Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
General Motors discussions
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The realistic approach is to have people pay a greater percentage of their health care costs and be more rigorous about maintaining healthy habits, and I don't think that many people want to hear that from Senator Clinton or anyone else, unfortunately.
As I recall, the UAW was lukewarm about her 1993 proposal, because it would have offered less generous benefits than what UAW members had then (and today, for that matter). Maybe with health care costs threatening to sink one or all of the Big Three, the UAW has changed its tune in the regard. A union-administered health care fund would be a big help for the companies, and would open the UAW's eyes a little more as to what is really driving the cost of health care (hint - it's not greedy doctors or insurance companies or drug companies; it's people living longer and demanding the latest and greatest medical treatments and drugs).
Same here. Now GM is putting out very competitive cars and crossover. However, there is still one problem: They are not putting out "must have" cars. This may not be a problem if all they want to do is maintain its current market share but will be a problem if they want to "regain" its lost market share.
I am 25 and on my 4th cars. All my previous and current cars are imports and was happy with them. When I go buy a car I will definitely give GM a look given that the CTS, Aura and the Lambdas are all great choices. However, based on the previous record I will then ask myself: Why do I want to mess with success when I can get the same thing (if not better thing) from Toyota/Lexus, Honda/Acura and BMW?
Of course, on the other hand, a happy GM owner will do exact the same opposite. The result from this type of buying behavior will be: GM owners continue to buy GM and import owners continue to buy imports. GM will not be any worse than it was couple years ago but it is hard for them to pick up market share.
Until GM puts out some "must have" cars, this trend will continue.
Yeah lemko, but you got to have a department willing to sponsor you pal. We had 18,000 ex police officer's looking for work in 2006 thus their is strong competition for every opening. Unless you want to live in Detroit, which has many area's less safe than the streets in Bagdad, you can't get a sponsorship to get MCOLES certified. I've put in for several law enforcement type jobs but the competition is unfortunately just tough pal.
Lemko, only if you knew what I'm going through pal in my divorce. :sick: At least you appear to have a very good women and she is marriage material.
-Rocky
-Rocky
-Rocky
In 1980, the year before Welch became CEO, GE recorded revenues of roughly $26.8 billion. In 2000, the year before he left, the revenues increased to nearly $130 billion. When Jack Welch left GE, the company had gone from a market value of $14 billion to one of more than $410 billion at the end of 2004, making it the most valuable and largest company in the world.
Hmm, I don't think you can put him in the same category as Roger Smith.
Did he give a frogs fat [non-permissible content removed] about any of his employees ???? Nope !!!! That is why he got nick named "Neutron" Jack Welch, not Welsh diesel. He was the "Pol Pot" of U.S. manufacturing for the tens of thousands of jobs he slashed here in the U.S. and when he retired his golden parachute was worth any where from a half-billion to a billion in total compensation. :mad:
A little fact about the "Neutron" one !!!!
http://money.cnn.com/2002/09/06/news/companies/welch_ge/
-Rocky
-Rocky
-Rocky
GE still employs over double the number GM does in the US. We're certainly not alone when it comes to losing manufacturing jobs. Since 1995 the world has lost 22 million manufacturing jobs yet production is up 30% (Other countries have lost a lot more than the US).
The bottom line is until they repeal the trade treaty's and implement trade barriers or tariffs, I'm afraid the continous trend of lost manufactoring jobs will unfortunately continue.
-Rocky
I've tried to find concrete evidence proving protectionism is a good idea. I haven't found any yet.
I'm about a quarter of the way through reading Robert Reich's book Supercapitalism. So far it's interesting.
A little hint: They are considered by us as protectionist.
-Rocky
I guess that is on my GM wish list !!!! :shades:
-Rocky
-Rocky
No one would not when we use/import more energy/natural resources than any other country. Bottom line is we have still have the strongest and most diverse economy in the world. Protectionism will not help us.
-Rocky
Rock, please explain to me how spending $50-60 billion a year in Iraq is keeping our $13 trillion dollar economy afloat?
So is it only the war profiteers that are buying cars?
A recession is certainly a possibility, it wouldn't be the first and certainly not the last.
Trust me, there are many things I'm not happy about with our current administration and I have genuine concerns about our country. I just don't agree that socialism and protectiontism is going save or even help us.
The CTS has optional AWD, but not with the manual. :confuse: :mad:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the European governments that are the most socialized trying to move away from that kind of government? Isn't government run healthcare and cradle-to-grave welfare crushing the governments of Germany, France and the UK? Just look at the unemployment rates over there. Any European leader would be nominated for sainthood if they ever got unemployment anywhere near as low as here in the US.
I, too, have a lot of problems with the current administration but I don't think the US system is that far out of whack. No system of anything created by man can be perfect because it will be created by imperfect people. But, as I look at all the flawed systems out there, I think ours is pretty darn good compared to most. Warts and all.
What was the alternative? Bankrupsy? Closing down? Yes it sucks for the people that got laid off, but what if the whole company went down the tubes? Then everybody gets fired and nobody wins. The good of the many...
I, too, have a lot of problems with the current administration but I don't think the US system is that far out of whack. No system of anything created by man can be perfect because it will be created by imperfect people. But, as I look at all the flawed systems out there, I think ours is pretty darn good compared to most. Warts and all.
I agree 100%. I just read an article a few weeks back about all the problems France is having. Seems their social programs have produced a generation of workers that are neither motivated or productive. Many college grads leaving the country to find work. Many living off the backs of few will not work.
The UAW/Big 3 relationship is in the same boat. I just don't see how GM can afford to pay the benefits provided in the labor contract. The environment has changed in so many ways. It's not one issue that is the problem. I don't see how GM can survive in its current form if major changes in the labor contract aren't made.
Yeah, apparently it's the job of a company to guarantee jobs.
Its this mentality that will take GM down.
Well, if they agree to it, then their beancounters must say the money is there. Then all they have to do is make sure the cars they put out are the ones people want. So far, w/ the lambdas, '08 CTS and Malibu, they may have some.
Profile and rear of Vauxhall are pleasing, but front end is awkward just as show car of Pontiac G8. Must still be some stylists at Pontiac left over from Aztek that are doing grilles.
Way back when, when GM had 50% of the market and the other two had the rest GM did have the money to support the contracts. The last 20 years as the market share has dropped in half they have been trying to reduce the contact cost while they downsized and put even more on the retirement doles. Yes they can pay off their debts for the next few years with the right product but it sure would be more profitable if they did not have the debt from the last 40 years of business.
Health care increases are big part of it. The fact that retirees are living much longer is costly too. I saw somewhere, that in the 50's on average a worker died 5 years after retirement. When you got people retiring in their late 50's, it's expensive to support them for 20-30+ years. Then add the fact that you have less market share, and less workers to support the legacy costs and it becomes simple. You can't afford to do it.
retirement changes Very interesting.
Also very true. But one issue with the vehicles sold by GM is the profit margin. Even if GM did get the same median ATP as Toyota they would have a much lower profit margin due to larger overhead due to a host of reasons with the healthcare/retirement the largest one. When GM started the slide downwards and the profit margins got slimmer than Toyotas and others they, perhaps foolishly, started to cut cost out of the vehicles in an attempt to keep the profits and keep the plants running (which they had to do to keep the profit margin because their profit came from high volume). A downwards spiral then commenced. Now they have bit the bullet and are closing plants to rightsize to current marketshare. They are finally listening to their Marketing and Engineering and putting the cost back in the product. Now they have to cut the overhead the imports do not have.
Union contracts that make it very hard for GM to layoff/close plants certainly added to the problem. I'd think if both sides would have been rational many years ago, when it was obvious GM needed flexibility and the UAW needed job security, they could have kept GM competitive. Instead they got neither and the UAW is facing tough times and GM has find away to get out of the huge hole they are in.
It's going to be a huge challenge. Good product will go along way to help GM continue to get stronger.
You're right about the BA, unless it has "M" in front you won't even be looked at. And it's getting to the point you better not just have a cookie-cutter one MBA. There better be some type of specialization / concentration attached.
I hope the interview today works out for you. Maybe you can get a doing security at Delphi.
Your last (great) point about retirement is a whole other ball of wax, something that probably threatens our Social Security. Back in the '50's those people that were dying 5 yrs after retirement probably started working when they were 16, some dropping out of high school to do so, and working till they were 65.
Today, most don't enter the workforce full time until 21 or 22, when they finish college, and want to be done at 55. this presents a problem if you have a pension:
Instead of working for 48 yrs.(18-65), then collecting a pension, benefits, and SS, for say 15 yrs (die at 80) you now work 33 yrs(22-55) and collect for 25. That is alot closer # to yrs worked. Employers are now putting out more for retirees than employees, and we have a smaller workforce to pay SS for people who just live longer.
I don't think that this is a union problem per-se, because many non-union people can make enough in a 401k over 30-35 yrs to tide them over till SS kicks in, and live very comfortably off both, like pensioneers do.
I think the answer is some sort of self control to keep us in the workforce until we are 60, so we contribute to the system more. Maybe incentives to do so.
I don't think GM can equalize the MTP with Honda/Toyota until the perceived quality gap has been bridged. I say perceived because it has been mostly bridged and the quality surveys seem to back me up. Anyway, a lot of people would opt for the Honda/Toyota when presented a comparable GM car at the same price. The thinking is "Why would I settle for a GM when I can get the Toyota/Honda for the same price."
I still believe that in order to win back "import" owners, GM has to make a car that is of the same quality as Toyota/Honda for a lower price. Then do it consistently for a few years. Then they will win people back instead of keeping the people they already have. I think they can do it with the Lambdas, Aura, Malibu and CTS.
Social Security has incentives to wait. Retire later and get some more cash per month.
Like it or not, the Northeast in general, and the Philadelphia-New Jersey-New York City region in particular, has become a high cost place to do business, and not one that is very cost effective for manufacturing operations.
If they want to sell this car in the north east, it better have a 55 or 60 sidewal option rather than the mazda 50 or below.
Anyone of you Europeans have an idea?
Of course, every state and region has an economic development authority bidding for those same jobs. And all those freebies and incentives can increase the tax burden to those already there.
Getting back to GM's fortunes, Boone Pickens is an old oilman who has pegged the market pretty accurately over the years. And he predicts that oil will be over $100/barrel next year- meaning $3.50/gallon in the U.S., maybe higher. Is GM's product line ready for that? They were caught flat footed in 2005 and 2006, how about now?
The upscale move is aimed at strengthening Holden’s position in the premium sports-pickup market, which also includes Ford Motor Co. of Australia Ltd.’s Falcon Ute. Both vehicles essentially are modern renditions of the classic Chevrolet El Camino and Ford Ranchero, respectively.
The new Holden vehicle also could form the basis for another VE Commodore-derived model to be exported to the U.S. alongside the upcoming ’08 Pontiac G8 sedan. Media reports say Holden already has sent some prototypes to Detroit to be evaluated for export by parent General Motors Corp.
The Saturn franchise boasts one of General Motors' better portfolios. The addition of the 2008 Astra hatchback is going to make it the place to shop if you're after a stylish, sporty ride.
When it arrives later this year (likely in December), the Astra will be offered in two models -- a funky three-door in XR trim and a more conventionally styled fivedoor in XE and XR trims. From the front bumper to the B-pillar, each is essentially the same. The key difference, number of doors aside, is the roofline and rear side glass. The five-door is a traditional hatch, while the three-door has a racier roofline and pronounced triangular window that makes it look sleeker.
All models are powered by a peppy 1.8-litre four that's married to a five-speed manual transmission (a four-speed automatic is optional). The peppy pickup is down to the 140 horsepower, 126 pound-feet of torque at 3,800 rpm and the manual's gear ratios. First (3.73:1) and second (2.14:1) bring surprising hop off the line. The engine is also a smooth operator. The idle is refined and even when stretched to redline, it retains its composure (there is some noise, but nothing like GM's old fours).
Driving the cars back to back through the twisty roads west of Frankfurt brought the differences to the fore. The five-door has an accomplished ride that is comfortable and capable, while the threedoor is as good as anything in the class. Body roll is benign and understeer only surfaces when the driver takes liberties. I preferred the three-door's sharper steering feel and feedback (the rack ratio drops from 15:1 to a faster 14:1).
The Astra is a decent set of wheels. It handles nicely, has lots of power (the inevitable Red Line edition should feature the Opel Astra's OPC engine, which means 240 hp), it is attractively finished, well equipped and comes with the required versatility. The only thing that remains to be done is to put prospective buyers in the car. If Saturn can do this, the Astra will sell itself. Pricing has yet to be announced, but expect the entry-level five-door to start at around $17,500 and the threedoor to start at about $20,000.