesman that his father bought cars from. Not any more.
Additionally, it is very difficult in today's market to make a great living at car sales as a sales person. Margins are much lower and overhead is much greater. Large Corporate Entities like Auto-Nation, Berkshire-Hathaway, Longo, Holman, etc., have begun to dominate the industry. Thus the dealerships operate under corporate policy rather than local management policies and operations.
At the Mercedes Dealership I buy my cars from, I have seen 4 salesmen working there who used to work for me back 6 or 7 years ago. The salesman who gets my deals each year is one of them, for obvious reasons. Additionally, the only way to make good money today in the dealership as a salesperson is to sell lots of cars at mini-commissions until you reach 12-20 cars, depending on the dealership. That's when commissions increase (percentages) and all the bonuses kick in. The average "mini-deal" at most dealerships is $100-$200 per car. Think about the numbers of hours the salesman must spend meeting, greeting, selling, closing and delivering a new vehicle. It is mind boggling - yet there is only $200 at the end of that rainbow waiting to be had.
That is why there is so much turnover in the automobile sales business. You need to have a large customer base to be successful. The odds are against a new salesman making it because he does not have the customer base. When I was at my first job as salesman, after 3 years, I rarely took new customers because I had so many repeae customers and referrals coming in to buy cars from me. Survival of the fittest?
Thanks for allowing me to share a bit with all of you.
A general rule in business is that if good sales people are few and far between, those that perform should be in such demand that compensation packages should be great. Doesn't work that way in retail. Had a friend who got a job selling for Montgomery Wards in the early 70's.. He was in lawn and garden, appliances and or hardware. For a year he and an associate were making really really good money. So MW hired 10 more associates so nobody could make a living. He left.
Comments
In reality, it gets a bad rap from many magazines, websites, et al saying it's just terrible. I find it's not that terrible at all. It has a 2.4 I4 which is pretty raspy and unrefined but is peppy. The 6 speed auto seems ok. The interior is bleak and stark. The trunk fits my two catalog crates and samples. The C pillar blocks the view over my shoulder. It's getting about 23 mpg in suburban driving. It smells like disinfectant. The seat is comfy. For a 2013, it should have blue tooth capability.
It's vanilla and reminds me of what a boss of mine once said about a co-worker "he doesn't have a good attitude nor a bad attitude. He has no attitude."
It's perfect for a rental car.
@robr2
When I rent a car, all I ask for is either a full size car which comes with a response from the rental company, "...by full size car we provide Chevy Impala, Ford Taurus, etc.". I usually don't request a type or model mainly because they can't guarantee which model will be available. Additionally, I really don't care. I am going to drive it for 4-6 days - so just about anything will work.
2024 Genesis G90 Super-Charger
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
I forget which credit card provides me with the "corp" rate (AMEX I believe), but it does save me at least $100 on a weekly rate on a full size car at two or three of the big rental companies. I rent only when I fly into LAX or PSP or ONT. It's just when I go out to CA to see the kids and grandkids.
2024 Genesis G90 Super-Charger
The pipeline won't quite get to the right place if it goes through Canada. Actually, it will go through quite a bit of Canada, from Northern Alberta to the U.S. border. But, the oil has to get to a refinery, and there isn't enough capacity in Canada. Refineries are expensive to build, and not that profitable, so no one will build a refinery in Canada to process that oil.
It could go to China, and that is still a possibility, but would make more sense to send it to US. They use trains to carry oil now....way more accidents with trains and there will only be more trains carrying oil over the next few years.
Pipelines are efficient, and we (Canada and US) need to be as self sufficient as possible in our oil supply. Some say it is the railroad lobby driving the resistance, that could make sense.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
After just watching another one of his endorsement ads (sometimes he drives an MKZ, sometimes an MKX or MKT), some interesting thoughts came to mind:
*What segment(s) of the population are the ads trying to attract or motivate to buy a Lincoln automobile?
*If he drives most of the models, which he does, are the ads more for Good Will or is there something more subliminal as an objective.
As for market segment, I would think the 35-50 year olds are the target. I also believe the targets to be both single male and single female (male because of his macho image and female due to his sexual appeal).
Since he drives most of the models in his commercials, Lincoln is not targeting the SUV or Luxury Sedan segments, but rather more of a mass appeal for luxury "anything we build" approach.
Quite frankly, I find his endorsement commercials to be quite effective in drawing consumers to the Lincoln Showroom because if Matthew truly believes in the product, why not give it a look?
I've driven the sedan and found it pretty nice for the money. They are not as pricy as one would think - an AWD upgraded (Black Tie I think it's called) nicely loaded up MSRP's around $53,000 (V-6 version) and can be had for $48K to $49K I would think.
So, it would seem that these commercials are quite well done and probably achieve what they are intended to achieve - Look One Over.
2024 Genesis G90 Super-Charger
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
I have sat in a Lincoln and I kind of like them. You get a fully loaded luxury car for a decent price. I'd consider one if I wanted to save a few bucks on a luxury car purchase...and if it is good enough for Matthew it should be good enough for me.
The ads are brilliant!
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
As noted above, KMP has been trying to upgrade it's existing pipeline from Edmonton to Vancouver. But there's much Canadian opposition to expansion of the existing Trans Mountain pipeline or building a new pipeline to carry the tar sands oil. Further, the tar sands oil is of a quality that requires greater refining and hence a higher cost to turn into viable products.
One series of questions I responded to was extremely interesting. They dealt with:
"...at what price point per gallon of gasoline would you trade your car in for a more economical vehicle?" Then the question changed asking at what price point per gallon of gasoline would I consider a hybrid? An all-electric? A diesel? A hydrogen cell?
My responses even surprised me! I always maintained I would never buy a hybrid or a diesel (electric is out at any price per gallon because I have no way to charge the batteries). But to my surprise, if gasoline reached $7.00 per gallon, I'd consider a hybrid or a diesel or a hydrogen cell vehicle over anything that used only gasoline.
My point is that there is a price point per gallon of gas that all of us would consider an alternative energy vehicle. The only difference between us would be at what price point? $5.00? $6.00? $7.00? $8.00? etc.
I guess that survey helped me to realize there is a point at which I would purchase an alternative fuel vehicle.
2024 Genesis G90 Super-Charger
Just like mining ore, there is a point at which it becomes too costly to mine or drill for the ore or the oil tar due to the low yields.
2024 Genesis G90 Super-Charger
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
Maybe it's like the proverbial frog-in-the-frying-pan. If the price went up ever so slowly over the years, perhaps even we could endure $7 a gallon.
It could go to China, and that is still a possibility, but would make more sense to send it to US. They use trains to carry oil now....way more accidents with trains and there will only be more trains carrying oil over the next few years.
Pipelines are efficient, and we (Canada and US) need to be as self sufficient as possible in our oil supply. Some say it is the railroad lobby driving the resistance, that could make sense.
Not only would the oil coming thru Keystone be refined in the U.S., but much of the gasoline would be used in the U.S. Not all of it would be exported. Just another source for the U.S. to help free us from the Middle East.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Quotes from Washington Post giving 4 Pinnochios to Prez's lies about
vetoing Keystone:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/03/02/obamas-claim-that-keystone-xl-oil-bypasses-the-u-s-earns-four-pinocchios/
"Moreover, as we have noted before, U.S. companies control about 30 percent of the production in Canada’s oil sands region. Thus, contrary to Obama’s suggestion, it is not strictly Canadian."
"The crude oil would travel to the Gulf Coast, where it would be refined into products such as motor gasoline and diesel fuel (known as a distillate fuel in the trade). Current trends suggest that only about half of that refined product would be exported, and it could easily be lower.
"Finally, note that Obama said Keystone was just for Canadian oil, and “we should be focusing on American infrastructure for American jobs and American producers.” But actually, Keystone would help U.S. oil producers in North Dakota and Montana. TransCanada, the builder of the pipeline, has signed contracts to move 65,000 barrels a day from the Bakken area –and hopes to build that to 100,000. That’s nearly 10 percent of the region’s production.
"The Congressional Research Service in 2013 estimated that about 12 percent of the pipeline’s capacity had been set aside for crude from the Bakken region. Of course, delays in the Keystone project have sent oil producers in search of other methods of transport, potentially making this link less relevant, but the president can’t argue the project was not proposed without U.S. producers in mind.
"Moreover, as we have noted before, U.S. companies control about 30 percent of the production in Canada’s oil sands region. Thus, contrary to Obama’s suggestion, it is not strictly Canadian.
"We have poked fun at TransCanada for suggesting the pipeline would reduce reliance on foreign energy — when in fact Canada is a foreign country — but that does not give Obama license to suggest there is no possible American benefit from the pipeline.
"(Incidentally, while the president spoke of 250 to 300 permanent jobs, the State Department report actually says 35. But this is a construction project. How many construction projects result in very many permanent jobs?)
"The White House declined to provide an on-the-record defense of the president’s statement. That certainly suggests officials are unwilling to make a public case contradicting the State Department findings.
The Pinocchio Test
"When Obama first started making the claim that the crude oil in the Keystone pipeline would bypass the United States, we wavered between Three and Four Pinocchios — and strongly suggested he take the time to review the State Department report.
Clearly, the report remains unread.
"The president’s latest remarks pushes this assertion into the Four Pinocchios column. If he disagrees with the State Department’s findings, he should begin to make the case why it is wrong, rather than assert the opposite, without any factual basis. Moreover, by telling North Dakota listeners that the pipeline has no benefit for Americans, he is again being misleading, given that producers in the region have signed contracts to transport some of their production through the pipeline."
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
Funny thing that angers me and makes me laugh at the same time. I saw that oil trading in the U.S. went up $2/bbl today. Blame was placed on some conflict going on in Libya. The stupid part of this, we don't buy Libyan oil. Besides, Libya is one of hte countries who have been trying to drive down oil prices to those who buy from them, which isn't us.
You can see the oil industry excuses starting to be prepared now trying to artificially boost prices. They're going with the oldies but goodies....
-some conflict in the middle east
-shutting down some refineries (no one knows if they do or they don't)
-reformulation (interesting, they've been reformulating oil for decades for different parts of the country, but somehow can't quite get it right with all that experience)
-I'm expecting a tanker to have some problems, somewhere. Fact is, since we're oil independent, this shouldn't even matter.
What a corrupt industry that we turn a blind eye to.
I have a friend who has always wanted a prestigious car.....an American car of his dreams. He has to be careful with his retirement savings, so he can afford a Lincoln....it makes him happy and I think it is a pretty nice car.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
Although, yes, some are better at disguising it than others.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Imid said: Imid, what a great post spelling out the situation perfectly....and I like the Pinocchio ratings. One thing I would like to add to your comment above, Canada is a foreign country but it is a friendly foreign country....one of the few you guys have. In business, I always loved when cooperation leads to benefits for both parties. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be that spirit of cooperation when it comes to this matter.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
You can see the oil industry excuses starting to be prepared now trying to artificially boost prices. They're going with the oldies but goodies....
-some conflict in the middle east
-shutting down some refineries (no one knows if they do or they don't)
-reformulation (interesting, they've been reformulating oil for decades for different parts of the country, but somehow can't quite get it right with all that experience)
-I'm expecting a tanker to have some problems, somewhere. Fact is, since we're oil independent, this shouldn't even matter.
What a corrupt industry that we turn a blind eye to.
Yes, we are running out of places to store gasoline here in the U.S....and the price of gas keeps going up !!
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
I've been with my current company for decades. It's a smaller company that does defense work. It's profitable, but not necessarily a growth industry (unless a major war breaks out). I have some equity in the company via my vested stock options....not enough equity that I can steer the company, but not an insignificant amount, either.
Over the years, we've gone through probably 4-5 different exec management regimes. They either do a bang up job and move on being courted by a higher bidder/bigger company. Or, they fail miserably and are promptly replaced by the next person "who will put us over the top".
There was a point where I thought I'd like to give it a shot to run the company. But, in addition to being astute in business, being an effective leader, and being something of a visionary to guild the company into the latest and greatest thing, you have to be politically aware and willing to "play the game", with those who want your job, with investors, with Board members, etc.
I'm pretty good on everything except that last point. I'm miserable at the political part of the requirements.
Over time, I've been lucky enough to be approached by other companies to join them. I usually listened to them but after some cursory thought, usually rebuffed their advances. I've always subscribed to the thought of trading the devil I do know for the devil I don't know.
This activity of approaching me has died down over the last few years, mainly because our business slowed due to being a defense contractor, and while we're in some skirmishes, we aren't really in any full scale conflicts. Thus, our business is steady, but we're in a plateau period, which has happened serveral times over the years. We have long term contracts, so there's no chance of us being faced with any profitability issues, at least not for a long time. But, as these things go, the board wants higher growth....they always do when a plateau occurs. Let's face it...no one wants a person associated with a company that's steady. They want the guy that's on top.
Except, a large tech company, outside the defense industry, has been pursuing me over the last month or so. I didn't disuade them from doing so. And, have actually had several interviews with them. They're throwing some impressive duties and dollars out there...enough to make me take note.
I'm kind of reminded of the type of guys we've all known....ones that have been with a company for a long while, get recruited by another company, with different culture and fail because they couldn't/wouldn't adapt.
Anyone gone from a company they've been with for a long period of time to a new company? Difficult adjustment? Happy you did it? Regrets?
I guess the reason I'm posting this here is some of you guys worked in the auto industry/dealerships and did indeed go from one dealership to another. Would like to hear those experiences.
This guy is Korean and Lexus has a huge Korean following as I understand things. He is fluent in Korean and he has that market tied up in that store.
When I was a very young Division Manager for the largest Sears store on the West Coast, Montgomery Wards was still around and struggling. They managed to recruit a number of mid level managers from Sears. They picked their brains and after a short time let them go. Sears wouldn't take them back.
So, I don't know, Don, no good answer here. You'll need to trust your instincts.
Remember, once they get you, they've got you and they know that. Those "nice" people would no longer have to be quite as nice.
Good Luck, whatever you decide to do.
Are you looking for a new challenge - are you bored with your current job and responsibilities? Very early in my career I got some advice - you change jobs for one of two reasons:
1. more money
2. a chance to work for a company or on a project that will look good on your resume
Do either, or both, of these apply to your opportunity?
I've known my wife for almost 19 years. She's had 5 jobs in that time .. and one of them she held for 12 years. She's always on the lookout for the next best thing ... not always from a money perspective, but something that will challenge her and allow her to use her skills to help the organization succeed.
I'll be curious what others have to say on this topic.
My career path has been somewhat odd. I moved to Colorado to take a new job ... over a period of about 4 years in the late 1990's, I lived through one merger and two acquisitions and ended up being part of IBM. The company I originally joined 20+ years ago was spun off from IBM a few years ago.
My job role has changed twice in the 15 years I've been with IBM .. started in technical education, moved to tech support and then to a role as an Operations Manager (less techy, more number crunching).
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and let us know! Post a pic of your new purchase or lease!
MODERATOR
2015 Subaru Outback 3.6R / 2024 Kia Sportage Hybrid SX Prestige
Not being too ambitious, I just took the path of least resistance and rode it out. In the 16th year my employer lost a major line they were distributing, and my job disappeared. I did work for a customer who had been pursuing me for several years....and that was an awful job, but at least I got another job right away. I told them it was their lucky day and now they could have me.
That job ended, and I worked for another customer who knew my skills, and that lasted one year and they went under.
The only thing left was to start my own business. The knowledge I gained from the 3 companies allowed me to create a unique company that did quite well.
I guess, there is no right answer....you never know how it will end up. I think you might try for that top job, and if you don't get it you can reassess your situation. I also think if you feel you are in a dead end situation it might be better to try something else. Not to be sentimental, but, life is an adventure. If you don't take a risk your situation won't change, but, risk can end up leaving you better off or worse. I do think, if you see your present situation as a negative, it is time to carefully move on.
I don't think there is a right or wrong answer....you have to assess it carefully, make a decision, and hope for the best. Good luck!
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
Given the number of huge explosions and oil spills, I'd tend to find more evidence that Exxon is trying to annihilate us.
Anyway, as the oil junkie goes farther and deeper to "score" his fix, sooner or later the costs will no longer be justified. We'll go from the age of steam through the age of oil into the age of ????
You can already see that automakers are getting the message long before some world governments. Just look at the auto shows in 2014 and 2015. The automakers are definitely looking toward a future that doesn't run entirely on oil. And look at powerhouses like Google and Apple and what they're up to. And Uber.
The types of vehicles and types of transportation choices being offered to us right here right now also contain a message for us.
Which is why I'm currently gravitating back to V8s with a stickshift. I want that Last Free Ride.
Fortunately or unfortunately, I've only been faced with that very recently. Early on my in career, I was with a few different companies that failed, so I was forced to move on. Other changes I have made based solely on disliking my manager, and I made some hasty decisions as a result. I am right now in my longest run, breaking 7 years this past Thanksgiving with the same organization. I am pretty ambitious, so I'm always looking for that next thing. Fortunately, this organization has given me a great deal of room to grow and I'm soon moving onto my 6th title since joining. I have, however, had other opportunities.
In my 3rd year here, they made the mistake of holding me back for political reasons, and I pretty quickly found another job in a neighboring building. My current company then realized they were mistaken in forcing my hand, so they stepped up and gave me everything I asked for in order to keep me.
Within the past year or so, I've shopped around and received a couple of offers, but I wound up turning them down because the risk:reward just didn't make sense to me. They were both bigger roles, but with smaller companies and worse benefits. One of those I really wanted but when we got to the salary negotiation stage, my would-be boss said some things that rubbed me the wrong way. So even though they upped their offer, I turned him down because it no longer felt like a perfect fit (decided I would not want to deal with him). I still feel I have room here to grow, so I'll stick it out as long as it makes sense.
Now, all that being said, we have had people over the years who have left and returned when they found out the grass was not, in fact, greener. If you are really good and you leave on good terms and keep those channels open, there is no reason a company in need wouldn't hire you back. As a matter of fact, my 2nd-in-charge is a woman whom I worked side by side with in my 2nd year here. She was top-notch. She left because our manager was psychotic. I stuck it out, and when I worked my way to the top of the dept, I relentlessly pursued her for about 2 years until I hired her back. Best thing I ever did for this company.
Anyway, in short, my advice is, as long as you are comfortable and secure in your current position, only make the leap if it feels totally right.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Life is short; if you have your family obligations under control and a bit of a fall back position, why not try something different if you have the itch?
What I'd actually like to see if some real assurance, as oppose to fluff pieces on how they will make this "the safest pipeline is the world." They all leak and the consequences can be devastating. Heck industrial contamination is what quite nearly killed me so I do not take this lightly.
I am not nearly so concerned as to whether the Canadians or Americans make the big money. We're two countries but not by a wide margin.
No real answers below, but some thoughts for you.
You say you've been at your current employer for decades. That implies to me that either retirement or some sort of slowing down is on your horizon in a few years time. Be careful not to do anything that puts that at risk. Everyone is different, but the last few years at my job just prior to retirement were the most vital to my retirement security - highest income, etc. I also found that I had a very sudden change in mindset in the last few years before retiring. Up to that point I thought that I could be the CEO or at least a contender for it if ours left or was fired. About 2-3 years prior to retiring I lost that ambition and energy. I can't say why but it was a feeling that I had enough and I had better figure out when to leave. That might happen to everyone, I don't know.
Culture is a huge thing to adjust to. A tech company can be a big change from a govt contractor in that respect. Tech companies offer big bucks but little security long-term unless you get very lucky. I guess a big part of that would be the financial offer and the exit package being known up-front. I have known several people who worked in the tech world and I don't think any of them stayed in a stable employment situation for more than 2 years. They seemed to live off their severance packages more than their employment and bounced around from firm to firm. Having said that they appeared to be financially OK, but it was certainly a different mindset with little loyalty to the companies involved.
I knew a few people who moved from government jobs to the place I worked, which had a bit of a reputation for hiring and firing people indiscriminately for a few years. The smart ones took a leave of absence rather than quitting their old job, so they could see how they fit in and whether they wanted to work in our environment. That is not an option for many, I know, but worth mentioning.
Being looked upon favorably by the Board is something that a CEO really must cultivate. In our case I was never too impressed with the skills and knowledge of most of the Board members - they just weren't that good - though I tried not to let that show. Our CEO wasn't the best CEO and certainly no management genius, but he had a couple of skills that really served him well. He could make the Board members think he respected their intelligence and judgement, and knew how to schmooze with all the right people really well. He could also get up in front of a large group and sound totally confident and in control. I could do that but not the way he could, and I never felt like it was something I wanted or liked to do, whereas he seemed to enjoy it. I think that was his best skill.
In the end, it all comes down to the $$$ and whether a bird in the hand in a comfortable environment is worth the two in the rather uncomfortable bush that might be taken away before long. It all depends on your risk tolerance, future plans, financial situation, and level of comfort in new and different work environments.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
Mr S., the US is not dependent on Middle East oil because the writing was on the wall for several years....US had to become self reliant.
However, if other countries need oil (such as China and India once they start booming) then oil may become more expensive again. Best not to get complacent...need a good reliable supply.
I don't panic...man will find a way to create new energy sources, probably ones we don't even know about yet. But, always best to be prepared......Keystone XL gives more options.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
However, if other countries need oil (such as China and India once they start booming) then oil may become more expensive again. Best not to get complacent...need a good reliable supply.
I don't panic...man will find a way to create new energy sources, probably ones we don't even know about yet. But, always best to be prepared......Keystone XL gives more options."
d100, well said !
With the advent of the expansion of the United States westward and convenient air travel to and from just about anywhere in the country (not to mention the interstate highway system, the automobile and the railroads), the mobility of the American worker enabled a wider/broader job market to choose from. Coupled with the expansion of industrial corridors (Boston/NY/Washington; San Diego/LA/San Francisco; Chicago/St. Louis/Detroit, to name a few) which attracted large corporate entities, suburban expansion took place providing housing and schooling for the multitude of workers (and their families) employed by these corporate giants. Thus, the American worker had mobility and was no long tied to the town, village or city where he/she was born.
In today's job market, it is not uncommon to see a worker who has had 5 or 6 different jobs by the time he/she is 45 years old. I experienced it in the field of Education as well as in the Automobile Sales Industry.
When I first started in auto sales, the dealership would hire 30-40 sales people at a time and within 4 weeks, the dealership was lucky if there were 4 or 5 remaining. I was one of the lucky ones - I lasted in the sales position for almost 4 years and made some good money. I was one of the top performing sales people and averaged 25-35 new cars each month. But after 4 years, it became much too stressful and the ability to make some nice commissions was slowly but surely disappearing due to changes in compensation.
I was offered a sales manager's job across the street from my first dealership and the most difficult job I had was advertising for sales people, interviewing hundreds of applicants, training a re-training those I hired, and at the end of a month, I was lucky if I ended up with 2 or 3 good sales people. The turnover of sales people in the auto sales industry is mind boggling. I'd hire 10, and 1 would remain after 2 weeks, if I was lucky. There are, of course, a core of sales people who remain at the dealership for years - but very few. Historically, the reverse was true - my Dad would go back year after year and buy cars from the same salesman that his father bought cars from. Not any more.
Additionally, it is very difficult in today's market to make a great living at car sales as a sales person. Margins are much lower and overhead is much greater. Large Corporate Entities like Auto-Nation, Berkshire-Hathaway, Longo, Holman, etc., have begun to dominate the industry. Thus the dealerships operate under corporate policy rather than local management policies and operations.
At the Mercedes Dealership I buy my cars from, I have seen 4 salesmen working there who used to work for me back 6 or 7 years ago. The salesman who gets my deals each year is one of them, for obvious reasons. Additionally, the only way to make good money today in the dealership as a salesperson is to sell lots of cars at mini-commissions until you reach 12-20 cars, depending on the dealership. That's when commissions increase (percentages) and all the bonuses kick in. The average "mini-deal" at most dealerships is $100-$200 per car. Think about the numbers of hours the salesman must spend meeting, greeting, selling, closing and delivering a new vehicle. It is mind boggling - yet there is only $200 at the end of that rainbow waiting to be had.
That is why there is so much turnover in the automobile sales business. You need to have a large customer base to be successful. The odds are against a new salesman making it because he does not have the customer base. When I was at my first job as salesman, after 3 years, I rarely took new customers because I had so many repeae customers and referrals coming in to buy cars from me. Survival of the fittest?
Thanks for allowing me to share a bit with all of you.
2024 Genesis G90 Super-Charger
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and let us know! Post a pic of your new purchase or lease!
MODERATOR
2015 Subaru Outback 3.6R / 2024 Kia Sportage Hybrid SX Prestige