we have gotten way too comfortable for us to have that hunger to compete against the rest of the world. we blame others for our inability to compete, and we demand more than we deserve.
You have captured the entire situation perfectly. Instead of competing, some posters bash those other companies for taking our jerbs! (jobs)
I think the only reason BOF SUVs became so popular is because automakers stopped building the full-size V-8 powered RWD BOF cars people really wanted. Nobody really cared for those dinky FWD V-6 cars. They were the only things that were available.
Let's be brutally honest. If gasoline was cheap and in abundance, nobody but a masochist or a weirdo would be puttering around in some 4-cylinder econobox or dorky hybrid.
there is NOWHERE in the USA that can compete with Mexachindian labor
You know, that "Mexachindian" bit is getting tiresome, and it's a bit Xenophobic.
You can't lump them all like that. Mexico is losing tons of jobs b/c Mexico can't compete with China either. China is all about cheap labor in manufacturing, while India is about cheap labor in services.
Stop complainig about this. If you are going to remodel your house and a contractor bids $100,000 for the job while the rest are in the $40k to $60k range, please don't tell me that you'd go with the $100k one.
Global economic theory teaches manufacturing is always searching for the cheapest labor. USA>Europe>Japan>Mexico>Korea>China>India>Africa??. Just give it a few more decades, and who knows what will happen.
"Let's be brutally honest. If gasoline was cheap and in abundance, nobody but a masochist or a weirdo would be puttering around in some 4-cylinder econobox or dorky hybrid."
Let's be brutally honest: anyone thinking that way isn't being honest.
a friend of mine used to have a 1960's Cadillac convertible, pink but otherwise in mint condition. his grandfather gave it to him so he could drive between Indiana and Chicago to visit the old man.
after a short while, my friend had to give it back: the car got 6mpg on a good day. and it was more economical to fly than to drive that sucker back and forth.
My girlfriend in high school and college had a drop-dead gorgeous white 1969 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham. I had a silver 1975 Cadillac Sedan DeVille with a dark blue top and leather interior which was my first Cadillac. I bought it for $2,400 in 1986. I don't recall the highway fuel economy being as bad as one might think - maybe 14 MPG, but it was a pig in the city. I'd say it was about 8 MPG. I sold it in May 1993 to a friend of my Dad.
Detroit in the 1950s and 1960s must've been a wonderful place! Too bad I missed it.
...it sure carries its girth better than later models.
Very well put & exactly right. These were big cars that nonetheless had a certain grace.
GM during the 60s had an almost magical knack for designing cars that you wanted to own as soon you saw them. There wasn't a clinker in the bunch. Take a look, if you can, at the '67 & '68 Eldorado or the Camaro from those years.
My personal favorite then (I got my license in '66) was the '67 Pontiac GTO. I was convinced that cheerleaders would go out with me if I had one.
Ford did some good stuff then - the early 60s Lincoln Continental was one of the most beautiful mass-produced cars of all time - but GM couldn't stop hitting home runs.
That's why I don't assign primary responsibility for Detroit's decline & fall to the UAW. IMO, the real problem is that sometime around 1980, the American auto industry - specifically GM, which had been the undisputed style leader - lost its touch.
The new Caddy is light years ahead of the rest. Just drive one and see. Just got a new Buick and the ride is smooth as silk.
What I've noticed here is the fact that all of the automakers are doing the sign n drive. Nothing out of pocket gets you into that car. VW started it and saleswise are taking it to the competition. Its the economic conditions which are calling for the out of the ordinary methods of moving inventory. Hence, the VW and their unionized workforce are winning market position. Just as the BMW and their unionized workforce are making a profit. Unfortunately Toyota/Honda have their hands out. This seems to indicate that other forces, not the UAW, are the reason for the Big Three's woes.
Sensing opportunity in Detroit's weakness, Volkswagen AG and BMW AG of Germany are gearing up to expand market share in the U.S. in the next few years.
But he said VW is confident because of its success battling Toyota and Honda Motor Co. in other markets. "We are the leader in China, not Toyota," he said. "We are already competing successfully against them in other parts of the world. Why not in the U.S.?"
While most auto makers are cutting expenses, Audi AG, VW's luxury unit, plans to increase its 2009 U.S. marketing budget by 15%, from about $80 million last year, including advertisements during the Super Bowl.
Auto makers sold about 17 million vehicles a year in the U.S. in the first half of this decade. But the market declined to about 13 million in 2008, and most forecasts have it below 15 million vehicles for the next couple of years
Shockingly, it appears as if Volkswagen has overtaken Toyota as the world’s largest carmaker, producing 4.4 million vehicles so far this year to the Japanese giant’s 4 million units.
"We are the leader in China, not Toyota," he said. "We are already competing successfully against them in other parts of the world. Why not in the U.S.?"
I'll tell you why. Reliability hasn't been great, dealers are hit or miss, cars are too expensive, and cars are too European (I happen to think that's a good thing).
You want the UAW to compete with the global labor market? This is empirical evidence that people just like to suck up to the rich. You certainly can't make a case here.
On the other hand, by any rational yardstick, U.S. automaker top execs have absolutely no reason whatsoever to feel put upon at pay time. They take home far more in rewards than auto executives outside the United States who compete in the same global marketplace.
Just how much more first became vividly evident ten years ago when Chrysler merged into Daimler-Benz, the world-class German car company.
Daimler-Benz, at the time, outpaced Chrysler on every standard corporate performance measure from revenue to profit. But executives at Chrysler, remarkably, were taking home considerably bigger paychecks.
In 1997, Daimler’s top gun, Juergen Schrempp, earned an estimated $2.5 million. Chrysler’s Robert Eaton that same year took home $16 million, over six times more. Chrysler’s top five execs, together, collected $50 million in 1997 compensation. Daimler’s top ten execs pulled in only $11 million.
However, they did make more cars and spending to expand. While Toyota has laid off their temporary workforce to reduce inventory. You certainly have to admit that Korea gaining 10% of the American market has to keep the Toyota/Honda up at night. Not to mention China and its ambitions.
I got my license in 1993...not bright days...maybe that's why I prefer German cars, and most American cars that I like were made before I was born. The late model cars that some kids I knew had were not exactly aspirational objects.
My first car was a 66 Galaxie 2 door HT...not a bad looking car by any means...although I wanted a period Impala more (my father was involved in the purchase and upkeep, so a vintage car it had to be), Fords were/are much cheaper than their GM counterparts.
I have to wonder... was there a style leader around 1980, the height of malaise? Everything was either bland or bogged down with emasculated engines and unsightly bumpers. I guess then reliability and economy took over.
Hence, if capital is allowed to move to its best use, labor being a part of capital should be allowed to move to its best use. Thereby, we have solved the immigration problem.
Not so fast? We see the results of the laissez faire the Reagan era ushered in. One could argue that that untethered markets gone wild ended capitalism and ushered a new era. An era of socialism? Well if you don't like that label. What do you call it when the government owns large portions of industries?
In bygone days, or at least when I took economics, insurance companies and banks were a sure thing. However, they need to rewrite the text books. To those who don't understand markets and say the the government should have just leave the markets alone/evolve into bankruptcy, you don't understand the masses going to the food stores/gas stations. An orderly bankruptcy, by definition would mean that government would have to make the loans to keep the wheels of industry greased.
Being pragmatic and not following some ill fated course is what is needed. The UAW is but a subset of this society and far from all of the woes in Detroit. People need to start thinking out of the box and thinking for themselves. We live is an instant society and seek the sixty second solution.
That is about as good as it gets. You buy a company and see that your counterpart (the loser company counterpart) is being paid way more than yourself. Now where is the free market excuse for this? They do seem to find fault and injustice with the UAW rank and file compensation. However, we all do know that the CEO is off limits. The pathetic losers need to envy the CEO and not the UAW. Must be that they must see themselves inferior to the CEO and superior to the UAW?
"......Stop complainig about this. If you are going to remodel your house and a contractor bids $100,000 for the job while the rest are in the $40k to $60k range, please don't tell me that you'd go with the $100k one. "
That's not a fair comparison. Obviously, the guy coming in at $100K would REALLLLLY have to explain himself to justify that price, and I would go with the more reasonable quote.
However, if the $100K quote was the ONLY ONE being done with USA labor (an impossibility given that I am in RI, that is why it is an unfair comparison), then I would go with that one. WHY????
Those local people, unlike foreign labor, indirectly PAY MY SALARY every time they shop for Verizon and Verizon wireless products.
But, in a more relevant argument, I try to do business with companies that manufacture in the USA. My jeans come from the All American Clothing company ( www.allamericanclothing.com ). My last pair of boots were $99 Chinese Chippewas. They are less than 18 months old and worn out. My next pair will come from The Union Boot Pro. Union made in the USA for $115, and as a union member I get a 27% discount off that price. I even found a set of 16 drinking glasses at Bed Bath and Beyond made in the USA for $20!!!
I have to wonder... was there a style leader around 1980, the height of malaise? Everything was either bland or bogged down with emasculated engines and unsightly bumpers. I guess then reliability and economy took over.
I would say overall, GM was still probably considered to be the styling leader at that time. Pretty much everything on the domestic front was angular by that time, but I think the GM cars tended to be a bit more smoothed out. Although Chrysler was coming up with some pretty sleek designs in that chiseled look, such as the Dodge Mirada and Chrysler Cordoba.
I think Ford started to steal that styling leadership for 1983, with the debut of the T-bird/Cougar. And the slicker small LTD/Marquis got some good press at the time. And of course when the Taurus came out for '86, everyone was raving (until they started blowing head gaskets, chewing up transmissions, etc). And nevermind the fact that the Taurus is considered by many to be copied from the Audi 5000...although to me the 5000 always seemed a bit more angular, like the GM aero-wedge, than that Ford jellybean thing.
I have to wonder... was there a style leader around 1980, the height of malaise?
I don't know if this answers your question, but the 1st generation (1975-79) Caddy Seville was a cleanly styled & tastefully handsome sedan. Sad to say, the next gen (1980-85) Seville was a pathetic cartoon, a joke. I can only guess that GM fired the original design team & then scoured local bars for replacements.
Someday, when auto industry historians figure out how the Germans took over the American luxury car market in the early 80s, thereby costing the D3 countless billions in profits, they'll probably finger the 2nd generation Seville as one of the culprits.
Just a light read from this Sunday's Star-Telegram. I seem to recall a caller to Ed on his radio show, during the previous President's tax rate cutting days, complaining to Ed that his brand new S Class couldn't keep him cool enough in Dallas heat. He said the dealer's personnel told him that's the best he was going to get. The caller asked Ed if the 7 Series could do better and if so he would just go buy one. Paraphrasing, Ed responded but you just bought an S Class. The caller then stated with his new refund from lower taxes he could just pay cash to get a new 7.
Those downsized Sevilles were elegant, especially for the times, but weren't they kind of oldster cars even then? I don't know if the buyer of those went to 7ers and S-class in 1982, with their hard seats and firm rides...but I don't remember those days. What did the American buyer of large German cars buy before the early 80s?
The old Axis nations sure did do a bang up job on every part of the passenger car market. :shades:
In the angular days, I can see GM as the leader yeah. They also had the best personal luxury coupes, at least until the aero Bird. The pre-aero days are before my memory, and kind of hard to imagine....something like an angular Caprice or Crown Vic seeming modern.
I also thought the Mirada looked pretty modern and sleek for the time, but they didn't seem to be a sales success...what was wrong with them? Quality?
That's not a fair comparison. Obviously, the guy coming in at $100K would REALLLLLY have to explain himself to justify that price, and I would go with the more reasonable quote.
However, if the $100K quote was the ONLY ONE being done with USA labor (an impossibility given that I am in RI, that is why it is an unfair comparison), then I would go with that one. WHY????
Many non-union cars are made in the USA. So the UAW should explain their higher costs. Are they building better cars? Do they have more flexible factories? Do they have multiple skills and work positions relative to the non-union plants? WHAT VALUE DOES THE UAW PROVIDE FOR ITS HIGH COSTS? The UAW is less flexible, more bureaucratic, and more likely to disrupt plant operations than non-union plants. Using your own logic, fire them!
Well Wal-Mart sells for less also. What do they offer in their workforce? Threats of being fired. Punch out and finish your work. Sub-standard salary. 70% of its workforce on government assistance somehow. Yeah, what price do we all have to pay for the race to the bottom for wages? I'll buy my car from a American Brand company. That way my dollar will end up where I live. GM, Ford, and Chrysler aren't crying about the Yen anymore. But Toyota Honda and Nissan are, because its now affecting the profits they are sending back to Japan. I guess all of that flag waving from the imports doesnt do them any good when the shoe is on the other foot. It's not just where the vehicle is made, its where the profits are going.
Let's be brutally honest. If gasoline was cheap and in abundance, nobody but a masochist or a weirdo would be puttering around in some 4-cylinder econobox or dorky hybrid.
But then again, not everyone would be driving around in a Ford Excursion either, or a Buick Park Avenue :P .
Detroit in the mid 60s must have been amazing, I can't begin to imagine
Probably get reigned in my Host here, but, what the heck...
Detroit was where it was at in the mid/late 60's. I got my license in 1968 and a '69 Camaro Z-28 the next year. My older cousin had a '66(?) GTO. My BIL-to-be had a '69 GTO convertible.
One of things I remember most back in those days was that you were either a Chevy, Ford, or Mopar fan. People debated (and sometimes raced :shades: ) the merits of one vs the other endlessly, usually on some vacant parking lot or at one of the drive-in restaurants that were so popular back then.
It's not just where the vehicle is made, its where the profits are going.
I respect your opinion and I was there a long time ago but inferior products are no excuse to protect a market. Make junk and die was the fact which brought GM and C to business death.
Ford was so close to the brink; it's still bleeding cash and could go down with the UAW.
It's not just where the vehicle is made, its where the profits are going.
The profits earned by any publicly traded corporation go to its shareholders, who can live anywhere. You can buy shares of Toyota & Honda (don't know if Nissan shares trade on any U.S. exchange) from your stockbroker. Then, your share of the profits will go to you.
I also thought the Mirada looked pretty modern and sleek for the time, but they didn't seem to be a sales success...what was wrong with them? Quality?
Quality was pretty bad on the Cordoba/Mirada, although they did improve in later years. However, I don't think that would have kept people away initially, as they wouldn't have known about the quality until the cars actually started falling apart.
The two biggest reasons the car flopped were probably Chrysler's shaky future and the recession. People were losing their jobs, and afraid to make a major purpose, so that reduced the overall market. And those who were ready to buy probably didn't want to take a chance on a new product from a company that might go bankrupt at any time.
As for quality, the drivetrains were pretty durable as usual, but the cars were put together sloppy, tended to rattle, leak, rust, have minor parts fall off, etc. The Lean Burn computers could also be troublesome, and the cars were choked so badly it wasn't even funny. The slant six had 85 hp, the 318 had 120. There was a high-output 360, essentially the copcar motor, with around 185 hp, which turned these things into about the closest thing to a musclecar you could get anymore. But with expensive, scarce fuel, not too many people were in that market.
Well Wal-Mart sells for less also. What do they offer in their workforce? Threats of being fired. Punch out and finish your work. Sub-standard salary. 70% of its workforce on government assistance somehow.
Walmart keeps coming up in these discussions, but your describing retail in general. If your a clerk/cashier at ANY retail establishment, your NOT going to be paid much. There are a few exceptions, Costco and Aldi. They pay above industry averages. In general if you want to be successful in retail you need to be promoted to department management and above, which many are. Walmart's competitive advantage is in their procurement and distribution efficiencies. Simply put, they buy product and distribute it cheaper than almost anyone else, thus they can offer lower prices.
My dad is high up in purchasing for an independent grocery chain with about $1 billion in sales that competes on all fronts with Walmart (he started out at 17 years old with same company for minimum wage 40 years ago as a bottle boy) . When we discuss Walmart he doesn't mention their lower labor rates, but how they can buy the same products cheaper than he can
At the same time, some of these people employed my local Walmart simply being paid what the job is worth. If labor dictates a cashier is worth $20/hr, I guarantee 95% of the registers would be self checkout or they would have to use higher skilled people to check out faster, thus using less help. Regardless those who are currently employed their now, wouldn't be if wages rose significantly.
Go through an Aldi checkout and you see why they pay their cashiers more than other retail stores. They demand them to be fast, thus they can pay them more because due to increased productivity.
This is not rocket science. If you pay someone to mow your lawn and they charge you $20/hr to mow your 1 acre lot, your not going to let them mow it with a reel type mower for long, you'd either higher someone else that uses a gas mower allowing them do it in 1/2 the time and cost or you'll make them use a gas mower/lawn tractor which you provide.
Walmart is the company everyone loves to hate. If they were to be saddled with UAW worker mentality, you can bet they would be making changes. You would not see the high percentage of challenged individuals working at menial jobs throughout the stores. You would not have an elderly person greeting you at the door. Every time I meet someone that works for Walmart I ask how they like their job. None have complained. The complainers here would be complaining if they shut down and there was no competition when they buy their everyday staples and groceries. It is Walmart that keep the others honest. San Diego is due to get their first Super Center. It will be interesting to see how Vons, Ralphs and Albertsons respond. They are Union and start their clerks at minimum wage.
It is Walmart that keep the others honest. San Diego is due to get their first Super Center. It will be interesting to see how Vons, Ralphs and Albertsons respond. They are Union and start their clerks at minimum wage.
They still have been locked out of Chicago too. They are in the Chicago burbs, but not within the city. So far the Union political machine Chi-town have kept them out, but the customers have to pay. Not that the union cares about that.
Walmart Super Centers were locked out in CA by size restrictions that have been changed. The major grocers fought against them for years. Not sure how they got the rules changed. Money I am sure. That was the whole issue with the Clerks Union striking a few years ago. Then all the grocers locked them out. When they finally settled it was a big loss for the Union people. I know Vons (Safeway) start their clerks at minimum wage under their contract. Less HC and pension benefits and not so great top pay.
The major grocers fought against them for years. Not sure how they got the rules changed. Money I am sure.
I'm sure not wanting Walmart is one area where the management of the grocery stores and the retail clerks union agree on.
I know Kroger used to start around minimum wage too, but once you made the 30 day or whatever it was probation period you paid your union dues and got a 15 cent or so raise. That was 15 years ago, so I don't remember the exact rates other that they were essentially minimum wage for a utility clerk and maybe 50 cents more or so for a starting cashier. That was with retail clerks union.
Here Walmart starts about a buck over minimum wage. Not sure about their raises. My daughter only worked for them a year before going back into Escrow work. I don't see them being Union as a big plus for any one concerned.
The question for UAW workers that have run out of Unemployment benefits. How's your Union looking NOW? Bet they still want their monthly dues to keep you on the books.
The profits earned by any publicly traded corporation go to its shareholders, who can live anywhere.
True, but there's also taxes, salaries paid to corporate staff (and their cascading impact on economy), R&D, etc. Of course all foreign brands do have an economic impact on the US, (just like US brands have impact abroad), but they still have a bigger impact back home.
Of course all foreign brands do have an economic impact on the US, (just like US brands have impact abroad), but they still have a bigger impact back home.
I'd disagree in some cases. For a car with >70% US content (such as Camry), the bulk of the parts, the plant, the advertising, the transportation, and the dealership and service dollars are spent here. Relatively little goes to Japan. Even many of the foreign nameplates are designed here with US staff.
They still have been locked out of Chicago too. They are in the Chicago burbs, but not within the city. So far the Union political machine Chi-town have kept them out, but the customers have to pay. Not that the union cares about that.
Articles in newspapers recently show that Chicago is losing a lot of convention business due to high labor costs of setting up, any daily maintenance needed on convention booths. Don't know if UAW is involved at conventions. Have heard that electricians' union charges exhorbitant fees to set up electric and related at convention booths. Annual Chicago Auto Show coming in Feb. Wonder if any UAW workers help set up the show, bring in the various vehicles.
Chicago mayor and city council in lock step in wanting unionized work force for any Walmarts that might be put in city. Stupidity of their obstinance on this issue over the years has forced Chicagoans to drive to nearby suburbs to shop at a Walmart. Thus, all of that sales tax revenue is lost to suburbs. Chicago residents that might want to work for Walmart have to try and get jobs in the suburbs.
Ultimately, Walmart is way more powerful than Chicago mayor and his stooge city council aldermen. Mayor failed miserably in his attempt at 2016 Olympics.
Detroit Iron in the sixties is still something I cant forget. Got my license in 1959 and when I came back from Nam in 65, I bought a brand new 65 Impala 396, then a new 1970 Plymouth Fury III with a 440, and somewhere in there a 427 Corvette convertible.
There was no thought whatsoever of foreign cars in those times, sure some wealthy people drove XKE's and some drove foreign nameplates for their own reasons, but the number were so small as to be insignificant. I know I cant go back and seeing Detroit now is tragic.
Comments
You have captured the entire situation perfectly. Instead of competing, some posters bash those other companies for taking our jerbs! (jobs)
Let's be brutally honest. If gasoline was cheap and in abundance, nobody but a masochist or a weirdo would be puttering around in some 4-cylinder econobox or dorky hybrid.
You know, that "Mexachindian" bit is getting tiresome, and it's a bit Xenophobic.
You can't lump them all like that. Mexico is losing tons of jobs b/c Mexico can't compete with China either. China is all about cheap labor in manufacturing, while India is about cheap labor in services.
Stop complainig about this. If you are going to remodel your house and a contractor bids $100,000 for the job while the rest are in the $40k to $60k range, please don't tell me that you'd go with the $100k one.
Let's be brutally honest: anyone thinking that way isn't being honest.
Period, The End.
Regards,
OW
Detroit in the mid 60s must have been amazing, I can't begin to imagine.
a friend of mine used to have a 1960's Cadillac convertible, pink but otherwise in mint condition. his grandfather gave it to him so he could drive between Indiana and Chicago to visit the old man.
after a short while, my friend had to give it back: the car got 6mpg on a good day. and it was more economical to fly than to drive that sucker back and forth.
nonetheless, it was a nice car.
Detroit in the 1950s and 1960s must've been a wonderful place! Too bad I missed it.
Get that to 60 MPG and the WORLD will wait in line! :shades:
Regards,
OW
Regards,
OW
Regards,
OW
think that when the UAW had a huge competitive advantage back then and they still managed to waste it away so fast.
and this administration still wants to waste billions more taxpayer money on those guys?
Very well put & exactly right. These were big cars that nonetheless had a certain grace.
GM during the 60s had an almost magical knack for designing cars that you wanted to own as soon you saw them. There wasn't a clinker in the bunch. Take a look, if you can, at the '67 & '68 Eldorado or the Camaro from those years.
My personal favorite then (I got my license in '66) was the '67 Pontiac GTO. I was convinced that cheerleaders would go out with me if I had one.
Ford did some good stuff then - the early 60s Lincoln Continental was one of the most beautiful mass-produced cars of all time - but GM couldn't stop hitting home runs.
That's why I don't assign primary responsibility for Detroit's decline & fall to the UAW. IMO, the real problem is that sometime around 1980, the American auto industry - specifically GM, which had been the undisputed style leader - lost its touch.
What I've noticed here is the fact that all of the automakers are doing the sign n drive. Nothing out of pocket gets you into that car. VW started it and saleswise are taking it to the competition. Its the economic conditions which are calling for the out of the ordinary methods of moving inventory. Hence, the VW and their unionized workforce are winning market position. Just as the BMW and their unionized workforce are making a profit. Unfortunately Toyota/Honda have their hands out. This seems to indicate that other forces, not the UAW, are the reason for the Big Three's woes.
Sensing opportunity in Detroit's weakness, Volkswagen AG and BMW AG of Germany are gearing up to expand market share in the U.S. in the next few years.
But he said VW is confident because of its success battling Toyota and Honda Motor Co. in other markets. "We are the leader in China, not Toyota," he said. "We are already competing successfully against them in other parts of the world. Why not in the U.S.?"
While most auto makers are cutting expenses, Audi AG, VW's luxury unit, plans to increase its 2009 U.S. marketing budget by 15%, from about $80 million last year, including advertisements during the Super Bowl.
Auto makers sold about 17 million vehicles a year in the U.S. in the first half of this decade. But the market declined to about 13 million in 2008, and most forecasts have it below 15 million vehicles for the next couple of years
Shockingly, it appears as if Volkswagen has overtaken Toyota as the world’s largest carmaker, producing 4.4 million vehicles so far this year to the Japanese giant’s 4 million units.
Oh, I have no problem with that. In fact, I support it. I was just referring to the OP's use of derogatory terms.
I'll tell you why. Reliability hasn't been great, dealers are hit or miss, cars are too expensive, and cars are too European (I happen to think that's a good thing).
On the other hand, by any rational yardstick, U.S. automaker top execs have absolutely no reason whatsoever to feel put upon at pay time. They take home far more in rewards than auto executives outside the United States who compete in the same global marketplace.
Just how much more first became vividly evident ten years ago when Chrysler merged into Daimler-Benz, the world-class German car company.
Daimler-Benz, at the time, outpaced Chrysler on every standard corporate performance measure from revenue to profit. But executives at Chrysler, remarkably, were taking home considerably bigger paychecks.
In 1997, Daimler’s top gun, Juergen Schrempp, earned an estimated $2.5 million. Chrysler’s Robert Eaton that same year took home $16 million, over six times more. Chrysler’s top five execs, together, collected $50 million in 1997 compensation. Daimler’s top ten execs pulled in only $11 million.
http://blog.caranddriver.com/vw-overtakes-toyota-dr-piechs-quest-for-world-domin- ation-gathers-pace/
My first car was a 66 Galaxie 2 door HT...not a bad looking car by any means...although I wanted a period Impala more (my father was involved in the purchase and upkeep, so a vintage car it had to be), Fords were/are much cheaper than their GM counterparts.
I have to wonder... was there a style leader around 1980, the height of malaise? Everything was either bland or bogged down with emasculated engines and unsightly bumpers. I guess then reliability and economy took over.
Not so fast? We see the results of the laissez faire the Reagan era ushered in. One could argue that that untethered markets gone wild ended capitalism and ushered a new era. An era of socialism? Well if you don't like that label. What do you call it when the government owns large portions of industries?
In bygone days, or at least when I took economics, insurance companies and banks were a sure thing. However, they need to rewrite the text books. To those who don't understand markets and say the the government should have just leave the markets alone/evolve into bankruptcy, you don't understand the masses going to the food stores/gas stations. An orderly bankruptcy, by definition would mean that government would have to make the loans to keep the wheels of industry greased.
Being pragmatic and not following some ill fated course is what is needed. The UAW is but a subset of this society and far from all of the woes in Detroit. People need to start thinking out of the box and thinking for themselves. We live is an instant society and seek the sixty second solution.
All of those high priced suits and both companies haven't been the same since.
ONLY IN AMERICA !!!
That's not a fair comparison. Obviously, the guy coming in at $100K would REALLLLLY have to explain himself to justify that price, and I would go with the more reasonable quote.
However, if the $100K quote was the ONLY ONE being done with USA labor (an impossibility given that I am in RI, that is why it is an unfair comparison), then I would go with that one. WHY????
Those local people, unlike foreign labor, indirectly PAY MY SALARY every time they shop for Verizon and Verizon wireless products.
But, in a more relevant argument, I try to do business with companies that manufacture in the USA. My jeans come from the All American Clothing company ( www.allamericanclothing.com ). My last pair of boots were $99 Chinese Chippewas. They are less than 18 months old and worn out. My next pair will come from The Union Boot Pro. Union made in the USA for $115, and as a union member I get a 27% discount off that price. I even found a set of 16 drinking glasses at Bed Bath and Beyond made in the USA for $20!!!
I would say overall, GM was still probably considered to be the styling leader at that time. Pretty much everything on the domestic front was angular by that time, but I think the GM cars tended to be a bit more smoothed out. Although Chrysler was coming up with some pretty sleek designs in that chiseled look, such as the Dodge Mirada and Chrysler Cordoba.
I think Ford started to steal that styling leadership for 1983, with the debut of the T-bird/Cougar. And the slicker small LTD/Marquis got some good press at the time. And of course when the Taurus came out for '86, everyone was raving (until they started blowing head gaskets, chewing up transmissions, etc). And nevermind the fact that the Taurus is considered by many to be copied from the Audi 5000...although to me the 5000 always seemed a bit more angular, like the GM aero-wedge, than that Ford jellybean thing.
I don't know if this answers your question, but the 1st generation (1975-79) Caddy Seville was a cleanly styled & tastefully handsome sedan. Sad to say, the next gen (1980-85) Seville was a pathetic cartoon, a joke. I can only guess that GM fired the original design team & then scoured local bars for replacements.
Someday, when auto industry historians figure out how the Germans took over the American luxury car market in the early 80s, thereby costing the D3 countless billions in profits, they'll probably finger the 2nd generation Seville as one of the culprits.
They got theirs did you get yours.
http://www.star-telegram.com/ed_wallace/story/1861983.html
I know. I was just talking about the US. I love VW's. I've had two, and might get a GTI for my next car.
The old Axis nations sure did do a bang up job on every part of the passenger car market. :shades:
I also thought the Mirada looked pretty modern and sleek for the time, but they didn't seem to be a sales success...what was wrong with them? Quality?
However, if the $100K quote was the ONLY ONE being done with USA labor (an impossibility given that I am in RI, that is why it is an unfair comparison), then I would go with that one. WHY????
Many non-union cars are made in the USA. So the UAW should explain their higher costs. Are they building better cars? Do they have more flexible factories? Do they have multiple skills and work positions relative to the non-union plants? WHAT VALUE DOES THE UAW PROVIDE FOR ITS HIGH COSTS? The UAW is less flexible, more bureaucratic, and more likely to disrupt plant operations than non-union plants. Using your own logic, fire them!
But then again, not everyone would be driving around in a Ford Excursion either, or a Buick Park Avenue :P .
Probably get reigned in my Host here, but, what the heck...
Detroit was where it was at in the mid/late 60's. I got my license in 1968 and a '69 Camaro Z-28 the next year. My older cousin had a '66(?) GTO. My BIL-to-be had a '69 GTO convertible.
One of things I remember most back in those days was that you were either a Chevy, Ford, or Mopar fan. People debated (and sometimes raced :shades: ) the merits of one vs the other endlessly, usually on some vacant parking lot or at one of the drive-in restaurants that were so popular back then.
Ahh yes - the good ol' days!
So, it's all about oversupply of expensive labor in a more efficient manufacturing market.
Let's not over complicate things.
Regards,
OW
I respect your opinion and I was there a long time ago but inferior products are no excuse to protect a market. Make junk and die was the fact which brought GM and C to business death.
Ford was so close to the brink; it's still bleeding cash and could go down with the UAW.
Regards,
OW
The profits earned by any publicly traded corporation go to its shareholders, who can live anywhere. You can buy shares of Toyota & Honda (don't know if Nissan shares trade on any U.S. exchange) from your stockbroker. Then, your share of the profits will go to you.
Quality was pretty bad on the Cordoba/Mirada, although they did improve in later years. However, I don't think that would have kept people away initially, as they wouldn't have known about the quality until the cars actually started falling apart.
The two biggest reasons the car flopped were probably Chrysler's shaky future and the recession. People were losing their jobs, and afraid to make a major purpose, so that reduced the overall market. And those who were ready to buy probably didn't want to take a chance on a new product from a company that might go bankrupt at any time.
As for quality, the drivetrains were pretty durable as usual, but the cars were put together sloppy, tended to rattle, leak, rust, have minor parts fall off, etc. The Lean Burn computers could also be troublesome, and the cars were choked so badly it wasn't even funny. The slant six had 85 hp, the 318 had 120. There was a high-output 360, essentially the copcar motor, with around 185 hp, which turned these things into about the closest thing to a musclecar you could get anymore. But with expensive, scarce fuel, not too many people were in that market.
Walmart keeps coming up in these discussions, but your describing retail in general. If your a clerk/cashier at ANY retail establishment, your NOT going to be paid much. There are a few exceptions, Costco and Aldi. They pay above industry averages. In general if you want to be successful in retail you need to be promoted to department management and above, which many are. Walmart's competitive advantage is in their procurement and distribution efficiencies. Simply put, they buy product and distribute it cheaper than almost anyone else, thus they can offer lower prices.
My dad is high up in purchasing for an independent grocery chain with about $1 billion in sales that competes on all fronts with Walmart (he started out at 17 years old with same company for minimum wage 40 years ago as a bottle boy) . When we discuss Walmart he doesn't mention their lower labor rates, but how they can buy the same products cheaper than he can
At the same time, some of these people employed my local Walmart simply being paid what the job is worth. If labor dictates a cashier is worth $20/hr, I guarantee 95% of the registers would be self checkout or they would have to use higher skilled people to check out faster, thus using less help. Regardless those who are currently employed their now, wouldn't be if wages rose significantly.
Go through an Aldi checkout and you see why they pay their cashiers more than other retail stores. They demand them to be fast, thus they can pay them more because due to increased productivity.
This is not rocket science. If you pay someone to mow your lawn and they charge you $20/hr to mow your 1 acre lot, your not going to let them mow it with a reel type mower for long, you'd either higher someone else that uses a gas mower allowing them do it in 1/2 the time and cost or you'll make them use a gas mower/lawn tractor which you provide.
They still have been locked out of Chicago too. They are in the Chicago burbs, but not within the city. So far the Union political machine Chi-town have kept them out, but the customers have to pay. Not that the union cares about that.
I'm sure not wanting Walmart is one area where the management of the grocery stores and the retail clerks union agree on.
I know Kroger used to start around minimum wage too, but once you made the 30 day or whatever it was probation period you paid your union dues and got a 15 cent or so raise. That was 15 years ago, so I don't remember the exact rates other that they were essentially minimum wage for a utility clerk and maybe 50 cents more or so for a starting cashier. That was with retail clerks union.
Here we go again....
Profits represent 2-5% of the total $$ put into a car. And the US makes have no profits.
That is an old nonsense UAW argument.
The question for UAW workers that have run out of Unemployment benefits. How's your Union looking NOW? Bet they still want their monthly dues to keep you on the books.
True, but there's also taxes, salaries paid to corporate staff (and their cascading impact on economy), R&D, etc. Of course all foreign brands do have an economic impact on the US, (just like US brands have impact abroad), but they still have a bigger impact back home.
I'd disagree in some cases. For a car with >70% US content (such as Camry), the bulk of the parts, the plant, the advertising, the transportation, and the dealership and service dollars are spent here. Relatively little goes to Japan. Even many of the foreign nameplates are designed here with US staff.
Articles in newspapers recently show that Chicago is losing a lot of convention business due to high labor costs of setting up, any daily maintenance needed on convention booths. Don't know if UAW is involved at conventions. Have heard that electricians' union charges exhorbitant fees to set up electric and related at convention booths. Annual Chicago Auto Show coming in Feb. Wonder if any UAW workers help set up the show, bring in the various vehicles.
Chicago mayor and city council in lock step in wanting unionized work force for any Walmarts that might be put in city. Stupidity of their obstinance on this issue over the years has forced Chicagoans to drive to nearby suburbs to shop at a Walmart. Thus, all of that sales tax revenue is lost to suburbs. Chicago residents that might want to work for Walmart have to try and get jobs in the suburbs.
Ultimately, Walmart is way more powerful than Chicago mayor and his stooge city council aldermen. Mayor failed miserably in his attempt at 2016 Olympics.
There was no thought whatsoever of foreign cars in those times, sure some wealthy people drove XKE's and some drove foreign nameplates for their own reasons, but the number were so small as to be insignificant. I know I cant go back and seeing Detroit now is tragic.