Suppose the UAW does cave in and brings labor costs more in line with the transplants. Suppose both the GM truck plant and Toyota truck plant pay $35/hr. But then, the Toyota plant says, "Let's cut labor costs even further and pay the workers only $15/hr!" Several things can happen:
GM and Toyota would have a race to the bottom to see who can pay their workers the least.
GM plant will go on strike.
GM will offshore its production.
Toyota workers will get upset and bring in the UAW.
Toyota will threaten the workers to bag the UAW or they'll close the plant and move across the border to Mexico.
agreed that there is no ability related reason that GM, in this case, shouldn't be able to build a 'Camry - except for one - NO MONEY. Toyota has just finished developing perhaps the finest V6 engine available, continues to lead in hybrid technology, can afford to pay for state of the art production and quality control procedures, and is, obviously not constrained by outrageous labor costs. Kind of a 'Catch 22', it takes money to make money as it would take money to develop and properly manufacture a competitive car. GM and Ford, in particular, don't.
Toyota has just finished developing perhaps the finest V6 engine available, continues to lead in hybrid technology, can afford to pay for state of the art production and quality control procedures, and is, obviously not constrained by outrageous labor costs.
There was an article posted earlier here by socala4 which mentioned the new V6. In developing this engine Toyota saved in excess of $1 Billion in cost on this one item alone. It cuts across all the trucks, SUV's, vans and auto's and it saves $1000 per vehicle on costs alone. Add that to the labor cost savings noted above and the 'struggle' of the detroiters gets worse and worse.
In reply to the other poster it's this state of the art R&D and technology which will keep volume and sales strong not driving the price of labor down.
The Toyota Retirees walk away with nothing but Cobra insurance and what little they have in there 401K They will be future medicare, and medicaid, prescrition drug buyers. :sick: What's going to happen when that money runs out ?
Buy buying a GM product those workers won't have medicare and medicaid for prescription coverage, thus keep alot of good people off the social programs in this country. Who's doing more for america ??? Toyota has no vested retirment funds for it's workers, and a wimpy $10K bonus isn't going to add alot to the workers bottom line. But I will say it's better than nothing.... :sick:.... This is why like cars, the styling of the medical beauracracy needs a new design and vision. A buy for american citizens approach before it blows up.
Suppose the UAW does cave in and brings labor costs more in line with the transplants. Suppose both the GM truck plant and Toyota truck plant pay $35/hr. But then, the Toyota plant says, "Let's cut labor costs even further and pay the workers only $15/hr!" Several things can happen:
The major difference is not merely a rate difference. It is a PRODUCTIVITY difference. Productivity in that it takes less hours of Toyota labor. Since they have the campus in San Antonio, the parts move less feet from suppliers onto the chassis as opposed to the Arlington plant where the parts have to be shipped in from Ohio Michigan, and all the Delphi plants in Mexico.
I would argue that id you gave both Toyota and GM engineers 100k of floor space, you would find that Totota could produce more in that space.
Also, you don't have all the overhead (extra positions, etc.) related to having a union plant.
Toyota's idea isn't new. Ford's Rouge plant more or less built cars starting with nothing but iron ore. I believe the place had its own steel and rolling mills on the premises. You could build a Model T or A starting from scratch.
Well Toyota did not go to Mexico, where labor is cheaper. They have been making cars in USA, Japan and elsewhere and paying a wage which seems to appeal to a lot of workers. If the fair wage in America for an assembly job is $15 an hour, then they may pay that. If it takes $35 an hour to get labor with skills to build a car, they will pay that amount. That is how the free markets go. The pay for someone selling in a retail store may be $8 an hour, while a plumber may cost you $60 an hour. That is the way labor market works.
If GM or Ford paid $100 an hour, or $150 an hour for workers, I am sure they would be very happy, at least for a couple months. The cars won't sell do to the higher price, and less content, and company folds. Now you have zero income. What was won there? GM and Ford need new cars, new engines, and some fresh styles. Those things come at a cost. If they pinch pennies on development, then the future is quite bleak.
Looks to me that it is GM and Ford building plants in Mexico and Canada. The car industry is global however, so distribution of plants around the World is logical. And all countries need some industrial base for employment. Let's hope they do include USA, as well as, Canada, Mexico, France, Germany, China, England, and the rest of the World. -Loren
"Well Toyota did not go to Mexico, where labor is cheaper."
Well, to be completely fair, Toyota DOES have a Tacoma plant in Tijuana (with a capacity of 30k trucks a year and 180k truck beds a year - they also supply Tacoma truck beds to the NUMMI plant in California).
Wonder why Mr Fox hasn't been able to get more industry going in Mexico. With all the product produced in China and shipped across the sea, you wonder why more manufacturing has not been built in Mexico.
Wonder why Mr Fox hasn't been able to get more industry going in Mexico. With all the product produced in China and shipped across the sea, you wonder why more manufacturing has not been built in Mexico
Have you been in Reynosa, Mexicali, Monterrey, Ciudad Juarez, Saltillo recently? I would say that they are growing 8-10% PER YEAR in each of those cities mostly due to the auto industry.
The only city that I have been in recently that is in decline is Nuevo Laredo which is the scene of a massive drug war (and a real lack of local leadership).
In have been in Mexico several times in the past year after a ten year absence and i am impressed with the infrastructure improvements that have been made.
China is cheaper labor wise and more suited for textiles - many that were formerly produced in Mexico - BUT the supply line and logistics can be very challenging.
Well that is good news about some gains in Mexico. So Mexico is improving. The economy in Canada is improving too, I take it? USA is said to be doing well, but I have my doubts. Spending, and more spending on things which seem to be good money chasing bad, is running up ever increasing debt. Oh well, it is all but funny money anyway. -loren
To add to your point, they (Toyota and Honda) also are building Camcords and other cars in China. I'm really suprised this wasn't mentioned. :surprise:
You are amazing posting that $81.18 hawg-wash figure without getting accurate facts. My pops makes $26 an hour and there is no way his benefits add up to $55 dollars an hour :confuse: The fact remains is GM had pension obligations they agreed to and if they would of invested the money many years ago like General Electric, they would also have a $30 Billion dollar pension fund that's self sufficent like GE, leaving no legacy costs for today. This fund provides retirement for all of GE's U.S. employees. GM had the money many years ago to fund the pensions in the golden years, but decides to blow money on gamble projects and loss enough money over the years to easily fund there obligation.
So it's the workers fault the plastic in the vehicle might not be as high of a grade as Toyota's ? I suppose it's the UAW's fault for the design of the Aztek, Catera, Vibe, Alero, Cutlass, to ? :confuse: I didn't know the UAW workers baught the plasticky material from Johnson Controls to build dashes and interior trim parts ?
It's not GM's previous mangement that destroyed General Motors ????? I'm not going to say the UAW is without fault. You however gave GM management a free pass. Sure the UAW is going to get a good piece of the pie when the CEO's and board of executives are taking Multi-Million dollar cuts of the pie each year and million dollar retirements. Nothing is said about that when all is well. As soon as someone at the top doesn't do there job, people cry foul on the union for making a $50-60K a year. :confuse: You can be a CEO for one year and write your golden parachute as soon as your fired or leave. However this is okay, because he went to Yale :confuse:
Mexico's avg labor cost per hour is $2 dollars and change per hr. China is around $0.60 per hour and the employees usually don't quit. That's why they go to China.
recently had the experience of dealing with a union construction project in the Chicago area - as an out-of-state subcontractor and, of course, had to use and pay union labor. The bottom line - it cost me right at twice as much to get anything done as it would have about anywhere else in the country on a non-union basis. I suspect the WSJ's $81 to $35 comparison may be pretty close. But, also keep in mind that wage rates, particulary non-union ones, are relative to the cost of living in that area. San Antonio, Texas happens to be a very inexpensive place to live -new homes in good neighborhoods sell for well under $100 a square foot, and many of the other staples are cheaper. So having a $50-60k job (or two if the wife works) in Texas and several other 'southern' states - is plenty for that couple that works in that Toyota plant, for example. Put that same wage in California (the land of 5 figure house notes) and that same combined $100k income might put you in a studio apartment. The point: the WSJ is slanting its take on this just a bit - sure it costs GM/Ford/Chrysler more in dealing with UAW contracts in Michigan- but, the fact is that labor will normally cost more in the northern states (or anywhere that the cost of living is higher) than it does in the southern ones. It is a worst case vs. best case scenario and not exactly fair - if a non-union Toyota plant was ever allowed to open in Detroit, Toyota would not have the $35/hour employees that it has in Texas.
Wages and benefits cost GM around $65 an hour, not $81 according to Wagoner and Miller. We all should appreciate that because you won't have your tax dollars going to supplement healthcare for my family. A few less folks off the social programs of this country. GM should get tax breaks for supporting my family and other retirees. It's not fair that Toyota can make Billions and not take care of it's employees during retirement who helped build Toyota into a empire.
You seem to be implying that an employer will pay more just because the housing costs are higher in one area relative to another. Wow. That almost implies that a corporation or employer is a courteous, considerate entity. My observations are that this implication is completely incorrect. Employees who work in San Francisco or New York City make within 15 % of the salary as those in Shreveport, LA or Tuscaloosa, MS, although the housing costs might vary by a factor of 3. It is the employee who must sacrifice his/her standard of living for the "privilege" of living in New York or San Francisco. The only time an employer pays more is when the area is very undesirable and bait is needed to lure the employee to the undesirable location. Basically, the employer knows that (particularly young) people will flock to Chicago, San Francisco, NY, etc due to the perceived "action" and that the employer will have access to labor regardless of the pay rate.
points out an 'entitlement' attitude that many of us Americans are developing and the unions foster. Who ever said that GM is supposed to take of employees for life. This type of thing is not available to the bulk of the American workforce, but, the auto assembly line work is 'entitled' to it? For the most of us - $1500.00/month from SS (if it hasn't gone under) plus whatever we manage to put away on our own - but we take care of ourselves in retirement. Read somewhere that Toyota does bonus employees based on co. performance - so perhaps if those employess weren't blowing the bonuses on plasma TV sets and putting the money in their IRA?
this is a fact - wage rates are largely determined by the cost of living, as any economist will tell you - and even more so in other countries. example - my son-in-law is offered a job in S Fran for 120K, my daughter a teacher (in the South) for $40k. My daughter calls me all excited that her husband has this job offer for about 50% more than he is paid where they live and that school teachers start at $60k in Calif. (also about 50% more). Her excitement quicky faded, however, when she found out that her $150k 2000sf house she owns would be right at a million in the SF area. The difference a $1200.00 house note versus 8 or 9k. So they make an extra $60 grand gross but have an extra $70 grand NET of expenses if they wish to maintain a similar standard of living. And if the corporations didn't adjust wages/salaries correspondent to maintaining levels of living standards they could never get anybody to live in those areas where that number is high - the 'worker' couldn't afford to!
Well with the current wages and benefits offered today by employers were better, your philosphy would work. Most people have 2 choices today. (A) Pray Social Security will be enough, or (B) Pray the Vegas Retirement funds pays off enough to retire before one is dead.
Just because most americans have been suckered into these type of non-guaranteed big return retirements, doesn't make it right. CEO's of big company's most of which never founded the company can pay themselves million dollar retirments for serving a few years, but it's unethical for your average workers with longevity to ask something for years of service at that same Multi-Billion dollar company. I guess I'm the only one that see's something wrong with this picture. :confuse:
didn't say anything about ethics - but GM is certainly amulti-billion co. and certainly losing multiple billions. Do you really think that of the many unions that GM has to deal with - that any of them is going to agree to wage cuts or, for that matter, give anything back at all in consideration of GM almost bankrupting itself keeping these pension funds going? Employer/employee relationships ought to go in both directions.
Given the choice between an unenforceable promise of some benefit thirty years down the road from a company that may not even exist then and cash in hand today, I'll take the money. That way some dipwad in Accounting won't decide it's a good idea to empty the company's coffers on a deal with Fiat; whereas if I blow my extra pennies on plasma TVs and a Cadillac CTS-V, I'll have no one to blame but myself.
That's interesting, however, that is not what I observed in the engineering field. I believe the only way to truly compare is to look at entry level jobs (to negate performance and experience based raises) in the exact same field. Of the 50 or so chemical engineers that I heard from after graduation, the starting salaries were as mentioned earlier (within 15 % regardless of whether it was NY, SF or Jabib). It is fantasy to think that a line McDonalds worker is pulling in $100,000 a year in Honolulu because the housing price differential between Honolulu and Paducah, Kentucy is 10.
and right you are - if I have the choice and am still stupid enough to live form paycheck to paycheck, than I should expect to pay for it later in life. Co. funded retirement funds/pension plans are, incidentally, controlled by law. If GM goes out of business tomorrow, the established pensions not effected.
If you handle your money properly and don't go in expensive vacation trips all over the damn place you can save lots of money, If you invest the money properly then you will have even more. Someone I know was in the military for over 20 years and worked another job for 10 years the last job he bought a couple oil company stocks every month,his stocks are now worth over $675k, his military retirement is about $1,100 a month the retirment from the company he worked for is about $3k per month and the dividends from his stocks are about $3k a month, he never work for the union. His home is paid for , his vehicles are paid for. His highest pay was $21 per hour. I look at what he has done and it shows to me that many of the excuses the the UAW used for increased pay/benifits are just that excuses to grab more money. The quality of work i have seen in GM vehicles shows me that they are not worth what they get paid, take a good look at a dozen gm vehicles and you will find signs of shoddy work, have seen new vehicles with loose head bolts, New ford with warped heads because the head bolts where not torqued properly, ford dealer here has had problems with brand new cars/trucks, have seen them towing a new truck back when they took it out with a customer for a test drive, I doubt that person bought a ford after that. .
The whole 'where the profits go' argument....again.
It is a bit sad to see this whole thing go round and round, when the facts are easily found here and through a bit of research:
-The proportion of the value of US/ Canadian parts content, as well as the point of assembly and place of manufacturer of the is provided as a matter of law on the window sticker. Easy info to get.
-Ditto, the major automakers except for BMW are public companies, so their financial statements are available online, free of charge. Again, easy info to get.
Of course, when discussing "profits", GM has no profits, so those aren't relevant. Large automakers such as Toyota and Honda typically run profit margins somewhere in the range of 10%, which means 90% of what they take in goes out in the form of expenses.
A recent Wall Street Journal article indicated that average US/ Canadian content for Ford and GM were about 80%, while those for Toyota and Honda were about 70%. The current trend includes the Big 2.5 decreasing US/ Canadian content, while the "imports" are increasing it. Given current trends, the "imports" may very well have more domestic content than will the Big 2.5 within a few years' time.
Add to this that investments in plant and equipment are not booked as "expenses" (asset purchases go onto the balance sheet, but not the income statement.) So the income statement actually understates the amount of money going back into the US from the transplants, as the factories they build are not included.
Then add to this that US-based suppliers actually prefer working with the transplants, because they tend to focus on relationships, rather than price, which helps their businesses. So not only do they provide better products to the consumer, but higher profits to other US companies. Is it at all surprising that they thrive while the "domestics" lose business?
It is fantasy to think that a line McDonalds worker is pulling in $100,000 a year in Honolulu of course it is - and nor would that line worker at McD be able to afford a house in any other parts of the country either. Contend that if the McD line worker is making $10/hour in Texas, he is probably worth a good $15 in Hawaii. But, if he/she is a UAW line worker at GM taking home maybe $40. a house in the Detroit area is possible. And is that line worker at GM at maybe $40/hour take home really doing anything that is more difficult or requires any more education/training than that McD line employee who is maybe taking home $10 or $15 without the bennies? As far as, McD in Honolulu, I would guess that $100 grand is not a whole lot more that subsistence wages - and folks that do pursue that as a career (management) do make that kind of money, otherwise there would be no reason to do it - there is only so much one can sacrifice for the weather!
Build a quality car/truck that is reliable that they are willing to stand behind with a long warranty that covers everything without the fine print that lets them weasle out of honoring the warranty. it should also get at least 30mpg for the larger cars and 25mpg on the trucks, the economy cars should get at least 40 mpg, they should all go at least 100k miles without any work besides oil/filter changes and front brakes at about 50k to 80k miles. trim should all stay attacked and not crack and fall off, no rust should be visable before 100k miles and they should sell for nothing over $30k dollars fully loaded. the company should not plan to make lots of money selling replacement parts like they do now, the companies goal should be to make a vehicle so good that everyone will want to by them based on QUALITY not some hyped up comercials bragging about how cool the product is.(the aztec is an example of marketing pushing a bad product.) I had a 1980 Subaru 4x4 wagon that got 30mpg with a carburated 1.8Liter engine that lasted over 300k miles so companies should have no excuse for poor mpg on some of these new cars.
The FWD GM cars seem to get in the range of 28MPG to 31MPG on the freeway. Yes, the need a better warranty. The quality near term to three years, appears to be OK at GM. How the new cars look, drive and feel after more than three years is anyone's guess. In the past, it was not so stellar. Without a longer warranty, perhaps they aren't so sure.
Perhaps, GM better reliability / quality is here now. The same can be said for say the Hyundai line. Difference? The warranty offered is the difference. And the reviews seem to indicate that they really like the new offering from Hyundai. A little cooler response on the GM product. One reason could be that the product appears to be older stuff with a new beauty skin atop. On the positive side, the old stuff is a known quality, like the old 3.8 OHV engine. So you know what you are getting is well tested. The old Monte or Impala may be a fairly safe bet, though the warranty doesn't give one the same assurance. -Loren
I wish I could confidentally purchase an American car. I used to have a Chrysler and due to reliability problems, I bought a Toyota - and THEY ALWAYS WORK. With all the reviews about GMC's and Ford's being unrefined, in-efficient, and having poor quality, I will not purchase an American car. I need to know that I have a quality car that will start, and so I will never have to see a dealer.
I was looking at the new Impala. I like the design of it, and they are finally using higher quality interior plastics. But, reviews still say it has a rough V-6, and still isn't matching Honda and Toyota's products.
American cars are actually expensive, in my opinion. It's probably due to a bad flowing production system - based on the book "The Toyota Way" by Prof. Lieker.
So straight forward, I would not purchase an American car as of now, although I wish I could because I love America, but not the cars.
You could always buy a year old Impala for say $15K and do your own evaluation over time. The V6 offering from GM may not be as smooth, but they may prove to last as long. And the repair bills will be less. At $25K or more for Accords, Honda is getting a bit greedy. I would possibly consider the i4 with the value package for say $20K. A Toyota CE i4 is around $20K. The Impala V6 is expensive due to resale value, but should make a good used car buy in years one to two of age. I had good luck with the gas mileage on GM cars. But unfortunately my timing of buying them in the 70's - early 90's yielded less than stellar products owned.
Today, as in 2000's thing have improved. Particularly since 2002. But no, I sadly can not guarantee that a GM car which is five to ten years old is as trouble free as a Toyota or Honda. The longer term stats which Consumer Reports have don't indicate a long term reliability with GM. This does not mean it is not possible that the Impala will be as good as say a Camry. Just no way of telling. If you invest some ten thousand less for the Impala used, you will have less to lose -- are you a betting person? As for like or dislike of the engine or ride, just do your own test drive. The professional reviews are a good starting point, but take it the rest of the way and try the car yourself. For people like you an I which are still a little leery and reluctant to jump in on new cars, it would help if GM had a 5 year bumper to bumper warranty. Good Luck! - Loren
I hear places like San Francisco go wanting for teachers as nobody could survive on a teacher's salary in that region. I also heard such regions are considering setting aside developments derisively known as "teachers' ghettos" or housing that is low-cost enough for one to afford on a teacher's salary.
Most teachers I see around here on the Central Coast seem to be doing well. Nice cars, homes and such. Places like S.F. and Santa Barbara are very expensive for homes, so people commute from other areas. Personally, I find housing prices ridiculous here in California. See absolutely no reason to pay the big bucks to live in S.F. - to each his or her own.
In my town they are building for college professors. Nice perk I think. I mean really, are they underpaid? And in Santa Barbara they are going to build for fire and police service people due to a lack of local manpower if needed during say an earthquake. As it is they come from say Lompoc, which is miles away, as a commute to work. They want more personnel to have homes within the city.
Now, back to car talk. College professors and students seem to be driving foreign cars. I don't mean the cheap ones. They both seem to be doing better than my era of 60's to early 70's when high school and college kids and teachers drove used and sometimes very used cars. -Loren
I think it's more a sign of looser credit than prosperity. Nobody would risk loaning money to a college student in the early 1980s to buy a new car. I made do with my 1968 Buick Special Deluxe for which I paid cash. There also weren't banks offering students credit cards back then so I made do with whatever cash I had on hand. I hear a lot of young people are getting into big credit card debt these days Many students have committed suicide over credit card debt.
Skylark? Family had an Olds Cutlass ( 442 engine without the 4 barrel carb. I think ). I kinda liked the style. Really like the '72 Olds Cutlass. Buicks were kinda cool too. Problem for Buick, Ponti, and Olds is that they were already making them look so much the same. Did you have the V8? Overheating problems on hot days in traffic or mountain climbing? Oh the bad old days of carburetors and high altitude runs. We live at sea level. Car did not like the tuned settings of the Sierras, or Rockies. In those years, the GM was the preferred cars for reliability. In 1968 though, you could also buy a neat little Datsun 510 which had lots of the goodies which could be found on pricier cars, like the BMW. Rust was not an immediate problem here in CA. I assume the cars lasted one winter in snow country. What use to worry me about my '81 510 was that it was still tinny. Paper thin steel. Great, and I mean great smooth little engine though. Zero problems. Replaced a headlight, and 23 cent plastic part and that was it in about 2 1/2 years I owned the used car. Not much power though, and it was thin steel, so I decided to sell it. Not my best plan in life, as next car was American and thus, well ya know. -Loren
also tend to be more likely to help out their little precious with buying a new(er) car than they did back in the day? When I was in high school and college (late 80's/early 90's) most of the kids drove either used cars that were 7-10 years old or older, which meant there were a lot of big battlecruisers on campus back then, or if they had something new it was some stripper like a Dodge Colt or Mercury Lynx with a stick and no a/c.
There was no way in hell my Mom would have co-signed on a new car with me, but she did buy a new '86 Monte Carlo at the end of the model year and held on to her '80 Malibu, in preparation for me getting my license. She gave me the car, but I had to get an insurance policy in my own name. Now my Grandmom and Granddad would have been more than willing to help me get a new car, but I didn't want to hit them up for it. Plus, I really didn't want a new car. In 1986-87 it still seemed like Detroit was going downhill, as their substantial RWD models kept thinning out, being replaced by FWD models that weren't nearly as durable, or even interesting to me.
Well go back another decade, and I bought my own bikes, motorcycles, then cars. Yeah, seems like kids had jobs after school and during the summers. First job was a paper route when I was 10. Hey, that 75 cents a day was something. Save and buy your Schwinn or whatever ya wanted. Ya know the bikes were expensive, but solid built, and of course made in America. Later on I had others though which were not. And then the motorcycle was a Honda (actually a 70cc and a 100cc). Had a used Mustang 1965... yes, I should have kept that one. Well unless rear ended and slashed with gas, which would ruin the whole experience. Did not hear of modifying those until recently. The drum brakes were not too bad. Just some respect for rain and not over warming them is required. First new car, Opel Manta Rallye. Paid cash - all of $3,150 out the door new in 1973. Should have saved more an gotten the Z. Oh well. -Loren
Well someone I know just got a pontiac G6, both side mirror glass fell out on the way home today, car didn't even make it to his house from the dealer before something fell off. I'm really doing a "I told you so" to him, he had traded in his limited edition grand prix for it because it also had parts falling off and was some shade of maroon that looked terrible when any dust or dirt got on it.
The Special Deluxe is the Skylark's plainer sister. Mine had a 350 V-8 with 2 bbl carb giving a decent 230 hp. The car climbed hills effortlessly. I never experienced any overheating issues. I took the car to NE Pennsylvania, a rather mountainous region, a lot. I eventually gave the car to my brother when I bought a used 1979 Buick Park Avenue. He kept it through 1992.
Well blame the design of the product, not the workers. They build the products they way they are told, and if a engineer cuts corners on costs, you need to take up your beef with the engineer and not the UAW. Look at the Buick Lucerne, did the UAW cut corners in that vehicle ? They built a car, that is simply better engineered, and most of those same workers built the crap. You need to workon a assembly line for a week or 2 and see how the different specs, process's for each company varies. I built car parts for all of them at Johnson Controls.
I was talking average mpg not highway. My dad right now has a 2002 dodge dakota with 42k miles and the engine and tranny already had to be rebuilt, Well he had it done at a specialty shop and had the tranny re geared, the truck now gets 32mpg on the highway with the 4 cylinder engine, and only 20mpg in town, with the current gear ratios he can't tow anything but the 4 cylinder engine really wasn't up to towing anything to begin with.
Most teachers here need to be fired, they had the teachers take the exit exam all students have to take to pass, 65% of the students failed and 80% of the teachers failed, some teachers here make over $100k a year, starting is around $45k per year and average is $70k per year + loads of benefits. When you figure how long they work they make super money, there is nothing stopping them from getting job during the summer, everyone else works 12 months a year.
ah, the German Opels - particulary the 1900 cc Mantas and GTs- wonderful cars ahead of their time - and great for autocross! Distributed by Buick, and even 30+ years ago a superior car to anything on the lot that did say Buick on it! My how far we haven't come!?
Comments
GM and Toyota would have a race to the bottom to see who can pay their workers the least.
GM plant will go on strike.
GM will offshore its production.
Toyota workers will get upset and bring in the UAW.
Toyota will threaten the workers to bag the UAW or they'll close the plant and move across the border to Mexico.
Both GM and Toyota workers become unemployed.
There was an article posted earlier here by socala4 which mentioned the new V6. In developing this engine Toyota saved in excess of $1 Billion in cost on this one item alone. It cuts across all the trucks, SUV's, vans and auto's and it saves $1000 per vehicle on costs alone. Add that to the labor cost savings noted above and the 'struggle' of the detroiters gets worse and worse.
In reply to the other poster it's this state of the art R&D and technology which will keep volume and sales strong not driving the price of labor down.
30% doesn't really sound like much as far as dominance unless it's a baseball Batting average.
Buy buying a GM product those workers won't have medicare and medicaid for prescription coverage, thus keep alot of good people off the social programs in this country. Who's doing more for america ??? Toyota has no vested retirment funds for it's workers, and a wimpy $10K bonus isn't going to add alot to the workers bottom line. But I will say it's better than nothing.... :sick:.... This is why like cars, the styling of the medical beauracracy needs a new design and vision. A buy for american citizens approach before it blows up.
Rocky
The major difference is not merely a rate difference. It is a PRODUCTIVITY difference. Productivity in that it takes less hours of Toyota labor. Since they have the campus in San Antonio, the parts move less feet from suppliers onto the chassis as opposed to the Arlington plant where the parts have to be shipped in from Ohio Michigan, and all the Delphi plants in Mexico.
I would argue that id you gave both Toyota and GM engineers 100k of floor space, you would find that Totota could produce more in that space.
Also, you don't have all the overhead (extra positions, etc.) related to having a union plant.
They have been making cars in USA, Japan and elsewhere and paying a wage which seems to appeal to a lot of workers. If the fair wage in America for an assembly job is $15 an hour, then they may pay that. If it takes $35 an hour to get labor with skills to build a car, they will pay that amount. That is how the free markets go. The pay for someone selling in a retail store may be $8 an hour, while a plumber may cost you $60 an hour. That is the way labor market works.
If GM or Ford paid $100 an hour, or $150 an hour for workers, I am sure they would be very happy, at least for a couple months. The cars won't sell do to the higher price, and less content, and company folds. Now you have zero income. What was won there? GM and Ford need new cars, new engines, and some fresh styles. Those things come at a cost. If they pinch pennies on development, then the future is quite bleak.
Looks to me that it is GM and Ford building plants in Mexico and Canada. The car industry is global however, so distribution of plants around the World is logical. And all countries need some industrial base for employment. Let's hope they do include USA, as well as, Canada, Mexico, France, Germany, China, England, and the rest of the World.
-Loren
Well, to be completely fair, Toyota DOES have a Tacoma plant in Tijuana (with a capacity of 30k trucks a year and 180k truck beds a year - they also supply Tacoma truck beds to the NUMMI plant in California).
Otherwise, I'm with you.....
Wonder why Mr Fox hasn't been able to get more industry going in Mexico. With all the product produced in China and shipped across the sea, you wonder why more manufacturing has not been built in Mexico.
-loren
Have you been in Reynosa, Mexicali, Monterrey, Ciudad Juarez, Saltillo recently? I would say that they are growing 8-10% PER YEAR in each of those cities mostly due to the auto industry.
The only city that I have been in recently that is in decline is Nuevo Laredo which is the scene of a massive drug war (and a real lack of local leadership).
In have been in Mexico several times in the past year after a ten year absence and i am impressed with the infrastructure improvements that have been made.
China is cheaper labor wise and more suited for textiles - many that were formerly produced in Mexico - BUT the supply line and logistics can be very challenging.
-loren
Rocky
So it's the workers fault the plastic in the vehicle might not be as high of a grade as Toyota's ? I suppose it's the UAW's fault for the design of the Aztek, Catera, Vibe, Alero, Cutlass, to ? :confuse: I didn't know the UAW workers baught the plasticky material from Johnson Controls to build dashes and interior trim parts ?
It's not GM's previous mangement that destroyed General Motors ????? I'm not going to say the UAW is without fault. You however gave GM management a free pass. Sure the UAW is going to get a good piece of the pie when the CEO's and board of executives are taking Multi-Million dollar cuts of the pie each year and million dollar retirements. Nothing is said about that when all is well. As soon as someone at the top doesn't do there job, people cry foul on the union for making a $50-60K a year. :confuse: You can be a CEO for one year and write your golden parachute as soon as your fired or leave. However this is okay, because he went to Yale
I can say no more.....
Rocky
Rocky
Rocky
But, also keep in mind that wage rates, particulary non-union ones, are relative to the cost of living in that area. San Antonio, Texas happens to be a very inexpensive place to live -new homes in good neighborhoods sell for well under $100 a square foot, and many of the other staples are cheaper. So having a $50-60k job (or two if the wife works) in Texas and several other 'southern' states - is plenty for that couple that works in that Toyota plant, for example. Put that same wage in California (the land of 5 figure house notes) and that same combined $100k income might put you in a studio apartment.
The point: the WSJ is slanting its take on this just a bit - sure it costs GM/Ford/Chrysler more in dealing with UAW contracts in Michigan- but, the fact is that labor will normally cost more in the northern states (or anywhere that the cost of living is higher) than it does in the southern ones. It is a worst case vs. best case scenario and not exactly fair - if a non-union Toyota plant was ever allowed to open in Detroit, Toyota would not have the $35/hour employees that it has in Texas.
Rocky
Rocky
example - my son-in-law is offered a job in S Fran for 120K, my daughter a teacher (in the South) for $40k.
My daughter calls me all excited that her husband has this job offer for about 50% more than he is paid where they live and that school teachers start at $60k in Calif. (also about 50% more). Her excitement quicky faded, however, when she found out that her $150k 2000sf house she owns would be right at a million in the SF area. The difference a $1200.00 house note versus 8 or 9k. So they make an extra $60 grand gross but have an extra $70 grand NET of expenses if they wish to maintain a similar standard of living.
And if the corporations didn't adjust wages/salaries correspondent to maintaining levels of living standards they could never get anybody to live in those areas where that number is high - the 'worker' couldn't afford to!
Just because most americans have been suckered into these type of non-guaranteed big return retirements, doesn't make it right. CEO's of big company's most of which never founded the company can pay themselves million dollar retirments for serving a few years, but it's unethical for your average workers with longevity to ask something for years of service at that same Multi-Billion dollar company. I guess I'm the only one that see's something wrong with this picture. :confuse:
Rocky
Co. funded retirement funds/pension plans are, incidentally, controlled by law. If GM goes out of business tomorrow, the established pensions not effected.
Someone I know was in the military for over 20 years and worked another job for 10 years the last job he bought a couple oil company stocks every month,his stocks are now worth over $675k, his military retirement is about $1,100 a month the retirment from the company he worked for is about $3k per month and the dividends from his stocks are about $3k a month, he never work for the union.
His home is paid for , his vehicles are paid for.
His highest pay was $21 per hour.
I look at what he has done and it shows to me that many of the excuses the the UAW used for increased pay/benifits are just that excuses to grab more money.
The quality of work i have seen in GM vehicles shows me that they are not worth what they get paid, take a good look at a dozen gm vehicles and you will find signs of shoddy work, have seen new vehicles with loose head bolts, New ford with warped heads because the head bolts where not torqued properly, ford dealer here has had problems with brand new cars/trucks, have seen them towing a new truck back when they took it out with a customer for a test drive, I doubt that person bought a ford after that.
.
It is a bit sad to see this whole thing go round and round, when the facts are easily found here and through a bit of research:
-The proportion of the value of US/ Canadian parts content, as well as the point of assembly and place of manufacturer of the is provided as a matter of law on the window sticker. Easy info to get.
-Ditto, the major automakers except for BMW are public companies, so their financial statements are available online, free of charge. Again, easy info to get.
Of course, when discussing "profits", GM has no profits, so those aren't relevant. Large automakers such as Toyota and Honda typically run profit margins somewhere in the range of 10%, which means 90% of what they take in goes out in the form of expenses.
A recent Wall Street Journal article indicated that average US/ Canadian content for Ford and GM were about 80%, while those for Toyota and Honda were about 70%. The current trend includes the Big 2.5 decreasing US/ Canadian content, while the "imports" are increasing it. Given current trends, the "imports" may very well have more domestic content than will the Big 2.5 within a few years' time.
Add to this that investments in plant and equipment are not booked as "expenses" (asset purchases go onto the balance sheet, but not the income statement.) So the income statement actually understates the amount of money going back into the US from the transplants, as the factories they build are not included.
Then add to this that US-based suppliers actually prefer working with the transplants, because they tend to focus on relationships, rather than price, which helps their businesses. So not only do they provide better products to the consumer, but higher profits to other US companies. Is it at all surprising that they thrive while the "domestics" lose business?
of course it is - and nor would that line worker at McD be able to afford a house in any other parts of the country either. Contend that if the McD line worker is making $10/hour in Texas, he is probably worth a good $15 in Hawaii. But, if he/she is a UAW line worker at GM taking home maybe $40. a house in the Detroit area is possible. And is that line worker at GM at maybe $40/hour take home really doing anything that is more difficult or requires any more education/training than that McD line employee who is maybe taking home $10 or $15 without the bennies?
As far as, McD in Honolulu, I would guess that $100 grand is not a whole lot more that subsistence wages - and folks that do pursue that as a career (management) do make that kind of money, otherwise there would be no reason to do it - there is only so much one can sacrifice for the weather!
it should also get at least 30mpg for the larger cars and 25mpg on the trucks, the economy cars should get at least 40 mpg, they should all go at least 100k miles without any work besides oil/filter changes and front brakes at about 50k to 80k miles.
trim should all stay attacked and not crack and fall off, no rust should be visable before 100k miles and they should sell for nothing over $30k dollars fully loaded.
the company should not plan to make lots of money selling replacement parts like they do now, the companies goal should be to make a vehicle so good that everyone will want to by them based on QUALITY not some hyped up comercials bragging about how cool the product is.(the aztec is an example of marketing pushing a bad product.)
I had a 1980 Subaru 4x4 wagon that got 30mpg with a carburated 1.8Liter engine that lasted over 300k miles so companies should have no excuse for poor mpg on some of these new cars.
The quality near term to three years, appears to be OK at GM. How the new cars look, drive and feel after more than three years is anyone's guess. In the past, it was not so stellar. Without a longer warranty, perhaps they aren't so sure.
Perhaps, GM better reliability / quality is here now. The same can be said for say the Hyundai line. Difference? The warranty offered is the difference. And the reviews seem to indicate that they really like the new offering from Hyundai. A little cooler response on the GM product. One reason could be that the product appears to be older stuff with a new beauty skin atop. On the positive side, the old stuff is a known quality, like the old 3.8 OHV engine. So you know what you are getting is well tested. The old Monte or Impala may be a fairly safe bet, though the warranty doesn't give one the same assurance.
-Loren
I was looking at the new Impala. I like the design of it, and they are finally using higher quality interior plastics.
American cars are actually expensive, in my opinion. It's probably due to a bad flowing production system - based on the book "The Toyota Way" by Prof. Lieker.
So straight forward, I would not purchase an American car as of now, although I wish I could because I love America, but not the cars.
Today, as in 2000's thing have improved. Particularly since 2002. But no, I sadly can not guarantee that a GM car which is five to ten years old is as trouble free as a Toyota or Honda. The longer term stats which Consumer Reports have don't indicate a long term reliability with GM. This does not mean it is not possible that the Impala will be as good as say a Camry. Just no way of telling. If you invest some ten thousand less for the Impala used, you will have less to lose -- are you a betting person? As for like or dislike of the engine or ride, just do your own test drive. The professional reviews are a good starting point, but take it the rest of the way and try the car yourself. For people like you an I which are still a little leery and reluctant to jump in on new cars, it would help if GM had a 5 year bumper to bumper warranty.
Good Luck! - Loren
In my town they are building for college professors. Nice perk I think. I mean really, are they underpaid? And in Santa Barbara they are going to build for fire and police service people due to a lack of local manpower if needed during say an earthquake. As it is they come from say Lompoc, which is miles away, as a commute to work. They want more personnel to have homes within the city.
Now, back to car talk. College professors and students seem to be driving foreign cars. I don't mean the cheap ones. They both seem to be doing better than my era of 60's to early 70's when high school and college kids and teachers drove used and sometimes very used cars.
-Loren
-Loren
There was no way in hell my Mom would have co-signed on a new car with me, but she did buy a new '86 Monte Carlo at the end of the model year and held on to her '80 Malibu, in preparation for me getting my license. She gave me the car, but I had to get an insurance policy in my own name. Now my Grandmom and Granddad would have been more than willing to help me get a new car, but I didn't want to hit them up for it. Plus, I really didn't want a new car. In 1986-87 it still seemed like Detroit was going downhill, as their substantial RWD models kept thinning out, being replaced by FWD models that weren't nearly as durable, or even interesting to me.
Rocky
Rocky
My dad right now has a 2002 dodge dakota with 42k miles and the engine and tranny already had to be rebuilt,
Well he had it done at a specialty shop and had the tranny re geared, the truck now gets 32mpg on the highway with the 4 cylinder engine, and only 20mpg in town, with the current gear ratios he can't tow anything but the 4 cylinder engine really wasn't up to towing anything to begin with.
When you figure how long they work they make super money, there is nothing stopping them from getting job during the summer, everyone else works 12 months a year.