At the risk of being flamed, I'll repeat what I've said about
American manufacturers -- they build dismal vehicles out of junky
parts that one is supposed to discard after two years and borrow more
money to replace.
The newest GM cars are at least not so ugly I want to barf, but face
it, when you push the trunk unlock button and it pops irretrievably
into the dash, I get the same feeling test driver's got when their
"new high quality" Jag shot the cigarette lighter into the back seat
and burned a hole in the leather -- "I've seen THIS junk before".
If the current GM vehicles look as good and run as well in 20 years
as a current Toyota, I will consider buying one. Not until then, no
way no how. I've done American cars a couple times, and they are
junk. Sorry, until Detroit PROVES they've learned to make quality,
I'll by Japanese or German.
Detroit's "legacy" costs are their own fault -- the UAW tried to get
them to join up and get behind a universal health care system in the
1930s, 40s, 50s, and 60s, each time reminding GM in particular but
also the others that someday it was gonna get REAL expensive, very
pointedly after the 60's when VW and Toyota started making
significant inroads. They were viciously abused in Congress and the
press for their efforts to save Detroit a fortune and stabilize their
business. Typically, who is getting the blame for all the problems?
The workers, who got killed in fairly large numbers, beaten up, lied
to, locked out, and the whole shebang, but who NEVER have had much
say in how the companies run.
GM's crappy management and insane jumble of duplicate parts and
devices costs far more than the legacy costs, and they actually spend
far more to build cars due to sloppy plant design, antique equipment,
and out of touch management styles that the "legacy" costs. If they
are going to actually compete instead of rely on advertising, heavy-
handed lobbying, and buyer inertia, they are gonna have to re-invent
the company, something they have NOT done -- GM is still run remote
from the manufacturing by finance people without a clue. Adversarial
relations with the people who actually produce your product aren't
gonna help you one iota, and there will NEVER be manufacturing
without hands on employees......
End of rant.
Peter
On Dec 8, 2008, at 10:27 AM, Rich Thomas wrote:
OK so that means the consumers don't want their (small) product but
they do want small products from the Japanese companies. (And I
have heard that Ford, and maybe the others', cars are doing well in
Europe and elsewhere v. the competition, why there and not here?)
I guess we can mess with the market by providing (taxpayer-paid)
incentives for people to buy cars they would rather not have, for
cost or quality or utility or whatever other reasons, to keep an
inefficient inept (insert your own in-word here) "American" company
in business, just because it is big. When does that stop? Have
not heard the good answers to that, and the senators have no clue
either, and the guys who are telling them are the ones they say
they want fired. Who to believe? What to believe?
The military thing is a different kettle of fish. Not sure that
relates well to a well-paid (hard-working?) auto worker, except for
a similar level of ongoing benefits, you can see the reasons. An
apple v. an orange, but it does raise an interesting issue as to
how all this gets paid for on an ongoing basis when the till has
only so much (real) money in it. Where are the choices made? How
much do you personally want to send to Unkie every month to carry
the auto industry, the retired military and GS workers, the people
who lose their jobs in market shakeouts, banks, credit card
companies, door/window manufacturers, people who "bought" more
house than they could pay for, on and on and on. Do you run your
family finances that way (like a lot of people seem to do)?
Do Honda and Toyota have large retiree commitments, like Big3/UAW?
I don't know the answer to that.
--R
Tom Hargrave wrote:
The big three have built smaller cars here in the states. They tried
repeatedly & we would not buy them. We wanted mid-size & larger
cars from
American auto makers. One great example of this is Saturn, who
built a long
line of smaller, efficient cars. Saturn is performing so dismally
that its
one of the brands GM needs to can.
As far as legacy costs go, I suppose you also want us to cut all
of our
military retiree benefits? Their retirement & medical benefits
represent
much greater legacy costs to our economy than the auto workers
retirement
benefits. But I guess it's OK with our armed forces because the
cost is
hidden in the Federal Budget?
The only way to shed enough cost right now is to drop the retiree
benefits
and that's not going to happen. Ironically, if this were 20 years
later,
Toyota and Honda would be in the same position because their
retiree base
will also be past their active employee base by then.
Thanks,
Tom Hargrave
www.kegkits.com
256-656-1924
_______________________________________
http://www.okiebenz.com
For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com
To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/
To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
_______________________________________
http://www.okiebenz.com
For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com
To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/
To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
