By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
No (kidding) Sherlock. So where do you get your capital if there is nobody to buy your Mexachindian goods??? Your stocks will tank because nobody here can afford them on unemployment.
But, I'll still have my union job.
Yeah, but the Chindians have capital that will soon be worth more than yours (or mine), and they also have managerial skills, too.
Don't forget, they (like us) have colleges, too. For every one of us, there are 8 of them!!! And with them multiplying like rabbits, it won't take long before they will only have to educate 8-10% of their entire population to have the same educated workforce as us.
Then you too, will be as worthless as us (labor).
Considering China considers an auto mechanic to be the equivalent of an engineer I'm not concerned...yet.
Perhaps that's because we are still waiting for US nameplates to make cars like Audi's, BMWs, and Mercedes.
What we got until bankruptcy was motherhood, apple pie, and Chevrolet...
I say that using the UAW apologist logic, why wouldn't we hire 50K employees to work at the Chevy Malibu assembly plant? Since efficiency is not important (since others with more efficient plants displace good paying jobs), let's go the other way. Hire a ton of people and pay them all a great wage and benefits. Since 50K employees would be unmanageable on the assembly line, only require they come in a few hours a month. They can put a few bolts in, or a few tires on, or sweep the floor a bit. Take home the big salary. And you get 50K more UAW members. I mean, what is not to like, using this logic?
Of course the parent company cannot be profitable with that situation. But since profitability is not important either, we just let the US government pay subsidies. The fat cats pay their "fair share". And everybody is happy. I'm ashamed that GM has been reducing staff rather than hiring as I suggest -- they're destroying good working-wage jobs!
UAW has been an abject failure. If their goal is to promote and preserve jobs, the leadership should be fired. This just shows that education is important, because the UAW and its leadership were too stupid to realize that their best interests meant their parent company had to be very successful. But instead they wanted to be militant and rape the companies while gold-plating their benefits. They took the short-term greedy approach. In doing this they proved that there were as inept as their parent companies (especially GM). They deserve to go down with the ship.
Think of all the good US jobs that suffered at suppliers, distributors, and dealerships because of the greed of the UAW. How anybody can wish success for this failed union is beyond me. I'm glad it is failing, it is well deserved.
I bought a 2005 Acura TL new. Tell me which US nameplate car I should have bought instead. :confuse:
Good one, all he had to do was go forward in time 5 years.
Bill Ford had auto experience and was a failure. Wagoner had auto experience and was an even bigger failure. Mulally had no auto experience and appears to be a pretty big success. Even our newest GM CEO looks better, and can't be any worse, than Wagoner.
Sometimes we need people with experience in other industries.
Now I'm sure we would both agree that the banking management ought to all be fired and sent to Alcatraz.
That car was not available 5 years ago. Let's assume the 2010 LaCrosse is as good as a TL (certainly better looking). Then you are admitting that GM's best alternative came out post-failure and post-bankruptcy. Hence GM was as bad as we were all saying years ago. Between the inept management and the inept UAW, it was a marriage made in hell.
Too bad GM's product line is not broad enough yet with similar quality vehicles like the LaCrosse. They are slowly pruning the junk and now have the Malibu, LaCrosse, and CTS. But the competition is not sitting still. Do you think they'll ever be able to put out competitive *profitable* product with the UAW still around their neck?
No, they spit into their own faces...once great but now forgotten. Making junk doesn't cut it...it makes bankruptcy....whether junky labor agreements or the actual product. It's not an organized assault by consumers on their auto industry but rather a real loud wake up call...WE WANT THE BEST CARS!
Happy New Year to ALL Everywhere.
Regards,
OW
GM and the UAW got so focused on fighting each other over the years, they forgot about priority #1.....making the best product.
Cooter, thanks for the new years' wish! Happy New Years to all! (it's still 2009 in California). This is a fun bunch to *debate* with!
I think we are still getting the same BS out of UAW. Just look at their refusal to negotiate with Ford.
What should have happened in the bailout is to wipe out GM shareholders and dump GM onto UAW and its pensioners - rather than having PBGC and thus taxpayers potentially picking up the tab for unfunded GM pension for those fat cats UAWers.
That way, at least we get to see how UAW messes up itself.
DENVER (AP) - Colorado's minimum wage will drop slightly in the new year - the first decrease in any state's minimum wage since the federal minimum was adopted in 1938.
Colorado's wage is falling 3 cents an hour, from $7.28 to the federal level of $7.25. That's because Colorado is one of 10 states that tie the state minimum wage to inflation. The goal is to protect low-wage workers from having unchanged paychecks as the cost of living goes up.
But Colorado's provision also allows wage declines, and the state's consumer price index fell 0.6 percent last year, so the minimum wage is going down.
So tell US what part of the cost of living has gone down?
Well, yes and no. The 2005 Lacrosse was based on the old "W" platform, which debuted in 1997 as the Regal and Century. Considering the G-6 was available in 2005, and sits on the Epsillon 2 that the new Lacrosse sits on, that's one bad for GM. Considering that the '05 CXS was available with the 3.6 DOHC V6, one good.
Now look at the styling and equiptment of the old Lacrosse. I know that 5 years ago, Acura and Lexus were advertising things like voice activated navigation, mp3 compatibility manumatics, etc., so GM was late to the party with this for Buick. More bad points for GM.
But I believe that the seeds of GM's recovery were sewn back in Sept. of 2007, when they signed the new contract with the UAW. Going forward, this allowed a much more competitive cost structure for GM.
Pre bankruptcy, the '08 Malibu, and the Lambdas debuted. Both were well received. In what could be viewed as a cost cutting move, they (since at least 2005) have been moving towards global platforms, as opposed to regional ones. I think the byproduct to that has been better cars, as it seems that the Opels and Holdens were better received there than the Buicks and Chevys were here. I also believe that they are investing more money in the materials used to build the cars, as well. All you have to look at is the 2010 Equinox. Built on the same Theta platform as the Aztec, The 2010 version seems to be getting much better reviews than it's predecessors, yet they are being built by the same UAW employees.
I think that the UAW workers are treated somewhat like a Quarterback. Everybody looks at the QB. They get most of the attention, win or lose. Consequently, they get far more praise than they deserve for a win, and far more condemnation when they lose, even if the underlying problem lies elsewhere.
My belief is that GM's bankruptcy had more to do with the sudden and prolonged spike in gas prices from Katrina until the market crash in the fall of '08, where GM didn't have the product to sell, other than the Aveo and Cobalt. That lies on GM's management, not the workers.
Ford secured financing prior to the crash, GM didn't. That's managements fault.
My best guess would be the housing crunch has driven down prices.
The UAW are part of the forged direction to oblivion that resulted last year. There was NO other way around it. If the Government hadn't provided the BO, GM would be history. Those jobs are being subsidized at the moment. If the products do not exceed the market competition, the story will end the same. I agree there are some new winners and you own one. That's one at the top of the market price curve.
The problem is the lower end of the market will grow faster and GM is the weakest at the small cars. Ford has used an older platform that meets the competition. GM is behind as usual. If the pricing reflected by high UAW cost forces continued high incentives, bleeding will continue and the song remains the same.
Regards,
OW
I think that the GM started down the road to bankruptcy much, much earlier - as far back as the early 1980s, when it stopped designing & building cars - as opposed to trucks - that people really wanted to own. Look at its sedan & coupe offerings in the 1980s & 90s & you won't find much that's fresh & exciting. Even Lemko, the biggest Cadillac fan in these parts & the owner of a late 80s Caddy, admits that the great Cadillacs of the 1950s & 60s were vastly more appealing. He's said that he'd swap his '89 for a '69 in a heartbeat.
When I was a teenager in the middle & late 60s, almost all the cars that my friends & I lusted after were built by GM: the Impala SS, the Camaro &, above all else, the Pontiac GTO. GM just knew how to design, build & market cars that pulled people into showrooms.
But the magic was gone 20 years later. By then, GM was just phoning it in.
IMO, GM would have gone bankrupt in the late 90s - possibly earlier - if cheap, abundant gasoline hadn't touched off the SUV craze. That was GM's lifesaver. The company could leverage existing truck designs & earn enormous profits on each SUV it sold. That was the good news. The bad news was that during the 90s & early 2000s, GM paid even less attention to cars. When the bottom dropped out of the truck-based SUV market in the mid-2000s, GM had nothing else to sell that was comparably appealing.
So GM's 2008 bankruptcy was the culmination of a long downhill slide that began at least 25 years earlier.
Although I don't like unions - if I ran a large business, I'd do everything that I could legally get away with to keep them out of my factories - I blame uninspired & talentless designers, out-of-touch marketers & inbred senior management more than I blame the UAW for GM's woes. The latest GM designs should have hit the market in 2003 - not in 2008 or 2010. That's just inexcusable.
Housing also should be marginally cheaper in most areas (of course, if you were silly enough to buy in 2006, you deserve that bloated mortgage)...but I don't see food and other consumables being cheaper.
Alcatraz is way too nice for the financiers :shades:
If union labor has to compete with glorified slave labor from the lesser developed parts of the world...maybe we should import the best Chindian business minds and let them compete with American execs at 1/20th the salary. What's good for the goose, right?
in the late 1990s, the market was full of speculation, real ones, whereby people would break-up GM, sell off its valuable pieces (EDS, Hughes, GMAC and its minority ownership stakes) and getting PAID to own GM's car manufacturing business.
That analysis essentially said that the car manufacturing side of GM has a negative value - aka it is bankrupt in the eyes of the market.
the route GM took since then is essentially that break-up strategy.
you are right, as long as your own capital isn't at risk.
you just need to go to walmart to see that for yourself.
those on the bottom of the income spectrum has been experiencing deflation while those on the top of the income spectrum has been experiencing inflation over the last two decades or so.
Bill Gates has asked Congress to allow more Engineers in from places like India. I doubt they work for 1/20th the locals. Many do work up to the higher levels. There is a labor shortage in some fields here. Any Reg. Nurse willing to work full time will make $100k per year. Just menial labor that is suffering. Like UAW workers that can be replaced for a lot less right here in the US of America.
that's just free market: there is a lot more supply of cheap labor once global trade opens up access to foreign labor. something UAW just cannot comprehend.
On the flip side, anyone who doesn't understand that deserves to be wiped out.
doing well in school has no correlation whatsoever with being smart, or having managerial skills.
"Crappy managerial skills are in abundance"
the more you think so, the more you will get wiped out.
Agreed. This is why GM is still likely a lost cause unless we bail indefinitely. Ford is doing really well on the management side, but with the UAW they are still very vulnerable. I suspect Ford's management is smart enough to know that they need to move more and more production to non-UAW locations. It is an insurance strategy for the survival of the company.
See, my argument is that if gas were no more expensive than $2/gal, and had never gotten more than that, then trucks would still be "en vogue" and hybrids and subcompacts would be a niche market. That in of itself would have bouyed GM.
Of course, there would probably be no Volt project, probably no historic 2007 labor agreement, and as Jim pointed out, GM had ignored cars basically since the late '80's. A double edged sword.
My feeling is that had GM "refinanced" like Ford, then they would be in the same boat as Ford.
".....The problem is the lower end of the market will grow faster and GM is the weakest at the small cars. "
Today, yes. But the Cruze will be here soon, and is getting good reviews where it is already being sold. You may ask why isn't it here now, and that may be a byproduct of their financial woes, not having the cash to retool a plant that fast. Also, I believe the next Gen Aveo will be built here.
The offshoring movement and taking advantage of lax social and environmental standards in developing regions is the only way these guys are able to increase profit margins. Eventually, the lie runs out.
I think a lot of it just depends on your lot in life. For instance, the McMansions up the street from my house can now be had for under $400K. Just a couple years ago, some of them were fetching $600K or more. So, provided you haven't lost your job or taken a serious pay cut in the past few years, those houses are a relative bargain...in this case one component of your cost of living has gone down. Of course, if you already own a home you need to sell, chances are, it took a hit in value as well.
But now, if you bought one for $600K and need to sell, well the hell with cost of living going down...you're still screwed. However, if you bought one at an inflated price, and don't have to move anytime soon, your cost of living is a moot point. And chances are, even though you buoght at an inflated price, you sold your previous home at an inflated price as well.
And for the most part, I think cars are one thing that have gone down in price, relative to inflation. No matter how much we whine about how expensive they are. For instance, my 2000 Park Ave Ultra originally stickered for around $40K. Adjusted for inflation, that would come to around $50K today. I just priced a 2010 Lucerne Super, checking off every option it had (Nav, chrome wheels, extra-cost paint, heated and cooled seats, blind spot and lane departure warning etc) and even if you were to pay MSRP, it still only comes out to $48,645. Slightly cheaper, but then consider the new Lucerne has the Northstar V-8, versus a supercharged V-6. And other stuff that mine doesn't have, like cooled seats, extra-cost paint, extra-blingy rims, NAV, the blind-spot/lane change crap, etc., and I'm sure extra airbags and such, the difference becomes more noticeable.
Of course, the fact that a fully-loaded 2010 Buick is more affordable than it was 10 years ago is small consolation, if you've lot your job, had your salary/hours cut back, etc (and the only reason I could afford one is I bought it 10 years old!)
The 'pity the rich' movement is arguably the most asinine ideal that the self-titled free-marketeers have contrived.
Chrysler, other automakers to turn retiree health plans over to UAW (AL.com)
As far as blaming things on the high gas prices, that's a cop out. If fuel prices go up and out of 20 airlines, 2 go belly up --- is that a fault of the high fuel prices? Or is it that the 2 that failed were less competitive, had higher cost structures, or were unable to adapt as rapidly as the others?
The high gas prices may have triggered GM's failure, but they were not the CAUSE of the failure. The cause was GM's high costs, noncompetitive products, and reliance on huge vehicles. GM did not have a strategy for if and when the prices would go up, or when the next US recession would hit. And anybody worth their salt knew that it was going to happen eventually.
I would say that Obama's administration has done most things right in this area, with one glaring exception. They decided auto manufacturing was an important US capability that needed to be preserved. They granted loans to a failing company, subject to strict requirements. They ensured the departure of existing management and the board. The biggest failure of their strategy by far was not dealing in any meaningful way with the UAW. That is still a boat anchor around the management's neck.
Crappy managerial skills are a key behind this great recession.
squeezing the unions also helps.
just saying that feels good,
then you have no idea what caused this great recession.
true.
"The cause was GM's high costs, noncompetitive products, and reliance on huge vehicles."
true.
"They decided auto manufacturing was an important US capability that needed to be preserved. They granted loans to a failing company, subject to strict requirements."
they did that to ensure an important voting block for the democrats, at the expenses of the tax payers.
"The biggest failure of their strategy by far was not dealing in any meaningful way with the UAW. That is still a boat anchor around the management's neck."
they should have allowed both companies to go through a normal bankruptcy process and force UAW to own GM.
GREED....Plain and simple. People OBSESSED with making money off of money, instead of goods and services.
You tend to lose track of "little" things like your product when you spend all day worring about the stock price, because some vultures with a little "capital" are obsessed with when they are gonna get their 10% return for 2 months.
While our MBA's certainly haven't distinguished themselves in management skills, I'm inclined to pin the rose on inability to analyze and handle risk, like foolish overdepency on mathematical formulas without adequately assesing the inputs involved or evolving changes that render the formulas less effective over time.
As far as the Cruze, et al, what will be the next savior of mighty GM!?? We've been waiting for DECADES. Same old, same old. The savior never arrives in any category or any division of GM. You need to open the other eye.
Show me the BEEF! Simple as that. Quality beef that's better than any other cut of meat out there. There was plenty of time to be the best in cars and trucks. GM never made it. Bankruptcy resulted. The UAW played a major part in the story.
They should have called strikes only because the quality became so atrocious and the competition kicked their butts from Detroit to Bejing! :sick:
Regards,
Ow
Should have restructured completely in 1972.
Regards,
OW
Regards,
OW not UAW