It seems to me that the Buy American argument is just about dead when it comes to cars. Auto markets have simply become too globalized for this distinction to have much meaning when discussing those cars that are assembled in the US.
I look at this way -- Toyota and Honda generate US profits, on which they pay taxes, while GM generates losses that will be used as tax shelter for years to come. Toyota will have paid millions to the IRS before GM coughs up dime one to Uncle Sam, and will put those profits into US facilities while GM is busy shipping jobs abroad. If there is a company that is good for American taxpayers, auto parts suppliers and auto workers for years to come, it is going to be Toyota, not GM.
and loved them for 13 years (1985-1998), and bashed the US automakers for making junk (management or union, who cares if the product is crap?) I always understood the long term effect of buying imports, but I was caught in a dilemma...
If I bought the junk made in the US (and, for two decades, it was junk), I was only perpetuating union problems, poor management, and arrogant union workers showing up for work drunk...the only way to teach the Big 3 a lesson was to have them watch their market share deteriorate...then like a drug addict going cold turkey, they would (hopefully) impose draconian measures, close plants, eliminate 1000s of workers until the union and the management realized they were in trouble and that the US consumer was made and was not going to take it anymore...THERE WAS NO OTHER WAY TO FORCE CHANGE ON THE BIG 3, AND YOU ARE FINALLY SEEING IT SHOW UP TODAY, AND THEY ARE STILL WAITING 2 YEARS TO CLOSE PLANTS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CLOSED 5-10 YEARS AGO...
The flip side of buying Honda was that the profits were being sent to Japan, money that could have stayed here in the US...taken to an extreme, if the Big 3 went under, we would have lost an entire industry that employs hundreds of 1000s of folks in the US...and I do not want to see that happen...
But, can I afford to spend $20K-30K on a car that I thought was junk, just to keep industry in the US???...no...so, after 13 years, I tried to see if my "boycott" had any effect, and I must say that it did...altho my 98 Regal had a poor AC system, and ignition problems, my 2000 Intrepid was a good car, and my 2004 Crown Vic and 2004 Dodge Ram are good vehicles (so far, knock on wood)...
I will still consider imports (the 2007 Santa Fe, for one), but and I realize that many "imports" are now made right here by American (non unionized) labor, so while the net profit may go overseas, 1000s of American make their livlihood making these "imports", along with the companies that service the auto plants...
Ford and GM are finally dumping 1000s of unneeded workers, eliminating fake jobs that were only created by union featherbedding, and really getting lean and mean like they preached back in the 1980s...
By cutting back to half their size, they will have capacity more like their market share...in the next decade or so, any increased capacity will come from actually increasing their market share by making better products...
What they are going thru now is what they should have gone thru 20 years ago, but they did not realize that imports were here to stay...
While there may be pain in capitalism, everybody is better in the long run as the weak are eaten by the strong...
One last thought in this rant...if GM or Ford had actually folded, the land and the factories would remain, and some other capitalist like another Henry Ford would have risen from the ashes and formed another car company, making sure to avoid the (union) mistakes of the Big 3...there would have been a dealer network and an entire infrastructure for the company...
The ones who fear capitalism are the ones who fear change...
"Ford and GM are finally dumping 1000s of unneeded workers, eliminating fake jobs that were only created by union featherbedding, and really getting lean and mean like they preached back in the 1980s..."
GM still has a long way to go and their truck line-up is not going to be enough to save keep their present market share in the US. I agree Ford is getting better.
"What they are going thru now is what they should have gone thru 20 years ago, but they did not realize that imports were here to stay..."
Your statement is definately right on the mark that Ford is at least is doing what they should have done a while ago.
Finally, I will not be buying Domestics until they make a product I want. I"m not questioning the Domestics reliability just if the products fits what I am looking for. My parents have owned Domestics and have had for the most part good luck with them for the most part for 2 and a half decades. My parents had 2 bad domestics over the past 2 and a half decades but thats been it. I'm 26 years old so I will be making more car purchases...its the Domestics job to get my business. If the domestics can;t get my business that I'll have to continue buying imports(that I hope are at least made in the US) to keep our econmomy going.
every domestic vehicle I or my parents have had that was made after about 1972 has been unreliable and/or needing frequent work/repairs. Had a 1968 international harvester tractor, everything worked always started, got a 1979 case tractor needed frequent work, now have a 1995 yanmar no problems , but the tires have had to be replaced as they wore out. 1978 subaru GL sedan put 300,000 miles on it only work: oil changes every 3k miles, new front brake pads about every 80k miles rear brake shoes about every 100k miles, replaced the clutch at 175k miles. 1992 Ford Tempo GLS first month 5 sets of michelin tires went bad, dealer finally put BF goodrich tires on car. at 31k miles all rotors and drums replaced, intake manifold replaced, exhaust manifold replaced, entire exhaust system replaced, all 4 struts replaced, lower control arms replaced, tie rods replaced, (only item dealer warranted was the exhaust) every 20 to 30k miles tierods and control arms replaced, car used 1qt oil every 1k miles from day got new off of dealer lot, car sold at 80k miles. Other domestic cars had more problems than they should, the Ford was the worst the bad domestics ranged from a 1979 ford truck to the 1992 ford tempo, also had dodge, plymouth, pontiac, mitsubishi, suzuki,and Gm vehicles. I used to drive alot have put over 5,000 miles on a car in 4 days of driving.
if GM or Ford had actually folded, the land and the factories would remain, and some other capitalist like another Henry Ford would have risen from the ashes and formed another car company, making sure to avoid the (union) mistakes of the Big 3 Interesting thought - because then - Washington has to send the National Guard into Detroit to protect those 'scab' workers because it is at this point that the unions become really militant..
I have no opinion or care about GM or Ford. While the best vehicle I have had was a Chevy S10 truck (by far), I would agree that in general the Honda and Toyotas that I have owned were a little better than the other domestic vehicles I have owned. With the level of corruption in all areas now, it would not suprise me in the least to see that CR and others accept bribes to write favorable reports. I have become an entirely superficial shopper. I buy a car because of its looks.
After watching a preview for the movie "Who Killed the Electric Vehicle?" One can only question where the automobile industry would be today if: 1. the Three Mile Island incident had not happened (perhaps our domestic energy would be 80 % nuclear like France instead of 20 % nuclear with petroleum the bulk of the remainder). 2. GM did not scrap the electric vehicle. 3. the US government wasn't a corporate puppet and actually took measures to direct the country.
Unfortunately, the premise of the movie appears to appeal to the average Joe Moron in the US. Take a complex multifacted problem with hundreds of variables and narrow it down to one or several "bad guys" (Big Oil and GM).
I didn't really know where they came from till you asked and i looked it up, they come from Japan, they bring them in through Canada, case & John deer have done everything they can to stop them from being brought over, one I got had 100 hours on it been totally gone over repainted, had new back hoe and frontloader put on and bought it for $14,000 with 3 year warranty, can't touch a case or john deer for anything close to that price. Yanmar has an American division but they don't sell tractors. And funny thing is case and john deer work to prevent yanmar tractors from being brought into the US but yanmar makes many of thier parts.
An american car in my opinion is one that is made by a domestic buisness where the profits stay here. That car also featuring a large percentage of domestic car parts, and is assembled here in the states. The old arguement of a BMW SUV being as american as a Acura TL or a Toyota Camry, one should not just look at where the car is assembled but also look at just how many parts are made here. I have to disagree strongly with ya'll that say a Hyundai is just as american as a Cadillac or a Buick. A Buick Lucerne for example has 88% NA content and Chevy and GMC trucks are around 87-90% still domestic
I'm not appologizing for the past of the Big 3. My gawd they made some junk, but so did Toyota in the 70's. GM will rebound and if you've looked at the new launches, instead of burying your head in the past, you'd see that GM has more relavent products coming out and some that might exceed the competition. Ford, is making a comeback also but does have a few brand woes such as Mercury. Chrysler might be owned by Germany, but many of it's parts are sourced from american suppliers. GM OTOH is by quite a margin the most american brand overall one can buy and in my opinion has the most upside of the Big 3 because it's new products speak for themselves.
"An american car in my opinion is one that is made by a domestic buisness where the profits stay here."
No, they don't.
What does a company do with profits? Pay investors/stockowners perhaps? I wonder how many Americans have stock in Toyota/Honda? I wonder how many foreigners have stock in Ford/GM?
What else does a company do with profits? Invest those profits to expand their business perhaps? Which companies are expanding their businesses (plant construction/expansion, setting up supply chains, establishing design studios and R&D parks, etc.) in America? And which companies are closing America facilities while AT THE SAME TIME investing in FOREIGN countries?
The mailing address of the corporate HQ has very little to do with where the profits go. These companies are ALL Global Entities. They will invest their profits WHEREVER they believe they will net the company the best return. And it should be clear that over the last several years, the imports are investing MORE of their profits in the U.S. (plant construction/expansion, new design centers, new R&D centers, investment in American parts suppliers and ever increasing levels of Domestic content) while at the same time, the domestics are investing LESS of their profits in the U.S. (closing plants - including some highly efficient ones as you've noted, decreasing levels of domestic content, plant construction and market expansion beyond our borders).
I have to disagree strongly with ya'll that say a Hyundai is just as american as a Cadillac or a Buick. A Buick Lucerne for example has 88% NA content and Chevy and GMC trucks are around 87-90% still domestic
What part of that percentage comprises money spent in the United States, versus Canada or Mexico? If you want to support foreign laborers by buying a Lucerne or Suburban, that's your own business, but you do less for the U.S. economy than you would by supporting Alabamians.
Yes, they're US companies. And if this was still 1955 you guys would have a point. Because 50 years ago, the Domestic makes were built here, from American parts, using American labor, from good'ol American know-how. And the profits earned went right back to work here in America.
Ditto with the imports.
But in case you haven't checked a calender lately, it ain't 1955 anymore. These are all GLOBAL companies and the profits earned are reinvested ALL OVER THE PLACE. Simply stating that the profits earned by the domestics stay in America is wishful thinking. And out of date.
Too bad. If I had a time machine, I'd go back to 1955 and stay there. The way things are these days, I wish I were born fifty years earlier so I could be dead by now. So sad I had to grow up to see the deterioration of my country to the benefit of foreign powers.
Too bad. If I had a time machine, I'd go back to 1955 and stay there. The way things are these days, I wish I were born fifty years earlier so I could be dead by now.
Don't think that most folks want 1955 American (or other) auto technology. Cars back then needed points/plugs/cond at least every 10k, grease jobs every 2K (I think), no seat belts, air bags, other safety eqpt, lousy brakes, poor bias ply tires, smog producing engines, unreliable automatic trans, rusted out easier, etc.
Besides car technology circa 1955, medicine/surgery was relatively primitive back then. No bypasses, 2-hour painless cataract surgery could not have been imagined, no micro surgery using tiny incisions, no knee/hip replacements, no mri's, etc.
The other thing the American auto industry was notorius for back then was continual yearly body makeovers with essentially no new technology in the underpinnings (susp, brakes, tires, etc). It was the Europeans and Japanese who introduced American drivers to radial ply tires, disc brakes, independent rear suspension, good handling vehicles. Buying American was the latest fashion statement such as tail fins. Buying American was guaranteed obsolescense through "styling".
Too bad. If I had a time machine, I'd go back to 1955 and stay there. The way things are these days, I wish I were born fifty years earlier so I could be dead by now. So sad I had to grow up to see the deterioration of my country to the benefit of foreign powers.
Pretty sad, dude. I, on the other hand, think we have it a lot better now than back in 55. Think of all the wondderful choices we have in vehicles. More choices that get better mileage, require less maintenance, perform better, are safer, last longer, and are more environmentally friendly.
And it's only going to get better in the future. Wait and see.
"So sad I had to grow up to see the deterioration of my country to the benefit of foreign powers."
So your solution is sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalalalalalala, I'm not LISTENING!!!!"?
The world is the way it is. You can either acknowledge it and work in it or you can stay home with your blanket over your head wishing for a time machine. GM and Ford and Toyota and Honda are global companies. GM doesn't make decisions based on what's 'right' for Americans. They (should) make decisions based on what's right for their shareholders and the company. The same goes for Toyota, Ford, DCX, Honda etc. etc. etc.
AND THIS IS THE WAY IT'S ALWAYS BEEN. 'Buy American' is MARKETING.
The domestics do it because: a) it's cheaper than being TRUELY competitive b) it works
rorr: The domestics do it because: a) it's cheaper than being TRUELY competitive b) it works
Judging by falling market share and billion-dollar losses that GM and Ford are experiencing, I don't think it's working too well.
The Harrisburg Patriot-News ran a story in today's business section about how the "Buy American" message is rapidly losing its effectiveness. Customers understand that we are in a global economy, and that just because the corporation is based here doesn't necessarily mean that it builds most of its products here.
Well you could take a 1955 chevy and sand the rust off and find steel, take a new car and sand the rust and you find a hole, I've been in a 56 chevy that hit a telephone pole, snaped the pole off, the car was driven home.
Most people are tired of buying something that said made in USA on it only to discover that only the package was made in america, also tired of buying american only to have it break right away when they can buy something made elsewhere that lasts longer at 1/2 the price.
What part of that percentage comprises money spent in the United States, versus Canada or Mexico? If you want to support foreign laborers by buying a Lucerne or Suburban, that's your own business, but you do less for the U.S. economy than you would by supporting Alabamians.
bumpy, what are you talking about ????? The Lucerne is built in General Motors' Detroit Hamtramck Assembly plant. If Detriot is part of a foreign country, then I need to take Geography 101 again. :P
OTOH pal a 87 or 88% North American content rate doesn't include Mexico. I can't think of any parts that are from Canada. I'm sure there are a few, but i'd rather employ Canadians to build cars, then Chinese. What's the domestic content of a Hyundia built in Alabama ???? :P Okay they buy a few parts from suppliers here. Sure I'm glad they are providing a few thousand jobs but still 8 out of 10 automobile jobs come from the Big 3. So saying your Sonata is as american as lemko's buick is hawg wash. It's basically assembled here with a couple of parts that were sourced from american suppliers. Korea, like Japan have content laws themselves. Japan is loosing those laws up and there economy is going into the toilet.
Domestic Content Level Field’s supporters, nearly all of whom have worked for one of the Big 3 or its suppliers, believe it’s up to you to decide “What’s an American car?”
But if you care about your car company’s contribution to our economy, get the facts.
One way to judge degrees of “made in America” is to look at “domestic content” – the percentage of a car’s parts that were produced in the U.S. and Canada. Automakers report this information to the U.S. government each year. Domestic content varies from brand to brand and vehicle to vehicle.
We believe a more reliable way to judge how much an automaker contributes to the U.S. economy is to look at how many jobs it produces here. (See our scorecards.) However, because so many Americans work for parts suppliers (about 2 to 3 times as many as work for the automakers themselves), domestic content can have a big impact on jobs.
For 2004 cars, domestic automakers (DCX’s Chrysler division, Ford and GM) automobiles contained 80 percent domestic content, while Japanese, European and Korean carmakers used 31, 5 and 3 percent domestic content, respectively. (ATPC)
Data for 2005 remains incomplete. We will post new data once all companies have reported. However, a recent Detroit Free Press article found that the average content of GM, Ford and Chrysler were 81, 82 and 75 percent, respectively. Toyota, Honda and Nissan automobiles contained, on average, 49.9, 58.5 and 48 percent domestic content.
I was thinking that the Lucerne was built at Oshawa. If it is built in Detroit, then you can claim the Patriot deduction on your taxes when you buy one. Although, from my perspective, Detroit pretty much is a foreign country. :P
As for geography, Mexico is part of North America even though the Big 3 lobbied to have the content law written to include only Canada as "domestic". As for Hyundai, the V6 Sonata (and now the 2007 Santa Fe) does have a sizeable "domestic" content provided by near-campus suppliers, including the engine and transmission. Hyundai's content average is pulled down by the rest of their lineup coming off the boat from Korea.
The whole "domestic content" argument is a moot point for me, since 100% of zero is still zero. The Big 3 haven't built the kind of cars I like for 20 years, no one has built them in the US for 10 years, and the only ones available in the US market today are built in Asia.
We believe a more reliable way to judge how much an automaker contributes to the U.S. economy is to look at how many jobs it produces here. (See our scorecards.)
I disagree strongly with this viewpoint because it's natural that the detroiters currently have a greater employment presence ( support more US jobs ). They are coming from 100% several decades ago.
However the stated position of all three of the detroiters ( see below ) is to move as much of the labor for making vehicles out of the US. Don't badmouth the transplants for coming in to create jobs look at the detroiters who are trying as hard as possible to eliminate US jobs.
Why would anyone be loyal to this crew based on a feeling of 'they're like us - Americans'. The top management doesn't give a hoot about where the vehicles are made. They must take care of the shareholders first.
Now if you like the vehicles from Mexico, Australia, Sweden or the UK then fine buy one. Don't delude yourself that by doing so you are helping 'America'. The top managers and investment houses and banks and huge shareholders don't believe in your fantasy - and they don't care either.
This isn't breaking news. From GM's annual meeting this week -for shareholders.
INSIDE LINE today: WILMINGTON, Delaware — General Motors doesn't plan to drop any more of its U.S. brands but will likely trim some models from such brands as Pontiac and Buick, Chairman Rick Wagoner told shareholders at the annual meeting here.[ IOW, we are going to make less vehicles of these brands and use less labor. It's a done deal when it's announced in the Annual Meeting ]
There has been widespread speculation that GM might kill one or more of its sagging American brands, with Pontiac and Buick most frequently mentioned as likely candidates because of their steadily shrinking sales volumes and market shares. Vice Chairman Bob Lutz last year added fuel to that fire when he referred to the two brands as "damaged."[ IOW, it's only a matter of time, hell it's vice-Chairman who's saying this. ]
Earlier in the year, Jerry York, now a GM director, had called for the company to shed the Saab and Hummer brands as part of a broad restructuring that he proposed on behalf of billionaire investor Kirk Kerkorian.
Wagoner said GM plans to keep all eight brands that it currently markets in North America, but will "refine" [ eliminate labor on ] some of them to improve their focus. Regarding Pontiac and Buick, he added: "We'll probably have fewer models under each brand and make them more focused brands."
GM executives have said that Buick will focus primarily on sedans, while the GMC brand will continue to focus mostly on trucks and utility vehicles. GM is in the process of merging the GMC, Buick and Pontiac brands into a single retail distribution channel, with most individual dealers eventually carrying all three brands. Thus it becomes even more critical to coordinate the product portfolios at each brand to reduce the amount of overlap that has chronically plagued GM.
What this means to you: Yes, there will still be a Pontiac in your future — with only a handful of models in the portfolio.
This level playing field hoohaa is just kool-aid to keep the blindly loyal as close to home as possible while managment has one foot out the door already. Why would anyone buy into this? Just look at reality and do what is best for you alone.
An american car in my opinion is one that is made by a domestic business where the profits stay here
You argument is not valid because GM and Ford make most of their profits overseas and losses in America. If Asians and Europeans had the same attitude as you and quit buying GM/Ford products so that profits stay there, both will be bankrupt by now. This applies not just American auto makers; Intel, Boeing etc. makes majority of their profits overseas. China and India (60% Boeing sales) could so easily have ordered their passenger jets from Air Bus.
American TAX payers are subsidizing losses claimed by GM since they haven't had many profitable quarters of late. The sooner non-profitable companies go out of businesses the better it will be for tax payers.
An american car in my opinion is one that is made by a domestic buisness where the profits stay here.
OK, rockylee, I'm gonna call ya out on your own words.
See the highlighted phrase you used. When they do make profits from time to time the detroiters profits don't stay here. The are moved to Mexico, Austrailia and China to create new investments there. When you pay for your new [ fill in the blank ] detroiter brand auto you are actually helping to build offices and infrastructure in Shang-hai, Europe and Russia. Don't be fooled by their words look at their actions.
Now trucks and SUV's are a different story... but wait a minute.. these are the only profitable vehicles in the lineups. So if the detroiters are using your money to build plants and offices in Shang-hai but their auto business can't turn a profit, from where does the cash to invest in the offshore facilities come from? It's the truck and SUV sales. This is the cash cow for all automakers and this is the source of all the funds for investing overseas.
OMG the F150/GMC owners are funding factories to increase the amount of non-union labor in the detroiters products. Ditto Caddy and Corvette and Lincoln owners.
What you could do is when you buy your new CTS or Sierra in order to save them the time is just write out two checks. One to GM/Detroit and one to GM/China. They'd appreciate the gesture. It will save some paperwork.
But, you wonder what happened to the driver. Unless it was you. Without seat belts, airbags, etc, the driver might have died or been seriously injured. Now days, he/she might walk away able to buy another car. It's a lot harder to rebuild a human body than a car body.
Oh come on! How much money do you think GM Ford and Chrysler have invested in foreign countries? And, now days, how many of the big 3 are being built in Mexico and Canada? Do you think the profits from those stay in this country? No, they're staying in Mexico and Canada to reinvest in those plants. I would rather buy from a company that's building cars here- i.e. Toyota, Honda, Nissan, etc, than buy an "American" car that's built in a foreign country. At least, they're putting Americans to work and those workers are buying products here which helps the economy more. The biggest engine in this economy is the consumer, not the companies. Did you know the Ford Fusion is built in Mexico? The Crown Victoria is built in Canada? Some of the Tahoe/Suburbans are built in Mexico? The Chevy Silverado is built in Mexico/USA. The Chrysler PT Cruiser is built in Mexico. The Dodge Charger and Magnum are built in Canada. So to say these are "American" companies is right and wrong.
I was around when the cars in the '50's were being sold, and for the most part they were OK. We thought it was state of the art products back then, but compared to the stuff out here now, it was bad. Go back to the '50's and rebuild your carbureator, reset your points, when you took a trip to the mountains, readjust your carb. They pumped out more smog, they didn't have good cubic inch/power ratios. I could go on.
I would rather buy from a company that's building cars here- i.e. Toyota, Honda, Nissan, etc, than buy an "American" car that's built in a foreign country. At least, they're putting Americans to work and those workers are buying products here which helps the economy and shouldn't we all?
and they have a short video segment on gm in china. Guess what? Buick is doing really well with strong competition from toy/hon/vw. And they also shown how caddy is sold - in a boutique dealership with a bar serving latte, tea, the whole nine yards. So customers can relax and decide which caddy to buy.
GM already has all the answers, it's just that their NA operations (both management and labor)are still in a 1960 mindset.
Maybe it is a reflection of how GM views it's customer base here. Not worth the effort to impress, just wave the flag and trumpet NASCAR for the good ol' boys.
Funny you should mention that. Looks like the Monte Carlo and the Corvette are the tops in quality for GM in the latest JD Power Initial Quality. Buick must have fallen off the map. Caddy is hanging in there. Overall Hyundai kicked butt. Toyota always wins. They win be booing Toyota now that they are successful, just like Jeff Gordon. Oh wait, he ain't winning. Dang, what happened to that team? Or team two. See link Loren
How bout that new Acura TL Type-S with over 300 hp. and has SH-AWD :shades: If Acura builds this so called high-tech perfomance icon car, my god there will be pain in my face. :sick:
I'm going to need back-up to hold me away from the Acura showrooms again
I was in the back seat and as for the driver he drove the car home. It needed a new hood, front bumper, and grill. the radiator survived the car did not stop and wrap itself around the pole it kept going so there was no sudden stop. Injuries in accidents come from the sudden stop of the car. or sudden acceleration when a car is hit. most people now days are used to the crappy light weight cars they make now. I remember when you could sit on the hood/roof of a car and it wouldn't dent, when you could back into a post and the post gave way not the fender and bumper.
If you want a really good safe car, take the work ethics from the early fifties and a car from the fifties and add modern suspension design update the engine/drive line then add modern fuel and safety systems.
to 1955, yet be able to erase your memory of everything to come, you'd probably think you had it pretty good. Provided you were a straight white male, that is. :surprise:
But basically, we look back on 1955, or whatever year, through modern eyes, and it's easy to say that it sucked, times were rough, etc. However usually you don't start thinking that your life is bad until someone or something comes along and shows you how bad it is!
Back in 1955, most people probably never thought they had it so good. The cars kept getting bigger and faster, and even a low-line Chevy, Ford, or Plymouth suddenly had the kind of power that, a few years back, you could only get at a Cadillac price. People were moving to the suburbs in droves, and enjoying their newfound freedom, privacy, and stretch-out room. Television was becoming a magical thing, bringing drama, comedy, adventure, and violence into the livingroom. We were getting excited about space travel. Ground was about to be broken on the new interstate highway system, which would make it sooo much more quick and easy travel by car across the country. McDonalds was becoming a household word, and other fast food entities such as Kentucky Fried soon would be.
Okay, so nowadays we have suburban blight and rush hour gridlock, tv is just as much of a barren wasteland as it ever was, although we have so many more channels to watch and bigger screens to watch it on. The interstate system is outdated, and fast food is blamed for the reason our kids are so danged fat!
Heck, looking back with modern eyes, 1955 still looks pretty dang good. At least I could enjoy 1955 a lot better than those who actually lived then because I'd know the Russians were really a bunch of buffoons who really feared that we'd find out how weak they really were and still wouldn't bomb us 51 years into the future.
The cars were exponentially more attractive in 1955 than they are in 2006. I'd still have the awesome muscle car era to look forward to in the 1960s. I could get a job at GM and then retire in 1979 before everything went to heck in the 1980s. With a solid UAW membership, I would have little fear a layoff or the prospect of long-term unemployment. Heck, a high school graduate had a bright future in 1955. As a college graduate, the world would be my oyster. In 2006, even an MBA is no guarantee you won't end up as an apprentice fry technician or a Wal-Mart greeter.
The women were beautiful and looked and acted like ladies instead of men sans male genitals. My wife would have infinitely more respect for the institution of marriage so I wouldn't fear her divorcing me over something trivial as is so common today. Compared to the average Neanderthal husband of 1955, I'd be a real sweetheart.
I could raise kids in a decent, safe environment without having to shell out megabucks to send them to private schools to avoid the gladiator academies Philadelphia public schools became by the 1970s and became progressively worse by 2006.
Heck, Philadelphia was still a booming, prosperous city and I could walk or live in just about any neighborhood without fear of being shot.
The house in which I currently live was brand-new and the neighborhood was considered very upscale and extremely beautiful.
Ike was an exponentially better leader than Dubya. Ike may have been a "do-nothing" President, but he wasn't an embarrassment like this dude. The world respected the United States as the good guy rather than condemn it as "The Great Satan" today.
Back in 1955 Americans respected everything American and were proud to be citizens of the USA. Now, too many of them go out of there way to condemn everything American and act ashamed to be citizens of this country.
Some have talked about the advances in medicine since 1955, but those advances are less and less accessible to the public at large. It was less likely a major illness would send you to the poorhouse as it is today. Many people can't even afford the basic health care that was taken for granted back in 1955.
One can talk about the advances in civil rights since 1955, but it seems the dreams of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcom X have been squandered. I wonder what these great men would think of the self-loathing self-destructive gangsta culture that pervades today's inner cities?
About the only things I think I'd miss about 2006 is VCRs, DVDs, and the Internet. You can pretty much flush everything else. The cars suck, the music sucks, movies suck, fashion sucks, and people are pessimistic about the future.
Let's not forget the Sports Almanac from 1950-2050. We both can make a spectacular fortune! Shoot, Hill Valley, California looked like a toilet in 1985. In 2006, it must look like one of Philadelphia's worst neighborhoods judging by where it was going 21 years ago. Bet, the town hall is covered with grafitti and the clock is full of bullet holes. The cops are probably too afraid to go down to the Town Square - one half of which belongs to the Crips and the other to the Bloods.
Except there was the same concern that we now have with terrorists but it was with the Soviet Union. Andre you sound about my age so you might remember that through that entire time there was the concern that at anytime the Soviets were going to drop the big one on us and there was no hope. School kids were taught to hide under the desk in the case of a nuclear attack.
The cure for Polio was just discovered!! Most houses were phoneless or on party lines!! Anyone could report you to the authorities for being a Communist and your family and life were ruined for 20 yrs!! Ronald Reagan promoted the health benefits of smoking on TV!! Toxic wastes were dumped into the drinking water with no hesitation.
Here's a quote I always to like bring into these conversations...
"The world is passing through troubling times. The young people of today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence for parents or old age. They are impatient of all restraint. They talk as if they knew everything, and what passes for wisdom with us is foolishness with them. As for the girls, they are forward, immodest and unladylike in speech, behavior and dress."
Well thanks to the catalytic converter the air is cleaner and less odorous. As for TV it was best in the 60's and 70's when they still have good shows, and opportunity to see great new acts and singers on shows like the Ed Sullivan Show, Smothers Brothers, and Dean Martin Show. Heck, I shows like Bonanza, and Gunsmoke are more entertaining than most of the crap these days. I must say though, I do like My Name is Earl. The CNBC financial network and Speed Channel along with Fox Sports motor coverage is a plus. And a couple of sitcoms are good.
As for Kentucky Chicken grease, we no longer go for that, but we thought it was something back when. Kinda tasty in a way. McDonald's is amazing how the hamburgers taste the same for so many years. Must be off the same cow :surprise:
Greatest invention of all time - air conditioning. Worst invention - the car alarm.
History does repeat itself. Take a look at the Tribeca, then an Edsel. -Loren
You are saying a car made in the fifties is safer than a modern day car??? That's funny
A car made in the 50's will probably hold up better in an accident than a modern car, and, if parts were more readily available, would most likely be cheaper to fix. However, that doesn't mean that the occupants would hold up better!
I think the status quo back then was after an accident, you simply hosed the previous owner off the dashboard and then re-sold the car! :surprise:
Cars back then did hold up better in minor fender-benders, the type of accident where the only way you got hurt or killed was if you'd pissed off a higher power or something.
And, to share a then-and-now anecdote, my Granddad bought a '53 DeSoto Firedome back in the late 70's. His brother-and-law's mother had owned it since new. She had a stroke while driving it, lost control, and hit a parked car. Really smashed the DeSoto good and hard. Driver's side fender was creamed, the hood was bent back at an ungodly angle. The bumper and its mounts were smashed back, and all the "teeth" of the grille were smashed. The passenger side fender buckled just a bit.
Well, the old lady didn't get hurt from the accident, but the stroke ensured she'd never drive again. Ultimately, she passed away, and when her estate got settled, Granddad bought that DeSoto with the intention of fixing it up as a second car. This was the late 70's, and in many ways, cars were really starting to suck, and for all we knew, they'd only get worse.
He found all the parts he needed at a junkyard about 90 minutes away. Cost like $75-80, and everything bolted right up. The only thing Granddad didn't replace was the passenger-side fender, which wasn't that bad and could probably have been straightened. The car did need to be painted though, and looked kinda odd with this seamist green body, but dark bluish-green replacement parts, and this reddish-brown primer over some of the bare spots (guess they hadn't settled on gray as the primer color of choice back then).
Well, fast forward to 2003. My uncle hit a deer with his '03 Corolla. Damage actually looked quite similar to that DeSoto. Driver's fender smashed in really good, hood bent at an ungodly angle. It was probably worse than the DeSoto, because it dumped all the coolant out and the Corolla had to be towed. He had to get out on the passenger side, because the driver's door was jammed shut from the fender being pushed back.
In the end, that little deer hit cost him (well, the insurance company) $4855.
Now, let's switch scenarios a moment. Imagine hitting a deer with a '53 DeSoto. I'm an animal lover, so to me it's a pretty gruesome thought. Instead of it hopping away, relatively unharmed into the forest as it did, I'm picturing something more akin to the final death scene of the original "Texas Chainsaw Massacre". '58 Peterbilt + deranged psychopath does not a pretty picture make.
Now, on the flip-side, imagine taking an '03 Corolla back in time to the mid 70's, and running it at a decent speed into a parked car. And chances are, if this was the 70's, it would've been a dreadnaught! Not a pretty picture there, either! If a deer did $4855 worth of damage, just imagine what whacking into a mid '70's piece of Detroit iron would do! You'd have a pretty good chance of surviving it I guess, with airbags and crumple zones, but it still wouldn't be a pretty picture.
Comments
I look at this way -- Toyota and Honda generate US profits, on which they pay taxes, while GM generates losses that will be used as tax shelter for years to come. Toyota will have paid millions to the IRS before GM coughs up dime one to Uncle Sam, and will put those profits into US facilities while GM is busy shipping jobs abroad. If there is a company that is good for American taxpayers, auto parts suppliers and auto workers for years to come, it is going to be Toyota, not GM.
If I bought the junk made in the US (and, for two decades, it was junk), I was only perpetuating union problems, poor management, and arrogant union workers showing up for work drunk...the only way to teach the Big 3 a lesson was to have them watch their market share deteriorate...then like a drug addict going cold turkey, they would (hopefully) impose draconian measures, close plants, eliminate 1000s of workers until the union and the management realized they were in trouble and that the US consumer was made and was not going to take it anymore...THERE WAS NO OTHER WAY TO FORCE CHANGE ON THE BIG 3, AND YOU ARE FINALLY SEEING IT SHOW UP TODAY, AND THEY ARE STILL WAITING 2 YEARS TO CLOSE PLANTS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CLOSED 5-10 YEARS AGO...
The flip side of buying Honda was that the profits were being sent to Japan, money that could have stayed here in the US...taken to an extreme, if the Big 3 went under, we would have lost an entire industry that employs hundreds of 1000s of folks in the US...and I do not want to see that happen...
But, can I afford to spend $20K-30K on a car that I thought was junk, just to keep industry in the US???...no...so, after 13 years, I tried to see if my "boycott" had any effect, and I must say that it did...altho my 98 Regal had a poor AC system, and ignition problems, my 2000 Intrepid was a good car, and my 2004 Crown Vic and 2004 Dodge Ram are good vehicles (so far, knock on wood)...
I will still consider imports (the 2007 Santa Fe, for one), but and I realize that many "imports" are now made right here by American (non unionized) labor, so while the net profit may go overseas, 1000s of American make their livlihood making these "imports", along with the companies that service the auto plants...
Ford and GM are finally dumping 1000s of unneeded workers, eliminating fake jobs that were only created by union featherbedding, and really getting lean and mean like they preached back in the 1980s...
By cutting back to half their size, they will have capacity more like their market share...in the next decade or so, any increased capacity will come from actually increasing their market share by making better products...
What they are going thru now is what they should have gone thru 20 years ago, but they did not realize that imports were here to stay...
While there may be pain in capitalism, everybody is better in the long run as the weak are eaten by the strong...
One last thought in this rant...if GM or Ford had actually folded, the land and the factories would remain, and some other capitalist like another Henry Ford would have risen from the ashes and formed another car company, making sure to avoid the (union) mistakes of the Big 3...there would have been a dealer network and an entire infrastructure for the company...
The ones who fear capitalism are the ones who fear change...
Just my 2 cents...
eliminating fake jobs that were only created by union featherbedding, and really getting lean and mean like they preached back in the 1980s..."
GM still has a long way to go and their truck line-up is not going to be enough to save keep their present market share in the US. I agree Ford is getting better.
"What they are going thru now is what they should have gone thru 20 years ago, but they did not realize that imports were here to stay..."
Your statement is definately right on the mark that Ford is at least is doing what they should have done a while ago.
Finally, I will not be buying Domestics until they make a product I want. I"m not questioning the Domestics reliability just if the products fits what I am looking for. My parents have owned Domestics and have had for the most part good luck with them for the most part for 2 and a half decades. My parents had 2 bad domestics over the past 2 and a half decades but thats been it. I'm 26 years old so I will be making more car purchases...its the Domestics job to get my business. If the domestics can;t get my business that I'll have to continue buying imports(that I hope are at least made in the US) to keep our econmomy going.
Had a 1968 international harvester tractor, everything worked always started, got a 1979 case tractor needed frequent work, now have a 1995 yanmar no problems , but the tires have had to be replaced as they wore out.
1978 subaru GL sedan put 300,000 miles on it only work: oil changes every 3k miles, new front brake pads about every 80k miles rear brake shoes about every 100k miles, replaced the clutch at 175k miles.
1992 Ford Tempo GLS first month 5 sets of michelin tires went bad, dealer finally put BF goodrich tires on car. at 31k miles all rotors and drums replaced, intake manifold replaced, exhaust manifold replaced, entire exhaust system replaced, all 4 struts replaced, lower control arms replaced, tie rods replaced, (only item dealer warranted was the exhaust) every 20 to 30k miles tierods and control arms replaced, car used 1qt oil every 1k miles from day got new off of dealer lot, car sold at 80k miles.
Other domestic cars had more problems than they should, the Ford was the worst the bad domestics ranged from a 1979 ford truck to the 1992 ford tempo, also had dodge, plymouth, pontiac, mitsubishi, suzuki,and Gm vehicles. I used to drive alot have put over 5,000 miles on a car in 4 days of driving.
Interesting thought - because then - Washington has to send the National Guard into Detroit to protect those 'scab' workers because it is at this point that the unions become really militant..
I have no opinion or care about GM or Ford. While the best vehicle I have had was a Chevy S10 truck (by far), I would agree that in general the Honda and Toyotas that I have owned were a little better than the other domestic vehicles I have owned. With the level of corruption in all areas now, it would not suprise me in the least to see that CR and others accept bribes to write favorable reports. I have become an entirely superficial shopper. I buy a car because of its looks.
After watching a preview for the movie "Who Killed the Electric Vehicle?" One can only question where the automobile industry would be today if:
1. the Three Mile Island incident had not happened (perhaps our domestic energy would be 80 % nuclear like France instead of 20 % nuclear with petroleum the bulk of the remainder).
2. GM did not scrap the electric vehicle.
3. the US government wasn't a corporate puppet and actually took measures to direct the country.
Unfortunately, the premise of the movie appears to appeal to the average Joe Moron in the US. Take a complex multifacted problem with hundreds of variables and narrow it down to one or several "bad guys" (Big Oil and GM).
Yanmar has an American division but they don't sell tractors.
And funny thing is case and john deer work to prevent yanmar tractors from being brought into the US but yanmar makes many of thier parts.
I'm not appologizing for the past of the Big 3. My gawd they made some junk, but so did Toyota in the 70's. GM will rebound and if you've looked at the new launches, instead of burying your head in the past, you'd see that GM has more relavent products coming out and some that might exceed the competition. Ford, is making a comeback also but does have a few brand woes such as Mercury. Chrysler might be owned by Germany, but many of it's parts are sourced from american suppliers. GM OTOH is by quite a margin the most american brand overall one can buy and in my opinion has the most upside of the Big 3 because it's new products speak for themselves.
Rocky
No, they don't.
What does a company do with profits? Pay investors/stockowners perhaps? I wonder how many Americans have stock in Toyota/Honda? I wonder how many foreigners have stock in Ford/GM?
What else does a company do with profits? Invest those profits to expand their business perhaps? Which companies are expanding their businesses (plant construction/expansion, setting up supply chains, establishing design studios and R&D parks, etc.) in America? And which companies are closing America facilities while AT THE SAME TIME investing in FOREIGN countries?
The mailing address of the corporate HQ has very little to do with where the profits go. These companies are ALL Global Entities. They will invest their profits WHEREVER they believe they will net the company the best return. And it should be clear that over the last several years, the imports are investing MORE of their profits in the U.S. (plant construction/expansion, new design centers, new R&D centers, investment in American parts suppliers and ever increasing levels of Domestic content) while at the same time, the domestics are investing LESS of their profits in the U.S. (closing plants - including some highly efficient ones as you've noted, decreasing levels of domestic content, plant construction and market expansion beyond our borders).
What part of that percentage comprises money spent in the United States, versus Canada or Mexico? If you want to support foreign laborers by buying a Lucerne or Suburban, that's your own business, but you do less for the U.S. economy than you would by supporting Alabamians.
There aren't any profits at GM and Ford. 100% of nothing is still zero.
If half the profit Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, BMW and Mercedes make from their US plants stay in the USA it is a lot of money.
Isn't that begging the point of the statement, however? They're US companies.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Yes, they're US companies. And if this was still 1955 you guys would have a point. Because 50 years ago, the Domestic makes were built here, from American parts, using American labor, from good'ol American know-how. And the profits earned went right back to work here in America.
Ditto with the imports.
But in case you haven't checked a calender lately, it ain't 1955 anymore. These are all GLOBAL companies and the profits earned are reinvested ALL OVER THE PLACE. Simply stating that the profits earned by the domestics stay in America is wishful thinking. And out of date.
Don't think that most folks want 1955 American (or other) auto technology. Cars back then needed points/plugs/cond at least every 10k, grease jobs every 2K (I think), no seat belts, air bags, other safety eqpt, lousy brakes, poor bias ply tires, smog producing engines, unreliable automatic trans, rusted out easier, etc.
Besides car technology circa 1955, medicine/surgery was relatively primitive back then. No bypasses, 2-hour painless cataract surgery could not have been imagined, no micro surgery using tiny incisions, no knee/hip replacements, no mri's, etc.
The other thing the American auto industry was notorius for back then was continual yearly body makeovers with essentially no new technology in the underpinnings (susp, brakes, tires, etc). It was the Europeans and Japanese who introduced American drivers to radial ply tires, disc brakes, independent rear suspension, good handling vehicles. Buying American was the latest fashion statement such as tail fins. Buying American was guaranteed obsolescense through "styling".
Pretty sad, dude. I, on the other hand, think we have it a lot better now than back in 55. Think of all the wondderful choices we have in vehicles. More choices that get better mileage, require less maintenance, perform better, are safer, last longer, and are more environmentally friendly.
And it's only going to get better in the future. Wait and see.
So your solution is sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalalalalalala, I'm not LISTENING!!!!"?
The world is the way it is. You can either acknowledge it and work in it or you can stay home with your blanket over your head wishing for a time machine. GM and Ford and Toyota and Honda are global companies. GM doesn't make decisions based on what's 'right' for Americans. They (should) make decisions based on what's right for their shareholders and the company. The same goes for Toyota, Ford, DCX, Honda etc. etc. etc.
AND THIS IS THE WAY IT'S ALWAYS BEEN. 'Buy American' is MARKETING.
The domestics do it because:
a) it's cheaper than being TRUELY competitive
b) it works
Well, he could have said 1943 when most consumers were limited to purchasing *THREE* gallons of gas per week.
a) it's cheaper than being TRUELY competitive
b) it works
Judging by falling market share and billion-dollar losses that GM and Ford are experiencing, I don't think it's working too well.
The Harrisburg Patriot-News ran a story in today's business section about how the "Buy American" message is rapidly losing its effectiveness. Customers understand that we are in a global economy, and that just because the corporation is based here doesn't necessarily mean that it builds most of its products here.
bumpy, what are you talking about ????? The Lucerne is built in General Motors' Detroit Hamtramck Assembly plant. If Detriot is part of a foreign country, then I need to take Geography 101 again. :P
OTOH pal a 87 or 88% North American content rate doesn't include Mexico. I can't think of any parts that are from Canada. I'm sure there are a few, but i'd rather employ Canadians to build cars, then Chinese. What's the domestic content of a Hyundia built in Alabama ???? :P Okay they buy a few parts from suppliers here. Sure I'm glad they are providing a few thousand jobs but still 8 out of 10 automobile jobs come from the Big 3. So saying your Sonata is as american as lemko's buick is hawg wash. It's basically assembled here with a couple of parts that were sourced from american suppliers. Korea, like Japan have content laws themselves. Japan is loosing those laws up and there economy is going into the toilet.
Rocky
Level Field’s supporters, nearly all of whom have worked for one of the Big 3 or its suppliers, believe it’s up to you to decide “What’s an American car?”
But if you care about your car company’s contribution to our economy, get the facts.
One way to judge degrees of “made in America” is to look at “domestic content” – the percentage of a car’s parts that were produced in the U.S. and Canada. Automakers report this information to the U.S. government each year. Domestic content varies from brand to brand and vehicle to vehicle.
We believe a more reliable way to judge how much an automaker contributes to the U.S. economy is to look at how many jobs it produces here. (See our scorecards.) However, because so many Americans work for parts suppliers (about 2 to 3 times as many as work for the automakers themselves), domestic content can have a big impact on jobs.
For 2004 cars, domestic automakers (DCX’s Chrysler division, Ford and GM) automobiles contained 80 percent domestic content, while Japanese, European and Korean carmakers used 31, 5 and 3 percent domestic content, respectively. (ATPC)
Data for 2005 remains incomplete. We will post new data once all companies have reported. However, a recent Detroit Free Press article found that the average content of GM, Ford and Chrysler were 81, 82 and 75 percent, respectively. Toyota, Honda and Nissan automobiles contained, on average, 49.9, 58.5 and 48 percent domestic content.
http://levelfieldinstitute.org/domestic.htm
<a href="http://levelfieldinstitute.org/docs/lfi-domestic-content.pdf"
http://levelfieldinstitute.org/docs/lfi-domestic-content.pdf
Rocky :shades:
As for geography, Mexico is part of North America even though the Big 3 lobbied to have the content law written to include only Canada as "domestic". As for Hyundai, the V6 Sonata (and now the 2007 Santa Fe) does have a sizeable "domestic" content provided by near-campus suppliers, including the engine and transmission. Hyundai's content average is pulled down by the rest of their lineup coming off the boat from Korea.
The whole "domestic content" argument is a moot point for me, since 100% of zero is still zero. The Big 3 haven't built the kind of cars I like for 20 years, no one has built them in the US for 10 years, and the only ones available in the US market today are built in Asia.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I disagree strongly with this viewpoint because it's natural that the detroiters currently have a greater employment presence ( support more US jobs ). They are coming from 100% several decades ago.
However the stated position of all three of the detroiters ( see below ) is to move as much of the labor for making vehicles out of the US. Don't badmouth the transplants for coming in to create jobs look at the detroiters who are trying as hard as possible to eliminate US jobs.
Why would anyone be loyal to this crew based on a feeling of 'they're like us - Americans'. The top management doesn't give a hoot about where the vehicles are made. They must take care of the shareholders first.
Now if you like the vehicles from Mexico, Australia, Sweden or the UK then fine buy one. Don't delude yourself that by doing so you are helping 'America'. The top managers and investment houses and banks and huge shareholders don't believe in your fantasy - and they don't care either.
This isn't breaking news. From GM's annual meeting this week -for shareholders.
INSIDE LINE today:
WILMINGTON, Delaware — General Motors doesn't plan to drop any more of its U.S. brands but will likely trim some models from such brands as Pontiac and Buick, Chairman Rick Wagoner told shareholders at the annual meeting here.[ IOW, we are going to make less vehicles of these brands and use less labor. It's a done deal when it's announced in the Annual Meeting ]
There has been widespread speculation that GM might kill one or more of its sagging American brands, with Pontiac and Buick most frequently mentioned as likely candidates because of their steadily shrinking sales volumes and market shares. Vice Chairman Bob Lutz last year added fuel to that fire when he referred to the two brands as "damaged."[ IOW, it's only a matter of time, hell it's vice-Chairman who's saying this. ]
Earlier in the year, Jerry York, now a GM director, had called for the company to shed the Saab and Hummer brands as part of a broad restructuring that he proposed on behalf of billionaire investor Kirk Kerkorian.
Wagoner said GM plans to keep all eight brands that it currently markets in North America, but will "refine" [ eliminate labor on ] some of them to improve their focus. Regarding Pontiac and Buick, he added: "We'll probably have fewer models under each brand and make them more focused brands."
GM executives have said that Buick will focus primarily on sedans, while the GMC brand will continue to focus mostly on trucks and utility vehicles. GM is in the process of merging the GMC, Buick and Pontiac brands into a single retail distribution channel, with most individual dealers eventually carrying all three brands. Thus it becomes even more critical to coordinate the product portfolios at each brand to reduce the amount of overlap that has chronically plagued GM.
What this means to you: Yes, there will still be a Pontiac in your future — with only a handful of models in the portfolio.
This level playing field hoohaa is just kool-aid to keep the blindly loyal as close to home as possible while managment has one foot out the door already. Why would anyone buy into this? Just look at reality and do what is best for you alone.
You argument is not valid because GM and Ford make most of their profits overseas and losses in America. If Asians and Europeans had the same attitude as you and quit buying GM/Ford products so that profits stay there, both will be bankrupt by now.
This applies not just American auto makers; Intel, Boeing etc. makes majority of their profits overseas. China and India (60% Boeing sales) could so easily have ordered their passenger jets from Air Bus.
American TAX payers are subsidizing losses claimed by GM since they haven't had many profitable quarters of late. The sooner non-profitable companies go out of businesses the better it will be for tax payers.
OK, rockylee, I'm gonna call ya out on your own words.
See the highlighted phrase you used. When they do make profits from time to time the detroiters profits don't stay here. The are moved to Mexico, Austrailia and China to create new investments there. When you pay for your new [ fill in the blank ] detroiter brand auto you are actually helping to build offices and infrastructure in Shang-hai, Europe and Russia. Don't be fooled by their words look at their actions.
Now trucks and SUV's are a different story... but wait a minute.. these are the only profitable vehicles in the lineups. So if the detroiters are using your money to build plants and offices in Shang-hai but their auto business can't turn a profit, from where does the cash to invest in the offshore facilities come from? It's the truck and SUV sales. This is the cash cow for all automakers and this is the source of all the funds for investing overseas.
OMG the F150/GMC owners are funding factories to increase the amount of non-union labor in the detroiters products. Ditto Caddy and Corvette and Lincoln owners.
What you could do is when you buy your new CTS or Sierra in order to save them the time is just write out two checks. One to GM/Detroit and one to GM/China. They'd appreciate the gesture. It will save some paperwork.
I was around when the cars in the '50's were being sold, and for the most part they were OK. We thought it was state of the art products back then, but compared to the stuff out here now, it was bad. Go back to the '50's and rebuild your carbureator, reset your points, when you took a trip to the mountains, readjust your carb. They pumped out more smog, they didn't have good cubic inch/power ratios. I could go on.
and shouldn't we all?
GM already has all the answers, it's just that their NA operations (both management and labor)are still in a 1960 mindset.
See link
Loren
I'm going to need back-up to hold me away from the Acura showrooms again
Rocky
It needed a new hood, front bumper, and grill. the radiator survived
the car did not stop and wrap itself around the pole it kept going so there was no sudden stop.
Injuries in accidents come from the sudden stop of the car. or sudden acceleration when a car is hit.
most people now days are used to the crappy light weight cars they make now.
I remember when you could sit on the hood/roof of a car and it wouldn't dent, when you could back into a post and the post gave way not the fender and bumper.
If you want a really good safe car, take the work ethics from the early fifties and a car from the fifties and add modern suspension design update the engine/drive line then add modern fuel and safety systems.
But basically, we look back on 1955, or whatever year, through modern eyes, and it's easy to say that it sucked, times were rough, etc. However usually you don't start thinking that your life is bad until someone or something comes along and shows you how bad it is!
Back in 1955, most people probably never thought they had it so good. The cars kept getting bigger and faster, and even a low-line Chevy, Ford, or Plymouth suddenly had the kind of power that, a few years back, you could only get at a Cadillac price. People were moving to the suburbs in droves, and enjoying their newfound freedom, privacy, and stretch-out room. Television was becoming a magical thing, bringing drama, comedy, adventure, and violence into the livingroom. We were getting excited about space travel. Ground was about to be broken on the new interstate highway system, which would make it sooo much more quick and easy travel by car across the country. McDonalds was becoming a household word, and other fast food entities such as Kentucky Fried soon would be.
Okay, so nowadays we have suburban blight and rush hour gridlock, tv is just as much of a barren wasteland as it ever was, although we have so many more channels to watch and bigger screens to watch it on. The interstate system is outdated, and fast food is blamed for the reason our kids are so danged fat!
The cars were exponentially more attractive in 1955 than they are in 2006. I'd still have the awesome muscle car era to look forward to in the 1960s. I could get a job at GM and then retire in 1979 before everything went to heck in the 1980s. With a solid UAW membership, I would have little fear a layoff or the prospect of long-term unemployment. Heck, a high school graduate had a bright future in 1955. As a college graduate, the world would be my oyster. In 2006, even an MBA is no guarantee you won't end up as an apprentice fry technician or a Wal-Mart greeter.
The women were beautiful and looked and acted like ladies instead of men sans male genitals. My wife would have infinitely more respect for the institution of marriage so I wouldn't fear her divorcing me over something trivial as is so common today. Compared to the average Neanderthal husband of 1955, I'd be a real sweetheart.
I could raise kids in a decent, safe environment without having to shell out megabucks to send them to private schools to avoid the gladiator academies Philadelphia public schools became by the 1970s and became progressively worse by 2006.
Heck, Philadelphia was still a booming, prosperous city and I could walk or live in just about any neighborhood without fear of being shot.
The house in which I currently live was brand-new and the neighborhood was considered very upscale and extremely beautiful.
Ike was an exponentially better leader than Dubya. Ike may have been a "do-nothing" President, but he wasn't an embarrassment like this dude. The world respected the United States as the good guy rather than condemn it as "The Great Satan" today.
Back in 1955 Americans respected everything American and were proud to be citizens of the USA. Now, too many of them go out of there way to condemn everything American and act ashamed to be citizens of this country.
Some have talked about the advances in medicine since 1955, but those advances are less and less accessible to the public at large. It was less likely a major illness would send you to the poorhouse as it is today. Many people can't even afford the basic health care that was taken for granted back in 1955.
One can talk about the advances in civil rights since 1955, but it seems the dreams of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcom X have been squandered. I wonder what these great men would think of the self-loathing self-destructive gangsta culture that pervades today's inner cities?
About the only things I think I'd miss about 2006 is VCRs, DVDs, and the Internet. You can pretty much flush everything else. The cars suck, the music sucks, movies suck, fashion sucks, and people are pessimistic about the future.
Rocky
The cure for Polio was just discovered!! Most houses were phoneless or on party lines!! Anyone could report you to the authorities for being a Communist and your family and life were ruined for 20 yrs!! Ronald Reagan promoted the health benefits of smoking on TV!! Toxic wastes were dumped into the drinking water with no hesitation.
No thanks.
"The world is passing through troubling times. The young people of today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence for parents or old age. They are impatient of all restraint. They talk as if they knew everything, and what passes for wisdom with us is foolishness with them. As for the girls, they are forward, immodest and unladylike in speech, behavior and dress."
-Peter the Hermit, 1274
Rocky
-Loren
As for Kentucky Chicken grease, we no longer go for that, but we thought it was something back when. Kinda tasty in a way. McDonald's is amazing how the hamburgers taste the same for so many years. Must be off the same cow :surprise:
Greatest invention of all time - air conditioning. Worst invention - the car alarm.
History does repeat itself. Take a look at the Tribeca, then an Edsel.
-Loren
A car made in the 50's will probably hold up better in an accident than a modern car, and, if parts were more readily available, would most likely be cheaper to fix. However, that doesn't mean that the occupants would hold up better!
I think the status quo back then was after an accident, you simply hosed the previous owner off the dashboard and then re-sold the car! :surprise:
Cars back then did hold up better in minor fender-benders, the type of accident where the only way you got hurt or killed was if you'd pissed off a higher power or something.
And, to share a then-and-now anecdote, my Granddad bought a '53 DeSoto Firedome back in the late 70's. His brother-and-law's mother had owned it since new. She had a stroke while driving it, lost control, and hit a parked car. Really smashed the DeSoto good and hard. Driver's side fender was creamed, the hood was bent back at an ungodly angle. The bumper and its mounts were smashed back, and all the "teeth" of the grille were smashed. The passenger side fender buckled just a bit.
Well, the old lady didn't get hurt from the accident, but the stroke ensured she'd never drive again. Ultimately, she passed away, and when her estate got settled, Granddad bought that DeSoto with the intention of fixing it up as a second car. This was the late 70's, and in many ways, cars were really starting to suck, and for all we knew, they'd only get worse.
He found all the parts he needed at a junkyard about 90 minutes away. Cost like $75-80, and everything bolted right up. The only thing Granddad didn't replace was the passenger-side fender, which wasn't that bad and could probably have been straightened. The car did need to be painted though, and looked kinda odd with this seamist green body, but dark bluish-green replacement parts, and this reddish-brown primer over some of the bare spots (guess they hadn't settled on gray as the primer color of choice back then).
Well, fast forward to 2003. My uncle hit a deer with his '03 Corolla. Damage actually looked quite similar to that DeSoto. Driver's fender smashed in really good, hood bent at an ungodly angle. It was probably worse than the DeSoto, because it dumped all the coolant out and the Corolla had to be towed. He had to get out on the passenger side, because the driver's door was jammed shut from the fender being pushed back.
In the end, that little deer hit cost him (well, the insurance company) $4855.
Now, let's switch scenarios a moment. Imagine hitting a deer with a '53 DeSoto. I'm an animal lover, so to me it's a pretty gruesome thought. Instead of it hopping away, relatively unharmed into the forest as it did, I'm picturing something more akin to the final death scene of the original "Texas Chainsaw Massacre". '58 Peterbilt + deranged psychopath does not a pretty picture make.
Now, on the flip-side, imagine taking an '03 Corolla back in time to the mid 70's, and running it at a decent speed into a parked car. And chances are, if this was the 70's, it would've been a dreadnaught! Not a pretty picture there, either! If a deer did $4855 worth of damage, just imagine what whacking into a mid '70's piece of Detroit iron would do! You'd have a pretty good chance of surviving it I guess, with airbags and crumple zones, but it still wouldn't be a pretty picture.