That's still way off its peak though. Back in 1979, which was a great year for GM but a bad year for most of the rest of the industry, GM employed around 600,000 people!
Kind of a scary thought to think that now, 31 years later, they're down to around 90,000. While it can be argued that those jobs are gone forever and won't be coming back, I'm sure many of those jobs have been replaced by other fields. And a lot of those 600,000 from the heydays simply retired on time, or took early buyouts, and those jobs were not replaced.
That's still way off its peak though. Back in 1979, which was a great year for GM but a bad year for most of the rest of the industry, GM employed around 600,000 people!
Kind of a scary thought to think that now, 31 years later, they're down to around 90,000. While it can be argued that those jobs are gone forever and won't be coming back, I'm sure many of those jobs have been replaced by other fields. And a lot of those 600,000 from the heydays simply retired on time, or took early buyouts, and those jobs were not replaced.
One shouldn't make job-loss comparasons in a vacuum. There are many other reasons these jobs may never come back, and indeed many won't.
What % of the American labor force was tied to agriculture 100 years ago? 50 years ago?
Automation has replaced a number of jobs in EVERY industry, and will continue to do so. And, in many cases, doing a better job at a lower cost. Auto manufacturer paint shops are great examples.
Living in SC, I've personally seen a radical transformation in the textile industry. Even though much of the industry has moved off-shore now, the conversion to replacing live bodies with machines was well underway before that happened. In fact, one of the main reasons the industry moved off-shore was the high amount of polution created by dye operations, etc. Many 3rd world countries are not nearly as concerned with pollution as the USA.
...Ford and Chrysler's employment numbers at their peak? Also don't forget tiny AMC. Add those numbers together and you get a true impact of what the imports had on U.S. automotive jobs. I bet all the transplants combined can't make up for the total loss of U.S. auto industry jobs.
...Ford and Chrysler's employment numbers at their peak? Also don't forget tiny AMC. Add those numbers together and you get a true impact of what the imports had on U.S. automotive jobs. I bet all the transplants combined can't make up for the total loss of U.S. auto industry jobs.
Maybe...However, Imagine no imports ever coming to the US, and only US models sold here.... Just GM, Ford and Chrysler making cars here and selling to a totally closed market...no foreign competition at all.
With the advent and advancement of robotics in the automotive construction process, what would be your estimate of the size of the current work-force?
After all, car construction at EVERY plant (domestic and import) is nothing like it was in 1970, or 1980, or even 1990.
However, Imagine no imports ever coming to the US, and only US models sold here.... Just GM, Ford and Chrysler making cars here and selling to a totally closed market...no foreign competition at all.
It wouldn't affect me much as I've never seriously considered a foreign car, though I might miss having the choice of owning a Mercedes-Benz, Porsche, a British sports car, or an Italian exotic. I most definitely wouldn't miss any of the Asian makes.
I'm sure automation would've changed the automotive manufacturing landscape with or without the foreign makers.
"......AFAIK (from the tech industry), Federal work rules don't allow temporary workers to be used more than 6 months for a given person. "
I dunno about that one. I work for Verizon, and was hired as a temp operator ("Number Please,...snort snort ) and remained one for 3 and a half years before reclassifying me as permanent.
"........I often wonder if the quality products, like Lacrosse and CTS are made by UAW workers that are cherry picked because they are too new to be brainwashed into the thinking that sabotaging the product is the way to get back at "the man"... "
Bob, my Lacrosse was made at the same plant as the Malibu. Fairfax, Kansas.
"....Starting to see a lot of 2 year and older Caddys sporting big chrome wheels and skinny tires, with "Boom Boxes" blasting full tilt. Apparently the used ones can be bought real reasonable! "
Nah, the pimps and drug dealers figured out that if you lease the thing, when you get busted they can't take the car, as you don't "own" it.
News reports say today that since Toyota considers the US market stagnant, they will build a $600,000,000 plant to serve South America. Although they have resumed work on a new Prius [now Corolla] plant in Mississippi, it looks like, once again, they're just another car company.
The US market IS stagnant.
Do you propose that Toyota only build vehicles in Japan?
UAW labor cost was where 5-10% of the price of a new car went. To generalize about their quality is also wrapping the mostly good up with the few bad.
Thought you bought a Malibu?
My neighbor bought all Hondas and then lost his job. Ironic?
The 8 million jobs are not coming back: Biden
This is not limited to the auto industry. Companies are always trying to become more efficient. How would it be otherwise? If we were all still farming manually we would not have aircraft and many of the medicines that can save your life. I don't really see why this is a bad thing.
My problem is - you have no confidence that a UAW crew can build a quality vehicle, yet, you have every confidence that a bunch of "Temp" workers at a Toyota plant can.
My problem is - you have no confidence that a UAW crew can build a quality vehicle, yet, you have every confidence that a bunch of "Temp" workers at a Toyota plant can.
In many cases the temp workers are working hard, hoping to gain full time employment. So they try hard and care. Alternately, the UAW has no merit system, almost no punishment system, lazy work rules, and not a lot of accountability.
I don't think marsha's point is unreasonable at all.
>"In many cases the temp workers are working hard, hoping to gain full time employment. So they try hard and care. Alternately, the UAW has no merit system, almost no punishment system, lazy work rules, and not a lot of accountability."
I agree!
Assembly line work, for the most part, is not real hard to learn. Temps seem to catch on fairly quickly. Actually they tend to catch on much quicker than seasoned UAW workers and build a product that is more trouble free than the UAW folks are able to build.
Cost saving are often times directly related to the use of robots. Ford's plant in Brazil, I think, is a prime example of that. But the UAW strangle hold on the D3 seems to offer too much resistance to robots. Not hard to understand as robots don't pay union dues.
In a plant, say Toyota, where they know robots are going to take over certain jobs, it would be foolish for the company to hire full time people that will soon not have anything to do. So they hire temps. The temps know that only a few of them will be retained as full time employees, so they work hard to "EARN" one of those positions.
A while back there was a program entitled "If Japan can, Why Cant We".
They were illustrating, among other things, how a Toyota plant cross trained it's workers. In one case one guy was responsible for sitting the engine and FWD components into the chassis. The next guy was responsible for bolting them in place. Every other day the two guys would swap places. So neither would become lax in their jobs, because they knew that the tables could be turned. They could also compare notes and suggest to management how their particular jobs could be made more efficient.
Those two guys would eventually be moved to other positions on the line. And still swap positions on a regulated basis. Eventually they were pretty well versed in most or every job. So they didn't meed many "Extras" sitting around in case someone was out. And the "Extras" were assigned task to keep them busy until needed. Sweeping floors, installing light bulbs, being sure the line had their supplies, and such. I don't recall what they were called, but it was somewhat an honor to have achieved this position. They could effectively do any job in the plant.
According to the program there was a wall of shame. A serious screw up would get the guy's picture posted there. And he would be ostracized by the other employees until his picture came down. Also according to the program any worker could stop the assembly line if he couldn't properly complete his task. He would instantly get attention from several supervisors and such to evaluate the problem.
It was better to stop the line than to let shoddy work go by. Shoddy work would get him fired or his picture on the wall. If he stopped the line and it was determined it was a manufacturing problem he would receive praise. If it was simply his lack of ability he might receive more training or put onto other task.
That was a Toyota plant in Japan. Don't know how they do it here.
Good question. My point was, that, once, Toyota raised the quality bar; they did it with Japanese workers; they did it with American workers. Now, every company can match them there. They are no longer special in their products, labor practices, business decisions, or anything else. You're right about the current US market; future growth in China, India, etc. will surely outstrip ours, even when the economy recovers.
> you have no confidence that a UAW crew can build a quality vehicle, yet, you have every confidence that a bunch of "Temp" workers at a Toyota plant can.
Exactly. The perception bias on the poster's part is what shows in their description of each worker type's relative skill and effectiveness level. UAW, all bad; temp worker with no hope of permanent employment, good.
The temp workers have been topic of posts through the years. If there's the least problem or minor injury, those guys are gone. The foreign manufacturer wants nothing to do with them. It would be interesting to find now how many of the temp workers at Georgetown, KY, are still there as permanent employees. And to find how the others were non-selected.
On the other hand, most UAW workers were genuinely interested in building vehicles correctly, contrary to the stereotyping. However, a fraction of their group was not. The problem is built into the union system, which parallels our currect devolved government model, with the tophats setting up nice lush retirement systems for themselves funded at 102% of the cost for their retirement plans. In separate retirement plans for the "little guys" the retirements were funded at low levels of the actual future costs--let's say 50% for example. Do you see the parallel with the congress giving themselves special setups on retirement and even government run healthcare.
Also the union has only its own interest in mind, as is shown by the "new" guy in charge and his aggressive comments, meant to stimulate the testosterone in his "little people" so they'll do the grunt work and take the months of no pay if they have to strike. A major problem from the past is that the automakers weren't allowed to talk with each other about how they would negotiate against the union. So the union could pick one and take them to the mat with a strike if necessary.
Also, the UAW didn't do anything to mitigate the super high cost of their higher pair and higher seniority workers, whose jobs were seldom at risk because they could move to another UAW plant. The UAW allowed low wage, new workers, somewhat parallel to the temps that the Kentucky plant devolved to, to be brought on. Of course, most of those lost their jobs as the cut backs have occurred in production in US and as plants have closed. And the UAW negotiated special retirement program costs with their presidente Obama and negotiated against other union's benefitting in any way from their special treatment.
So my score would be toyota-temps,0; UAW, -2.
For those who feel the foreign manufacturers have been a boon to the economy, I disagree. And the American companies have not handled things correctly and have not handled the unions corrrectly, probably because of government controls beneficial to the unions--and that ain't changing with the current admin.
>"Not only did American consumers embrace the imports in droves, an entire generation walked away from the Detroit Three’s run of slipshod or nonexistent quality vehicles, never to return."...
You are exactly correct and now these same consumers have lost their jobs and can't figure out why."
Many of the lost jobs had to do with the bubble burst in the housing industry. People were allowed to "Borrow" much more money than they could ever pay back.
Houses were foreclosed on, new houses were not being built and the ripple effect went all the way down to the guy cutting the trees and digging the dirt to create building materials. Of course the D3 were already in peril. But the imports were doing well until the "burst" happened.
Automobiles were still being built, here by American workers. .
Last night on FOX NEWS they were discussing the total failures of the stimulus packages. One in particular stands out. A ton of money was given to a particular company that "Created" 300 jobs that won't last unless the company can become profitable. It amounted to $509,000 per job. :sick:
Most of those jobs are assembly line work. We the tax payers are paying for that large waste of money. Your government at work.
Where are those jobs that Mr. Obama promised would be coming back?
We are in essential agreement. The purchase of all non American made materials and goods was well underway when this housing problems finally came to a head. If you drive around the South here where I live there are shut down mills and factories everwyere. Most made cotton products etc. Dozens and Dozens of plants. As more and more people searched out the cheaper goods the working class of Amerians was fired and laid off. Until we stop and reverse the trend of our manufacturing base moving to South America or Indian I really don't see how we as a nation can recover. Obammer can borrow all the money China has but it will not produce a real job for an American and that's what is needed here. Temporary jobs building highways with borrowed money really isn't the answer.
Where are those jobs that Mr. Obama promised would be coming back?
Companies like GM can not afford to hire in this high debt environment which will need to wash out globally. Until growth stays over 3%, it will take quite some time to drive employment to pre-"Great Recession" levels. Housing was the biggest bubble there was mitigated to the phenomenal heights of greed by the financial industry and unacknowledged consumers. At the end of the day, and it will be quite a long day, the balance back to sensible financing in a growing economy will be the strongest driver of employment.
Current Economic Indicators July 16, 2010 (Close of Day)
Indicator Value Inflation % 1.11 GDP Growth % 2.70 Unemployment % 9.50 Gold $/oz 1,189.25 Oil $/bbl 76.01 Prime % 3.25
Lucky to see U.S. Car Sales make the 11MM SAAR at the end of 2020....unless C4C II happens, that is! Go Obama!
For those who feel the foreign manufacturers have been a boon to the economy, I disagree
Why? Are you unhappy that car buyers have a far greater range of choices than they did in, say, 1960? You might want to see a return to the days of the D3 monopoly, but I certainly don't.
You apparently think that what's good for the midwestern rust belt is good for the rest of us. But it's not.
It's all about satisfying customers. Offer me something that I like at a price that I'm willing to pay, & I'll buy it. That applies to both foreign & domestic brands. Companies that can't profitably satisfy customers deserve to die - the sooner, the better.
Yeah, I'll plead guilty to being a hard-core capitalist. Free minds = free markets.
For those who feel the foreign manufacturers have been a boon to the economy, I disagree. .
I won't answer for that comment as a general rule, but here in upstate SC, where BMW located its facility, your commment is dead wrong. Overall, I can't say, but I suspect the localities where other "foreign" auto manufacturers are located would agree with me.
Do a little research and see for yourself.
Or, you can simply generalize, but you might wish to re-read your statement posted below...
On the other hand, most UAW workers were genuinely interested in building vehicles correctly, contrary to the stereotyping. However, a fraction of their group was not.
The temp workers have been topic of posts through the years. If there's the least problem or minor injury, those guys are gone. The foreign manufacturer wants nothing to do with them.
I know in my field (not auto-related), we have used temp workers in the past. And we have hired some of them as permanent. It is a great way to get very good, motivated workers. The ones with attitudes or who can't do the job SHOULD be let go. I'm not sure why we would want it any other way.
Agree on your other union comments, except:
For those who feel the foreign manufacturers have been a boon to the economy, I disagree..
The problem is that we can't compare the Toyota (and other transplant) situation to the state of the US automakers in say, 1970. Times were going to change anyway, and forces would push on the US makers anyway. It's naive to talk about GM with 500K employees as if Toyota and others ruined all those high paying jobs.
If we had protectionism all along, how would US consumers have felt if you could get a Camry or Accord in Europe or Japan, and the US cars cost much more (making the US makers more profitable, and allowing for the high union costs), yet were far inferior and much less refined because there was little competition in the US? You would probably see lots of Americans going to Europe for European delivery of nice German cars, or screaming at the government about how the rest of the world had access to far superior goods that we did not have.
I don't think any of us would want to be in that situation, either. I think of Cuba with their '70's US cars still running as their "normal" vehicles.
I would rather have a struggling Ford or GM slowly working to build world-class vehicles, than fat and lazy big3 making expensive inferior products.
I don't think any of us would want to be in that situation, either. I think of Cuba with their '70's US cars still running as their "normal" vehicles.
A minor point. There aren't any 70's model US cars in Cuba. The embargo went into effect in the early 60's (initally, a partial in 1960 followed in 1962 by an almost complete embargo), and the majority of cars still in operation there are from the 40's and 50's, primarily the 50's.
".....If we had protectionism all along, how would US consumers have felt if you could get a Camry or Accord in Europe or Japan, and the US cars cost much more (making the US makers more profitable, and allowing for the high union costs), yet were far inferior and much less refined because there was little competition in the US? You would probably see lots of Americans going to Europe for European delivery of nice German cars, or screaming at the government about how the rest of the world had access to far superior goods that we did not have. "
I don't know that that would necessarily be true (people going to Europe to buy and import cars). In some ways, we do have an "embargo" of sorts on foreign cars in the form of safety and emissions controls. When gas was $4 a gal, I didn't see anybody clammoring to bring those efficient European diesels here, in spite of them not meeting our emissions. The car rags are forever complaining about the "good" cars being sold there and not here.
When gas was $4 a gal, I didn't see anybody clammoring to bring those efficient European diesels here, in spite of them not meeting our emissions.
They were there. As an example, VW caught a lot of flack due to their delay of introducing the new Blue diesel Jetta because it didn't meet emission specs in all 50 states.
Of course, the surge in diesel prices also helped stunt the demand for diesel vehicles here, not to mention the premium cost of a diesel in $$$. During this time, diesel surpassed gasoline in $$$ per gallon, and has remained so ever since.
But the Jetta is only one example of a car sold here as well as there. How many others are sold there but not here?
As far as diesel, yes it spiked, but only because we were selling our excess capacity to Europe so they could meet their demand. I have a diesel pickup, and am used to seeing diesel a few pennies more than regular in the summer, and a few pennies more than premium in the winter. Right now, I see diesel here around $2.85- 2.90/gal. Regular is about $2.69 and pemium $2.99, so it is a few pennies more than mid grade.
I also think that GM now employes 90,000 (saw it recently in a newspaper article, but I may be wrong)...
You make it sound like the loss of jobs is a problem...that also assumes that everything in manufacturing is static...GM having 500K workers was probably way too many, and I am quite sure that automation would have cut that number dramatically even without the imports...someone else said it better...most of this country worked in farming years ago, now only 2-3%...are you lamenting that???...they left farming to go work in the factories, like whe GM had 500K workers...now that industry has changed, and you lament the change because it happened while you were alive to see the change...
When folks left the farms and buggy-whip makers all went out of business, along with Conestoga wheel makers and horseshoe makers and stables, you weren't alive to see it, so you did not see the "upheaval" that society went thru at the time, but it was probably just as traumatic for them back then, but we now say that Society "moved forward" so the change was for the better...
We now live in an age when unskilled labor here is not as valued as it once was, and AGAIN, we are going thru change, but since you can see the change, you consider it highly traumatic and cruel to those who are affected by the change...it is the same evolution all over again, just different jobs in a different time...
Look at the bright side...homes that sold for $350K just 3 years ago can now be bought in some places for half that price, and that lower price is probably closer to its real intrinsic value than the inflated price of $350K...just because homes increased at 10% yearly is no reason why they should have done so, we were simply in a mania of ridiculous proportions...the only difference is that too many folks wrongly believed that real estate can only go up, and it is a good lesson to them to learn that they can also go down...
We have an economy that is dynamic, not static, so lamenting the loss of workers at GM from $500K down to 100K probably means that they now have the "correct" number of wrkers...except that even in this world of downsizing, I place "correct" in quotes simply because of the continued UAW featherbedding of still more worthless jobs for folks to stand around and get paid to do nothing...if Honda ran GM, I would bet the work force would be under 30K, simply because any well-run company will ALWAYS need fewer workers than any company with UAW workers who still do not work...
But the Jetta is only one example of a car sold here as well as there. How many others are sold there but not here?
My original point was that if you only had Big3 choices, you would probably be choosing for a smaller car between an older style Escort or a Cavalier, when a Civic or Mazda 3 would be available even in Canada or Mexico. We would have more expensive, inferior choices-- but we would be supporting those "working wage" jobs, where the UAW would have high benefits and wages for relatively low-skilled work. And it would hurt the U.S. in the long run. As an example, the most modern Ford assembly plant is in South America due to union work rules in this country. But according to some posters, that is a good thing because that enables us to employ more people at high wages. But what is the cost of that to US industry and competitiveness?
Is your opinion based on personal experience? Mine is. I was a Sr. engineer for a Delco plant for 9 years, and, worked along side the UAW during that time. In addition, many of my oldest son's friends took jobs at the Toyota engine plant here. Hired in as "temps" they indicated that they quickly realized that there was virtually no chance that they would ever be offered a permanent position. Knowing that they were in a "march or die" situation, they keep putting out resumes until they found something permanent and left. Yes, I ran into some rotten apples in the UAW, but, the vast majority of them, at the plants I worked at, took great pride in their work and did their best to turn out quality products. Therefore, I have confidence that, given a first class product to build by management, today's UAW work team at a D3 facility will execute it just as well as their counterparts at a J3 plant.
Most of us don't like being temps. I was one back in the 1970s, & I was thrilled when I was offered a permanent position. But when restrictions are placed on the hiring of temps, as was done in several Western European countries for many years, companies respond not by hiring more permanent employees but by mandating overtime for employees already on the payroll.
In other words, when companies can't hire temps, they usually stop hiring altogether. In the short run, paying overtime is cheaper than hiring someone & then letting him go a few months later.
Temp employees are part of a healthy, flexible workforce. That's pretty much beyond dispute, & that's why most countries that used to restrict temp hiring have dropped those restrictions.
> ran into some rotten apples in the UAW, but, the vast majority of them, at the plants I worked at, took great pride in their work and did their best to turn out quality products. Therefore, I have confidence that, given a first class product to build by management, today's UAW work team at a D3 facility will execute it just as well as their counterparts at a J3 plant.
I totally agree. I said that in an earlier post.
I toured the Moraine IUE plant about a year before it was listed as closing down. The IUE is not UAW perhaps; I don't know. BUT I watched how busy everyone was. I did not see people having long periods of time to do nothing between skillets. I did not see people on the towmotors who deliver stacks of parts to an area just in time sitting around socializing.
There seems to be a lot of stereotyping that each and every UAW member was a slouch and sabatoging product just as a way of trying to make their paycheck source go out of business for their $100,000 a year job with no skills other than how to turn a lugnut. Actually in the IUE plant that was done by a machine guided into position by a worker.
And the point about the overpaid managers of the companies, including GM, who did not react with the right product to fight the econoboxes of the 70s, allowed the foreign companies to get a stronghold. The econoboxes built a reputation since they had little to go wrong. Then the foreign companies turned to larger and more complicated cars to compete for the older population who believed in the reputation of no failures with their econoboxes.
As the mainstream cars contained more and more options, their failures rates have increased to what they are today. The turning point was about 2002-2003. Now that the bubble has burst on the no failure concept around foreign cars, it's the opportunity for the US companies to seize as best they can with the cost of the UAW still hung on their necks by government interference in the bankruptcy process.
There seems to be a lot of stereotyping that each and every UAW member was a slouch and sabatoging product just as a way of trying to make their paycheck source go out of business for their $100,000 a year job with no skills other than how to turn a lugnut. Actually in the IUE plant that was done by a machine guided into position by a worker.
--------
Now that the bubble has burst on the no failure concept around foreign cars, it's the opportunity for the US companies to seize as best they can with the cost of the UAW still hung on their necks by government interference in the bankruptcy process.
Those 2 comments seem to contradict each other. The first comment praises the UAW worker (I actually agree with your comment meaning, though. I think lumping all unionized workers into a group of lazy bums is wrong, but then again, I try to avoid generalizations whenever possible).
The second appears to rue the fact that unions still exist.
But the Jetta is only one example of a car sold here as well as there. How many others are sold there but not here?
Well, then, go to any BMW based forum and see all the comments lamenting the scarcity of diesel BMW's here.
The fact of the lack of diesel autos (as well as their demand) in the US is, quite frankly, the result of GM's horrible attempts in the early 1970's (during the oil embargo) to create diesel engines by "tweaking" the design of gasoline engines, which failed miserably, and gave the public such a bad taste of diesel power that many still would avoid it today.
Talk with just about anoyne who was around then and had experience with one of those vehicles and see what thay have to say about them. Calling those makeshift diesel powered vehicles trash would be too kind...
Some of us aren't interested for a lot of reasons - fuel in my area typically costs ten cents a gallon more than premium gas, there seems to be fewer diesel mechanics around, lots of people still report cold weather gelling and starting problems, lots of people with decent fuel supplies still put cetone and other additives in the tank all the time, and the claims for longevity of a diesel over a gas engine aren't supported by the evidence.
What else - oh yeah, my neighbor with the diesel VW and pickup is easily heard, and his house is 200 feet away. The fuel is smelly, whether you are pumping it and getting it on your hands and shoes, or whether you are stuck next to one at a stop light.
And my wife has mild asthma and physically can't tolerate being around the fumes.
You should check out the new BMW335d. I have a friend with one, and you would NEVER know it was diesel powered, but the torque it has is out of tis world!
No smell, no blue cloud of smoke....Runs like a scalded dog...
As the mainstream cars contained more and more options, their failures rates have increased to what they are today.
I've said it before & I'll say it again: my gripe against American cars in general & GM cars in particular has been the lack of style - not lack of reliability.
It took GM until 2008, when it introduced the current generation Cadillac CTS, to figure out how to design & build an attractive interior. The very latest Buicks are also good-looking cars. Why did it take GM so long?
If you bought a pre-2008 intermediate or large GM car, you had to overlook tacky, cheap-looking interiors. My late uncle, who lived out West, had a '98 or '99 Buick Park Avenue that I would drive when I visited him. It was a good road car, & I enjoyed my time behind the wheel, but the low-rent interior in what was supposed to be a luxury car was a real turn-off. It was particularly scandalous when you compared it to a 5-series BMW or an E-class Mercedes Benz, or even to the higher-priced Japanese cars, from the late 90s. (Because the dollar was very strong at that time, if you could afford a top-of-the line Buick, you could afford to go German.)
Why should anyone prepared to spend that much money for a car have to live in such a crummy-looking interior? Perhaps you D3 lovers could explain that to me.
I've said it before & I'll say it again: my gripe against American cars in general & GM cars in particular has been the lack of style - not lack of reliability.
It took GM until 2008, when it introduced the current generation Cadillac CTS, to figure out how to design & build an attractive interior. The very latest Buicks are also good-looking cars. Why did it take GM so long?
If you bought a pre-2008 intermediate or large GM car, you had to overlook tacky, cheap-looking interiors.
I agree..The Big-3 did appear to go plastics crazy starting in the 1970's.
I remember as a child going to see the new models being unveiled at the "new model open-houses" that GM dealers in particular used to have back in the 50's and 60's. In small towns, those were somewhat big events.
The interiors back then (when GM proudly had an emblem on the car door-sill "Body by Fisher") were pleasant and on the high-line models, very nice.
Somewhere along the line, someone at GM decided all they needed to do to differentiate a Pontiac Catalina from a Bonneville was to slap on different emblems and a different grill. Plastic components abounded, and often weren't very well machined and therefore, fit poorly and squeaked a lot.
The last GM truck I purchased was a 2002 Chevy S-10 extended cab with all options, and it was a rattletrap. Mechanically, it was fine, but you had to really crank up the radio to drown out the squeaks and rattles.
One note about that truck. About once a year, the door handle for the 3-rd door would break, and I had to buy a factory replacement at the dealer. The 1st one I bought (after the warranty expired in 2005) was about $42, and the last one I bought in 2008 was about $62. Same handle, same dealer. The parts mgr laughed as he told me it was one of their "best sellers". All those years, and no re-design of an obvious flawed design. And, yes, it was plastic.
I traded that truck for a 2009 Toyota Tacoma, and while I have had some issues with it (its on its second radio, and that one is acting up as well...this is a known issue with Tacoma radios), the interior is light years ahead of the S-10 and its GM replacement, the Colorado. No squeaks or rattles, and the pieces fit together nicely.
Somewhere along the line, someone at GM decided all they needed to do to differentiate a Pontiac Catalina from a Bonneville was to slap on different emblems and a different grill. Plastic components abounded, and often weren't very well machined and therefore, fit poorly and squeaked a lot.
I think 1971 was where it all started to come apart. I've read some contemporary road tests of those big cars, and at the time they were considered by many to be an improvement over the 1965-70 models. But I think that love affair was short-lived.
That was the year they started over-doing it with the plastic interiors. For example, I have a 1967 Catalina convertible, and its door panel is full vinyl. For 1971, they went to a 2-piece door panel, where the lower part was plastic with the armrest molded in, and the upper part was a vinyl insert. If you got a Bonneville, they put nicer vinyl in the top part, and there was a large, flat indentation in the lower plastic slab where they glued the carpet. The dashboards started getting a lot more plastic in them as well, and they started going for those pads that would extend all the way to the windshield, which would encourage cracking. With the 1970 and older models, the padding only extended forward a few inches, with exposed metal going the rest of the way to the dash.
In 1971, at least, the Bonneville still gave you some real advantages over the Catalina. It rode a longer wheelbase, 126" versus 124" (I've also seen 123.5" quoted). Usually a longer wheelbase gives you a more stable ride, but once you get to those lengths, I dunno if an extra 2" really helps or not? And, it didn't give you any extra interior room. The Bonneville also came standard with a 455-2bbl, while the Catalina just had a 350-2bbl.
For some reason, Pontiac saw fit to offer a Catalina Brougham that year, which seems odd to me. I don't know how plush it was, but does that really make sense to offer something like that, when you also have the Bonneville and Grand Ville further up the ranks? They were trying to push the Grand Ville as an alternative to the Electra and Ninety-Eight, so maybe they envisioned the Bonneville as a much more prestigious car as well? And perhaps this Catalina Brougham slotted in more like a Caprice, LeSabre Custom, or Delta 88 Custom? It also had a standard 400-2bbl
But, after a few years, the Bonneville and Grand Ville came back down to the Catalina's wheelbase 124" wheelbase, and by 1976, the 400-2bbl was standard, whether you got a Catalina or Bonneville (Grand Ville went away after 1975, replaced by Bonneville Brougham).
By the time the downsized 1977 models came out, they probably could have done away with the Catalina, and just gone with the Bonneville in several different trim levels. But, in those days, a 2-model lineup was in fashion for the most part. Impala/Caprice, Catalina/Bonneville, LeSabre/Electra, Delta 88/98. It was fading away at Ford and Mopar though, as Ford was just going with LTD or Marquis, in different trim levels, while Dodge and Plymouth dropped their big cars entirely, although Dodge would half-heartedly return with the 1979-81 St. Regis. Chrysler did carry on the Newport/New Yorker thing right up through 1981.
I think in all fairness though, while GM started nosediving in the 1970's, so did just about everybody else.
Yes, but it's not just diesels. The Smart has been sold in Europe for years. Just came in at $4/gal gas. (Now, nobody wants them) lemko mentioned the "kei" cars. Not here. Fiat 500?? Nope. I'm sure there are people who would want the Tata Nano here right now, as is, for the $2500 (then again, they would also be the first to SUE when that car kills one of their family members, as it isn't safe by our standards, and "they didn't know")
".....but the low-rent interior in what was supposed to be a luxury car was a real turn-off."
As an owner of a '99 Ultra, I agree. The guages were straight out of the mid seventies, and the dot matrix led's?? But the outside of that car I think was one of their better jobs. I also think that the last gen Riviera was one of the better looking Riv's of all time. But that instrument cluster.......
As an owner of a '99 Ultra, I agree. The guages were straight out of the mid seventies, and the dot matrix led's?? But the outside of that car I think was one of their better jobs. I also think that the last gen Riviera was one of the better looking Riv's of all time. But that instrument cluster.......
Is that '99 still running, Cooter? How many miles are on it now? I think the Park Ave is a great value as a used car, but not so great when new, unless they were running them at a seriously deep discount. I think my 2000 Ultra stickered for around $40K when it was new, which would adjust with inflation to around $50K today. But just think about what you could get for $50K today. Heck, I just tried to spec out a 2011 Lucerne Super, and the highest I could get it to go was an MSRP of $46,310. And the highest I could get a LaCrosse was $42,400.
I'm enough of a throwback, I guess, that I'd go for the Lucerne, because I just prefer the extra interior room, and I do prefer its style. The Park Ave is a great car in a lot of respects. Plenty of interior room. The front seat goes back further than my '79 New Yorkers and dwarfs my '67 Catalina, although, interestingly, I think my '76 LeMans still has it beat. Headroom is almost minivan-like, and the sunroof doesn't cut into it in the least, as far as I can tell. The ride is decent, although I prefer the Chrysler big-car ride to the GM big-car ride. I'd say it's smoother, in that it isolates a lot of the small bumps and imperfections in the road, but it bounces more. And nobody's going to confuse its handling with a BMW or Benz (heck, I think my 2000 Intrepid base model was a better handler), but it goes where you point it.
I think one area where GM messed up though, is that they tried to design this car to appeal to the more traditional crowd, even in Ultra form. It just feels bigger and and more cumbersome than it is. To this day, I sometimes still have trouble parking it. In contrast, when I slip behind the wheel of one of my '79 New Yorkers, it doesn't feel like I'm trying to pilot around 221+ inches of bulk. They just feel like smaller cars than they are. But the Park Ave, which I think is around 206-207" long, just feels like a bigger, bulkier car than it is. I've heard GM tends to do that though. I've heard people say even their small cars feel big.
Overall, I think it's a very attractive looking car. Even if its average buyer age was around 70, IIRC, I don't feel self-conscious driving an "old man" car (but then, I also love my New Yorkers. :P ) And, if the thing was to get totaled, I'd probably try to seek out another low-mileage Park Ave, or maybe a LeSabre or Bonneville. And I absolutely LOVE the Riviera, but seeing as they haven't made them since 1999, it's a bit hard to find a nice, low-mileage, cream-puff example these days.
One thing I'll give GM credit for...they've come a long way, with attention to detail, in the past 10 years. If you compare a new Lacrosse or even a Lucerne to a 2000 Park Ave, you'll see a world of difference. Much improved interiors, fit and finish, etc. Nicer feel to all the buttons and switches. In contrast though, I've sat in various Chargers and 300's, and think Mopar has actually regressed a bit, from my 2000 Intrepid. Fit and finish and alignment and such is no better, and I swear, the interiors have gone downhill when it comes to the cheap, hard plastics.
One thing I'll give GM credit for...they've come a long way, with attention to detail, in the past 10 years. If you compare a new Lacrosse or even a Lucerne to a 2000 Park Ave, you'll see a world of difference. Much improved interiors, fit and finish, etc. Nicer feel to all the buttons and switches
Isn't it kind of a shame that the new Lacrosse interior was conceived and designed in China, not the U.S.?
I'm old school. Not only am I not enamored of diesels, you want to put me in a rig with not one, but twin turbos. Yikes. I guess a Wankel version will be next. :P
No smell eh? So it comes with a permanent tank of gas from the factory thus avoiding the need to put on those little plastic gloves at the service station? That's a neat trick.
Joshing aside, I could see a market for a diesel hybrid. Imagine a nice diesel torque curve like your friend's Bimmer, plus electric motor torque on each wheel off the line.
Isn't it kind of a shame that the new Lacrosse interior was conceived and designed in China, not the U.S.?
Kinda, but here's where I give GM credit....gone off the deep end of bankruptcy and fresh from dumping huge chunks of debt, they actually knew enough to go to where their strength was for Buick. God knows it wasn't here in the US. Cooter got himself the best GM car in decades. That's a great thing.
But remember, cars were a forgotten segment for decades at GM U.S. pre-C11. The good ones GM produced globally had to be imported (sure they made some errors like the '01 BPA ) . Seems they are getting some religion.
But they need to pray much, much harder to keep up with the comp because there are some hungry puppies out there that make better cars at the moment.
Comments
Kind of a scary thought to think that now, 31 years later, they're down to around 90,000. While it can be argued that those jobs are gone forever and won't be coming back, I'm sure many of those jobs have been replaced by other fields. And a lot of those 600,000 from the heydays simply retired on time, or took early buyouts, and those jobs were not replaced.
Kind of a scary thought to think that now, 31 years later, they're down to around 90,000. While it can be argued that those jobs are gone forever and won't be coming back, I'm sure many of those jobs have been replaced by other fields. And a lot of those 600,000 from the heydays simply retired on time, or took early buyouts, and those jobs were not replaced.
One shouldn't make job-loss comparasons in a vacuum. There are many other reasons these jobs may never come back, and indeed many won't.
What % of the American labor force was tied to agriculture 100 years ago? 50 years ago?
Automation has replaced a number of jobs in EVERY industry, and will continue to do so. And, in many cases, doing a better job at a lower cost. Auto manufacturer paint shops are great examples.
Living in SC, I've personally seen a radical transformation in the textile industry. Even though much of the industry has moved off-shore now, the conversion to replacing live bodies with machines was well underway before that happened. In fact, one of the main reasons the industry moved off-shore was the high amount of polution created by dye operations, etc. Many 3rd world countries are not nearly as concerned with pollution as the USA.
Add those numbers together and you get a true impact of what the imports had on U.S. automotive jobs. I bet all the transplants combined can't make up for the total loss of U.S. auto industry jobs.
Add those numbers together and you get a true impact of what the imports had on U.S. automotive jobs. I bet all the transplants combined can't make up for the total loss of U.S. auto industry jobs.
Maybe...However, Imagine no imports ever coming to the US, and only US models sold here.... Just GM, Ford and Chrysler making cars here and selling to a totally closed market...no foreign competition at all.
With the advent and advancement of robotics in the automotive construction process, what would be your estimate of the size of the current work-force?
After all, car construction at EVERY plant (domestic and import) is nothing like it was in 1970, or 1980, or even 1990.
It wouldn't affect me much as I've never seriously considered a foreign car, though I might miss having the choice of owning a Mercedes-Benz, Porsche, a British sports car, or an Italian exotic. I most definitely wouldn't miss any of the Asian makes.
I'm sure automation would've changed the automotive manufacturing landscape with or without the foreign makers.
I dunno about that one. I work for Verizon, and was hired as a temp operator ("Number Please,...snort snort
Bob, my Lacrosse was made at the same plant as the Malibu. Fairfax, Kansas.
Nah, the pimps and drug dealers figured out that if you lease the thing, when you get busted they can't take the car, as you don't "own" it.
The US market IS stagnant.
Do you propose that Toyota only build vehicles in Japan?
we lost the jobs.
GM used to employ 500,000
Toyota now employs 31,000
No, I didn't leave off a zero.
UAW labor cost was where 5-10% of the price of a new car went. To generalize about their quality is also wrapping the mostly good up with the few bad.
Thought you bought a Malibu?
My neighbor bought all Hondas and then lost his job. Ironic?
The 8 million jobs are not coming back: Biden
This is not limited to the auto industry. Companies are always trying to become more efficient. How would it be otherwise? If we were all still farming manually we would not have aircraft and many of the medicines that can save your life. I don't really see why this is a bad thing.
Not to worry...when GM goes public again, everyone will have jobs again. :P
Just doesn't make sense to buy junk when better products are available. Might as well buy BP oil exclusively despite the disaster.
When an 2out of 3 major global suppliers in an auto market fails because they became uncompetitive, let me know why they should continue to thrive.
Regards,
OW
Regards,
OW
Regards:
OldCEM
In many cases the temp workers are working hard, hoping to gain full time employment. So they try hard and care. Alternately, the UAW has no merit system, almost no punishment system, lazy work rules, and not a lot of accountability.
I don't think marsha's point is unreasonable at all.
I agree!
Assembly line work, for the most part, is not real hard to learn. Temps seem to catch on fairly quickly. Actually they tend to catch on much quicker than seasoned UAW workers and build a product that is more trouble free than the UAW folks are able to build.
Cost saving are often times directly related to the use of robots. Ford's plant in Brazil, I think, is a prime example of that. But the UAW strangle hold on the D3 seems to offer too much resistance to robots. Not hard to understand as robots don't pay union dues.
In a plant, say Toyota, where they know robots are going to take over certain jobs, it would be foolish for the company to hire full time people that will soon not have anything to do. So they hire temps. The temps know that only a few of them will be retained as full time employees, so they work hard to "EARN" one of those positions.
A while back there was a program entitled "If Japan can, Why Cant We".
They were illustrating, among other things, how a Toyota plant cross trained it's workers. In one case one guy was responsible for sitting the engine and FWD components into the chassis. The next guy was responsible for bolting them in place. Every other day the two guys would swap places. So neither would become lax in their jobs, because they knew that the tables could be turned. They could also compare notes and suggest to management how their particular jobs could be made more efficient.
Those two guys would eventually be moved to other positions on the line. And still swap positions on a regulated basis. Eventually they were pretty well versed in most or every job. So they didn't meed many "Extras" sitting around in case someone was out. And the "Extras" were assigned task to keep them busy until needed. Sweeping floors, installing light bulbs, being sure the line had their supplies, and such. I don't recall what they were called, but it was somewhat an honor to have achieved this position. They could effectively do any job in the plant.
According to the program there was a wall of shame. A serious screw up would get the guy's picture posted there. And he would be ostracized by the other employees until his picture came down. Also according to the program any worker could stop the assembly line if he couldn't properly complete his task. He would instantly get attention from several supervisors and such to evaluate the problem.
It was better to stop the line than to let shoddy work go by. Shoddy work would get him fired or his picture on the wall. If he stopped the line and it was determined it was a manufacturing problem he would receive praise. If it was simply his lack of ability he might receive more training or put onto other task.
That was a Toyota plant in Japan. Don't know how they do it here.
Kip
Exactly. The perception bias on the poster's part is what shows in their description of each worker type's relative skill and effectiveness level. UAW, all bad; temp worker with no hope of permanent employment, good.
The temp workers have been topic of posts through the years. If there's the least problem or minor injury, those guys are gone. The foreign manufacturer wants nothing to do with them. It would be interesting to find now how many of the temp workers at Georgetown, KY, are still there as permanent employees. And to find how the others were non-selected.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22773-2004Oct10.html
On the other hand, most UAW workers were genuinely interested in building vehicles correctly, contrary to the stereotyping. However, a fraction of their group was not. The problem is built into the union system, which parallels our currect devolved government model, with the tophats setting up nice lush retirement systems for themselves funded at 102% of the cost for their retirement plans. In separate retirement plans for the "little guys" the retirements were funded at low levels of the actual future costs--let's say 50% for example. Do you see the parallel with the congress giving themselves special setups on retirement and even government run healthcare.
Also the union has only its own interest in mind, as is shown by the "new" guy in charge and his aggressive comments, meant to stimulate the testosterone in his "little people" so they'll do the grunt work and take the months of no pay if they have to strike. A major problem from the past is that the automakers weren't allowed to talk with each other about how they would negotiate against the union. So the union could pick one and take them to the mat with a strike if necessary.
Also, the UAW didn't do anything to mitigate the super high cost of their higher pair and higher seniority workers, whose jobs were seldom at risk because they could move to another UAW plant. The UAW allowed low wage, new workers, somewhat parallel to the temps that the Kentucky plant devolved to, to be brought on. Of course, most of those lost their jobs as the cut backs have occurred in production in US and as plants have closed. And the UAW negotiated special retirement program costs with their presidente Obama and negotiated against other union's benefitting in any way from their special treatment.
So my score would be toyota-temps,0; UAW, -2.
For those who feel the foreign manufacturers have been a boon to the economy, I disagree. And the American companies have not handled things correctly and have not handled the unions corrrectly, probably because of government controls beneficial to the unions--and that ain't changing with the current admin.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
You are exactly correct and now these same consumers have lost their jobs and can't figure out why."
Many of the lost jobs had to do with the bubble burst in the housing industry. People were allowed to "Borrow" much more money than they could ever pay back.
Houses were foreclosed on, new houses were not being built and the ripple effect went all the way down to the guy cutting the trees and digging the dirt to create building materials. Of course the D3 were already in peril. But the imports were doing well until the "burst" happened.
Automobiles were still being built, here by American workers. .
Last night on FOX NEWS they were discussing the total failures of the stimulus packages. One in particular stands out. A ton of money was given to a particular company that "Created" 300 jobs that won't last unless the company can become profitable. It amounted to $509,000 per job. :sick:
Most of those jobs are assembly line work. We the tax payers are paying for that large waste of money. Your government at work.
Where are those jobs that Mr. Obama promised would be coming back?
Kip
Companies like GM can not afford to hire in this high debt environment which will need to wash out globally. Until growth stays over 3%, it will take quite some time to drive employment to pre-"Great Recession" levels. Housing was the biggest bubble there was mitigated to the phenomenal heights of greed by the financial industry and unacknowledged consumers. At the end of the day, and it will be quite a long day, the balance back to sensible financing in a growing economy will be the strongest driver of employment.
Current Economic Indicators
July 16, 2010 (Close of Day)
Indicator Value
Inflation % 1.11
GDP Growth % 2.70
Unemployment % 9.50
Gold $/oz 1,189.25
Oil $/bbl 76.01
Prime % 3.25
Lucky to see U.S. Car Sales make the 11MM SAAR at the end of 2020....unless C4C II happens, that is! Go Obama!
Regards,
OW
Why? Are you unhappy that car buyers have a far greater range of choices than they did in, say, 1960? You might want to see a return to the days of the D3 monopoly, but I certainly don't.
You apparently think that what's good for the midwestern rust belt is good for the rest of us. But it's not.
It's all about satisfying customers. Offer me something that I like at a price that I'm willing to pay, & I'll buy it. That applies to both foreign & domestic brands. Companies that can't profitably satisfy customers deserve to die - the sooner, the better.
Yeah, I'll plead guilty to being a hard-core capitalist. Free minds = free markets.
I won't answer for that comment as a general rule, but here in upstate SC, where BMW located its facility, your commment is dead wrong. Overall, I can't say, but I suspect the localities where other "foreign" auto manufacturers are located would agree with me.
Do a little research and see for yourself.
Or, you can simply generalize, but you might wish to re-read your statement posted below...
On the other hand, most UAW workers were genuinely interested in building vehicles correctly, contrary to the stereotyping. However, a fraction of their group was not.
I know in my field (not auto-related), we have used temp workers in the past. And we have hired some of them as permanent. It is a great way to get very good, motivated workers. The ones with attitudes or who can't do the job SHOULD be let go. I'm not sure why we would want it any other way.
Agree on your other union comments, except:
For those who feel the foreign manufacturers have been a boon to the economy, I disagree..
The problem is that we can't compare the Toyota (and other transplant) situation to the state of the US automakers in say, 1970. Times were going to change anyway, and forces would push on the US makers anyway. It's naive to talk about GM with 500K employees as if Toyota and others ruined all those high paying jobs.
If we had protectionism all along, how would US consumers have felt if you could get a Camry or Accord in Europe or Japan, and the US cars cost much more (making the US makers more profitable, and allowing for the high union costs), yet were far inferior and much less refined because there was little competition in the US? You would probably see lots of Americans going to Europe for European delivery of nice German cars, or screaming at the government about how the rest of the world had access to far superior goods that we did not have.
I don't think any of us would want to be in that situation, either. I think of Cuba with their '70's US cars still running as their "normal" vehicles.
I would rather have a struggling Ford or GM slowly working to build world-class vehicles, than fat and lazy big3 making expensive inferior products.
A minor point. There aren't any 70's model US cars in Cuba. The embargo went into effect in the early 60's (initally, a partial in 1960 followed in 1962 by an almost complete embargo), and the majority of cars still in operation there are from the 40's and 50's, primarily the 50's.
Your main point is well made, however.
I don't know that that would necessarily be true (people going to Europe to buy and import cars). In some ways, we do have an "embargo" of sorts on foreign cars in the form of safety and emissions controls. When gas was $4 a gal, I didn't see anybody clammoring to bring those efficient European diesels here, in spite of them not meeting our emissions. The car rags are forever complaining about the "good" cars being sold there and not here.
They were there. As an example, VW caught a lot of flack due to their delay of introducing the new Blue diesel Jetta because it didn't meet emission specs in all 50 states.
http://www.kbb.com/car-news/2007-la-auto-show/diesel-revolution-delayed-return-o- - f-vw-diesels-bumped-to-summer
Of course, the surge in diesel prices also helped stunt the demand for diesel vehicles here, not to mention the premium cost of a diesel in $$$. During this time, diesel surpassed gasoline in $$$ per gallon, and has remained so ever since.
As far as diesel, yes it spiked, but only because we were selling our excess capacity to Europe so they could meet their demand. I have a diesel pickup, and am used to seeing diesel a few pennies more than regular in the summer, and a few pennies more than premium in the winter. Right now, I see diesel here around $2.85- 2.90/gal. Regular is about $2.69 and pemium $2.99, so it is a few pennies more than mid grade.
Toyota now employs 31,000
No, I didn't leave off a zero."
I also think that GM now employes 90,000 (saw it recently in a newspaper article, but I may be wrong)...
You make it sound like the loss of jobs is a problem...that also assumes that everything in manufacturing is static...GM having 500K workers was probably way too many, and I am quite sure that automation would have cut that number dramatically even without the imports...someone else said it better...most of this country worked in farming years ago, now only 2-3%...are you lamenting that???...they left farming to go work in the factories, like whe GM had 500K workers...now that industry has changed, and you lament the change because it happened while you were alive to see the change...
When folks left the farms and buggy-whip makers all went out of business, along with Conestoga wheel makers and horseshoe makers and stables, you weren't alive to see it, so you did not see the "upheaval" that society went thru at the time, but it was probably just as traumatic for them back then, but we now say that Society "moved forward" so the change was for the better...
We now live in an age when unskilled labor here is not as valued as it once was, and AGAIN, we are going thru change, but since you can see the change, you consider it highly traumatic and cruel to those who are affected by the change...it is the same evolution all over again, just different jobs in a different time...
Look at the bright side...homes that sold for $350K just 3 years ago can now be bought in some places for half that price, and that lower price is probably closer to its real intrinsic value than the inflated price of $350K...just because homes increased at 10% yearly is no reason why they should have done so, we were simply in a mania of ridiculous proportions...the only difference is that too many folks wrongly believed that real estate can only go up, and it is a good lesson to them to learn that they can also go down...
We have an economy that is dynamic, not static, so lamenting the loss of workers at GM from $500K down to 100K probably means that they now have the "correct" number of wrkers...except that even in this world of downsizing, I place "correct" in quotes simply because of the continued UAW featherbedding of still more worthless jobs for folks to stand around and get paid to do nothing...if Honda ran GM, I would bet the work force would be under 30K, simply because any well-run company will ALWAYS need fewer workers than any company with UAW workers who still do not work...
My original point was that if you only had Big3 choices, you would probably be choosing for a smaller car between an older style Escort or a Cavalier, when a Civic or Mazda 3 would be available even in Canada or Mexico. We would have more expensive, inferior choices-- but we would be supporting those "working wage" jobs, where the UAW would have high benefits and wages for relatively low-skilled work. And it would hurt the U.S. in the long run. As an example, the most modern Ford assembly plant is in South America due to union work rules in this country. But according to some posters, that is a good thing because that enables us to employ more people at high wages. But what is the cost of that to US industry and competitiveness?
Regards:
OldCEM
In other words, when companies can't hire temps, they usually stop hiring altogether. In the short run, paying overtime is cheaper than hiring someone & then letting him go a few months later.
Temp employees are part of a healthy, flexible workforce. That's pretty much beyond dispute, & that's why most countries that used to restrict temp hiring have dropped those restrictions.
I totally agree. I said that in an earlier post.
I toured the Moraine IUE plant about a year before it was listed as closing down. The IUE is not UAW perhaps; I don't know. BUT I watched how busy everyone was. I did not see people having long periods of time to do nothing between skillets. I did not see people on the towmotors who deliver stacks of parts to an area just in time sitting around socializing.
There seems to be a lot of stereotyping that each and every UAW member was a slouch and sabatoging product just as a way of trying to make their paycheck source go out of business for their $100,000 a year job with no skills other than how to turn a lugnut. Actually in the IUE plant that was done by a machine guided into position by a worker.
And the point about the overpaid managers of the companies, including GM, who did not react with the right product to fight the econoboxes of the 70s, allowed the foreign companies to get a stronghold. The econoboxes built a reputation since they had little to go wrong. Then the foreign companies turned to larger and more complicated cars to compete for the older population who believed in the reputation of no failures with their econoboxes.
As the mainstream cars contained more and more options, their failures rates have increased to what they are today. The turning point was about 2002-2003. Now that the bubble has burst on the no failure concept around foreign cars, it's the opportunity for the US companies to seize as best they can with the cost of the UAW still hung on their necks by government interference in the bankruptcy process.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
--------
Now that the bubble has burst on the no failure concept around foreign cars, it's the opportunity for the US companies to seize as best they can with the cost of the UAW still hung on their necks by government interference in the bankruptcy process.
Those 2 comments seem to contradict each other. The first comment praises the UAW worker (I actually agree with your comment meaning, though. I think lumping all unionized workers into a group of lazy bums is wrong, but then again, I try to avoid generalizations whenever possible).
The second appears to rue the fact that unions still exist.
Well, then, go to any BMW based forum and see all the comments lamenting the scarcity of diesel BMW's here.
The fact of the lack of diesel autos (as well as their demand) in the US is, quite frankly, the result of GM's horrible attempts in the early 1970's (during the oil embargo) to create diesel engines by "tweaking" the design of gasoline engines, which failed miserably, and gave the public such a bad taste of diesel power that many still would avoid it today.
Talk with just about anoyne who was around then and had experience with one of those vehicles and see what thay have to say about them. Calling those makeshift diesel powered vehicles trash would be too kind...
Some of us aren't interested for a lot of reasons - fuel in my area typically costs ten cents a gallon more than premium gas, there seems to be fewer diesel mechanics around, lots of people still report cold weather gelling and starting problems, lots of people with decent fuel supplies still put cetone and other additives in the tank all the time, and the claims for longevity of a diesel over a gas engine aren't supported by the evidence.
What else - oh yeah, my neighbor with the diesel VW and pickup is easily heard, and his house is 200 feet away. The fuel is smelly, whether you are pumping it and getting it on your hands and shoes, or whether you are stuck next to one at a stop light.
And my wife has mild asthma and physically can't tolerate being around the fumes.
You should check out the new BMW335d. I have a friend with one, and you would NEVER know it was diesel powered, but the torque it has is out of tis world!
No smell, no blue cloud of smoke....Runs like a scalded dog...
I've said it before & I'll say it again: my gripe against American cars in general & GM cars in particular has been the lack of style - not lack of reliability.
It took GM until 2008, when it introduced the current generation Cadillac CTS, to figure out how to design & build an attractive interior. The very latest Buicks are also good-looking cars. Why did it take GM so long?
If you bought a pre-2008 intermediate or large GM car, you had to overlook tacky, cheap-looking interiors. My late uncle, who lived out West, had a '98 or '99 Buick Park Avenue that I would drive when I visited him. It was a good road car, & I enjoyed my time behind the wheel, but the low-rent interior in what was supposed to be a luxury car was a real turn-off. It was particularly scandalous when you compared it to a 5-series BMW or an E-class Mercedes Benz, or even to the higher-priced Japanese cars, from the late 90s. (Because the dollar was very strong at that time, if you could afford a top-of-the line Buick, you could afford to go German.)
Why should anyone prepared to spend that much money for a car have to live in such a crummy-looking interior? Perhaps you D3 lovers could explain that to me.
It took GM until 2008, when it introduced the current generation Cadillac CTS, to figure out how to design & build an attractive interior. The very latest Buicks are also good-looking cars. Why did it take GM so long?
If you bought a pre-2008 intermediate or large GM car, you had to overlook tacky, cheap-looking interiors.
I agree..The Big-3 did appear to go plastics crazy starting in the 1970's.
I remember as a child going to see the new models being unveiled at the "new model open-houses" that GM dealers in particular used to have back in the 50's and 60's. In small towns, those were somewhat big events.
The interiors back then (when GM proudly had an emblem on the car door-sill "Body by Fisher") were pleasant and on the high-line models, very nice.
Somewhere along the line, someone at GM decided all they needed to do to differentiate a Pontiac Catalina from a Bonneville was to slap on different emblems and a different grill. Plastic components abounded, and often weren't very well machined and therefore, fit poorly and squeaked a lot.
The last GM truck I purchased was a 2002 Chevy S-10 extended cab with all options, and it was a rattletrap. Mechanically, it was fine, but you had to really crank up the radio to drown out the squeaks and rattles.
One note about that truck. About once a year, the door handle for the 3-rd door would break, and I had to buy a factory replacement at the dealer. The 1st one I bought (after the warranty expired in 2005) was about $42, and the last one I bought in 2008 was about $62. Same handle, same dealer. The parts mgr laughed as he told me it was one of their "best sellers". All those years, and no re-design of an obvious flawed design. And, yes, it was plastic.
I traded that truck for a 2009 Toyota Tacoma, and while I have had some issues with it (its on its second radio, and that one is acting up as well...this is a known issue with Tacoma radios), the interior is light years ahead of the S-10 and its GM replacement, the Colorado. No squeaks or rattles, and the pieces fit together nicely.
I think 1971 was where it all started to come apart. I've read some contemporary road tests of those big cars, and at the time they were considered by many to be an improvement over the 1965-70 models. But I think that love affair was short-lived.
That was the year they started over-doing it with the plastic interiors. For example, I have a 1967 Catalina convertible, and its door panel is full vinyl. For 1971, they went to a 2-piece door panel, where the lower part was plastic with the armrest molded in, and the upper part was a vinyl insert. If you got a Bonneville, they put nicer vinyl in the top part, and there was a large, flat indentation in the lower plastic slab where they glued the carpet. The dashboards started getting a lot more plastic in them as well, and they started going for those pads that would extend all the way to the windshield, which would encourage cracking. With the 1970 and older models, the padding only extended forward a few inches, with exposed metal going the rest of the way to the dash.
In 1971, at least, the Bonneville still gave you some real advantages over the Catalina. It rode a longer wheelbase, 126" versus 124" (I've also seen 123.5" quoted). Usually a longer wheelbase gives you a more stable ride, but once you get to those lengths, I dunno if an extra 2" really helps or not? And, it didn't give you any extra interior room. The Bonneville also came standard with a 455-2bbl, while the Catalina just had a 350-2bbl.
For some reason, Pontiac saw fit to offer a Catalina Brougham that year, which seems odd to me. I don't know how plush it was, but does that really make sense to offer something like that, when you also have the Bonneville and Grand Ville further up the ranks? They were trying to push the Grand Ville as an alternative to the Electra and Ninety-Eight, so maybe they envisioned the Bonneville as a much more prestigious car as well? And perhaps this Catalina Brougham slotted in more like a Caprice, LeSabre Custom, or Delta 88 Custom? It also had a standard 400-2bbl
But, after a few years, the Bonneville and Grand Ville came back down to the Catalina's wheelbase 124" wheelbase, and by 1976, the 400-2bbl was standard, whether you got a Catalina or Bonneville (Grand Ville went away after 1975, replaced by Bonneville Brougham).
By the time the downsized 1977 models came out, they probably could have done away with the Catalina, and just gone with the Bonneville in several different trim levels. But, in those days, a 2-model lineup was in fashion for the most part. Impala/Caprice, Catalina/Bonneville, LeSabre/Electra, Delta 88/98. It was fading away at Ford and Mopar though, as Ford was just going with LTD or Marquis, in different trim levels, while Dodge and Plymouth dropped their big cars entirely, although Dodge would half-heartedly return with the 1979-81 St. Regis. Chrysler did carry on the Newport/New Yorker thing right up through 1981.
I think in all fairness though, while GM started nosediving in the 1970's, so did just about everybody else.
If you remember, that IS when the J3 started importing the Versa, Fit, and Yaris.
As an owner of a '99 Ultra, I agree. The guages were straight out of the mid seventies, and the dot matrix led's?? But the outside of that car I think was one of their better jobs. I also think that the last gen Riviera was one of the better looking Riv's of all time. But that instrument cluster.......
Is that '99 still running, Cooter? How many miles are on it now? I think the Park Ave is a great value as a used car, but not so great when new, unless they were running them at a seriously deep discount. I think my 2000 Ultra stickered for around $40K when it was new, which would adjust with inflation to around $50K today. But just think about what you could get for $50K today. Heck, I just tried to spec out a 2011 Lucerne Super, and the highest I could get it to go was an MSRP of $46,310. And the highest I could get a LaCrosse was $42,400.
I'm enough of a throwback, I guess, that I'd go for the Lucerne, because I just prefer the extra interior room, and I do prefer its style. The Park Ave is a great car in a lot of respects. Plenty of interior room. The front seat goes back further than my '79 New Yorkers and dwarfs my '67 Catalina, although, interestingly, I think my '76 LeMans still has it beat. Headroom is almost minivan-like, and the sunroof doesn't cut into it in the least, as far as I can tell. The ride is decent, although I prefer the Chrysler big-car ride to the GM big-car ride. I'd say it's smoother, in that it isolates a lot of the small bumps and imperfections in the road, but it bounces more. And nobody's going to confuse its handling with a BMW or Benz (heck, I think my 2000 Intrepid base model was a better handler), but it goes where you point it.
I think one area where GM messed up though, is that they tried to design this car to appeal to the more traditional crowd, even in Ultra form. It just feels bigger and and more cumbersome than it is. To this day, I sometimes still have trouble parking it. In contrast, when I slip behind the wheel of one of my '79 New Yorkers, it doesn't feel like I'm trying to pilot around 221+ inches of bulk. They just feel like smaller cars than they are. But the Park Ave, which I think is around 206-207" long, just feels like a bigger, bulkier car than it is. I've heard GM tends to do that though. I've heard people say even their small cars feel big.
Overall, I think it's a very attractive looking car. Even if its average buyer age was around 70, IIRC, I don't feel self-conscious driving an "old man" car (but then, I also love my New Yorkers. :P ) And, if the thing was to get totaled, I'd probably try to seek out another low-mileage Park Ave, or maybe a LeSabre or Bonneville. And I absolutely LOVE the Riviera, but seeing as they haven't made them since 1999, it's a bit hard to find a nice, low-mileage, cream-puff example these days.
One thing I'll give GM credit for...they've come a long way, with attention to detail, in the past 10 years. If you compare a new Lacrosse or even a Lucerne to a 2000 Park Ave, you'll see a world of difference. Much improved interiors, fit and finish, etc. Nicer feel to all the buttons and switches. In contrast though, I've sat in various Chargers and 300's, and think Mopar has actually regressed a bit, from my 2000 Intrepid. Fit and finish and alignment and such is no better, and I swear, the interiors have gone downhill when it comes to the cheap, hard plastics.
Isn't it kind of a shame that the new Lacrosse interior was conceived and designed in China, not the U.S.?
No smell eh? So it comes with a permanent tank of gas from the factory thus avoiding the need to put on those little plastic gloves at the service station? That's a neat trick.
Joshing aside, I could see a market for a diesel hybrid. Imagine a nice diesel torque curve like your friend's Bimmer, plus electric motor torque on each wheel off the line.
Someone else wants a Tata?
Kinda, but here's where I give GM credit....gone off the deep end of bankruptcy and fresh from dumping huge chunks of debt, they actually knew enough to go to where their strength was for Buick. God knows it wasn't here in the US. Cooter got himself the best GM car in decades. That's a great thing.
But remember, cars were a forgotten segment for decades at GM U.S. pre-C11. The good ones GM produced globally had to be imported (sure they made some errors like the '01 BPA )
But they need to pray much, much harder to keep up with the comp because there are some hungry puppies out there that make better cars at the moment.
Regards,
OW