var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
thebluepill
January 8, 2009 12:53 AM
Moderate | Flag for review

That Graphic Sums it up perfectly..


BUT.. Change CAN happen.. it will be painful as hell..

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
m4ximusprim3
January 8, 2009 5:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@thebluepill: According to that graphic, GM will never fail, because the big gear on the far left will keep the two other gears from counter-rotating and closing on the GM car.

See, no bailout needed!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
trujunglist
January 8, 2009 9:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@m4ximusprim3:

Thanks for the laugh, that really made my day (modeling all day is not very fun)

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Xanaxian
January 8, 2009 12:55 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

To the external factors I might add increasing concern about the environment on the part of the public (especially younger people), which deters them from buying gas-guzzling SUV's, which are both inefficient and unnecessary for the average person's daily use.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
fuddrha
January 8, 2009 2:10 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Xanaxian: Environmental concerns are addressed - somewhat - in the \"Internal Factors\" portion. He blames it on the management - \"Too focused on Trucks and SUV's.\"

Which I can kind of see. The move away from gas-guzzlers has been in the works for a bit; it's shifted from being an external factor (consumers are a'hankering for something different...) to an internal factor (...which the Big Three haven't committed to offering).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
parad0x360
January 8, 2009 1:51 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Xanaxian: Thats an excellent point. I get angry when I see a Soccer Mom driving a Hummer or one of those Ford Excursions.

Hell even my mother drives a 5 passenger Jeep and the only one who is ever...and i mean ever in said Jeep is my mother. There is no reason for it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Shadowman615
January 8, 2009 4:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@parad0x360: Well it actually makes sense for a real Soccer Mom to drive one of those (although a midsized SUV would also probably work). It's the rest of the folks who rarely ever have passengers or cargo who really don't need it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Miguel Valdespino
January 8, 2009 11:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The Bailout should also be a cargo container. I know a lot of people who wouldn't buy a car from GM for wondering what's going to happen to their warranty if it folds. Or if they'll pay more for spare parts if they discontinue their model.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
qwijybo
January 8, 2009 12:57 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I've been lucky that the 2 GM's I have had, have both been good cars but even so I'm starting to feel the lure of the imports as I start to look towards a new vehicle. The Volt is still a possibility for me assuming GM keeps its plans to get it to market.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
Hank Scorpio
January 8, 2009 3:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@qwijybo: I've owned a few GMs in my life, including my last 3 vehicles. They've all been good cars. My last job was as a field tech/consultant, and I drove a lot. My car has over 115k miles on it, and it's still going strong.

However, I'm so fed up with GM now. I'll drive my car until I start having to sink money into repairs on a regular basis. But, there's a very slim chance, even if they somehow survive, that my next car will be a GM.

Unless, of course, they pull their heads out of their asses and build a decent, non-plugin*, hybrid. That's not likely to happen.

*I own a condo and park on the street - so plugin hybrids are absolutely worthless to me.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
notlazyjustdontcare
January 8, 2009 4:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Hank Scorpio: If you don't plug it in, a plug-in hybrid is an ordinary hybrid. One of the reasons we haven't had PHEVs for so long is that they confuse people.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Hank Scorpio
January 8, 2009 5:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@notlazyjustdontcare: Is that right? My understanding was that they needed to be plugged in to fully charge when not in use. I guess I am a bit confused.

I wonder, though, if they're designed to be plugged in to charge, how they actually compare to ordinary hybrids if you never plug them in?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Hyman Decent
January 9, 2009 7:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Hank Scorpio, trujunglist: I've read that when the battery pack of the Chevy Volt is depleted, the generator that's powered by its internal combustion engine sends electricity to the electric motors and does not recharge the battery pack.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
trujunglist
January 8, 2009 9:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Hank Scorpio:

Well, I see where your confusion game from, since the EV1 was a plug-in only vehicle. I think for a long time they thought the only way to do this was to plug it in and charge a battery up. Hybrids didn't exist because they weren't forward thinking enough to realize that bulking the car up a little by adding a gas engine would be easier to implement, the infrastructure already exists, and it would generally be more convenient.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Hyman Decent
January 8, 2009 3:14 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@qwijybo: You're willing to pay $40K, plus sales tax and/or fees, less $7,500 federal tax credit (source), for one?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Nytmare
January 8, 2009 3:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Evil_Otto: Nor about whether the car is actually any good since it doesn't exist yet.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
pollyannacowgirl
January 8, 2009 1:05 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yup. Failure illustrated.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
se7a7n7
January 8, 2009 1:06 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Idea: repurpose some plants to be able to convert existing vehicles that aren't being sold to alternative fuels, (electric/hydrogen/biofuel) with the efficiency of an assembly line.

Now they can sell vehicles people want without having to create entirely new cars and trucks.

I'm pretty sure the know-how to do these conversions already exists, that is if GM can figure out how to do a YouTube search without spending a billion dollars.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
parad0x360
January 8, 2009 1:52 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@se7a7n7: Well even if they fix everything thats wrong with them and they greatly improve the quality of their vehicles they still have to worry about their brand perception which could take years to change.

Alot of people have given on on American cars because of quality concerns and even if the cars got better by tomorrow they go under before the bad perceptions can be changed.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
trujunglist
January 8, 2009 9:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@parad0x360:

I think one of the problems with their brands is that they have a disgusting amount of them. Apple doesn't have like 50 products that are all essentially the same with 50 different brands and model names.
GM should follow Apple's example and simplify the line-up. And besides, half of the brands are basically worthless because as you mentioned, no one trusts them now. May as well ditch all existing brands and create an entirely new one and move on from that point.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Con Seannery
January 8, 2009 10:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@trujunglist: If they followed Apple's model, they'd have a car that ran on something other than gas or diesel, was less powerful, could do less, looked nice, got redesigned every month and revealed at a major press event, was sold primarily to smug hipsters, and cost thousands and thousands more than a competitor for less car.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Con Seannery
January 8, 2009 10:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Con Seannery: And the alternative fuel it would run on would be just as polluting and the same cost, forgot to add that.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
kwsventures
January 8, 2009 1:09 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

GM will file Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2009. They are toast as currently aligned. Any stupid company--and I don't care what the union wants--that allows a job bank (i.e, the rubber room) to pay out $750M in salary and benefits to people to sit in a room and not work deserves to fail.

Reply
7 replies
\"user-pic\"
David Brodbeck
January 9, 2009 5:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@kwsventures: There's a reason the job bank item uses the past tense, though. They've been greatly cut back and will be eliminated soon. At this point there's less than a thousand employees in the job bank program, which is a tiny fraction of GM's labor force.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
tmed
January 8, 2009 3:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@kwsventures: The UAW should be thrown on the manangement side. Kind of the super example of resisting change. Management built the Us V. Them / Management V. Labor attitude and then continued to make concessions for years.


It was management's job to realize the impact of their agreements, and not agree to terms that would cripple the company. It is the union's job to get what the terms that its members ask, and bring back the best package.


They will continue to be bailed out because with the infrastructure in place, the Auto industry is the cheapest works project avaialable. The projections for the next couple years are miserable and will likely have to include even more Government works.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
thebluepill
January 8, 2009 4:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@tmed:


Ermmm.. thats the whole point of a union, to be \"Us vs Them\"..


The Union's job is to get as much as possible for their people, keep non-union employees out and use force to get their way. It was the only way to get what they wanted 100 years ago.


Now.. Today.. its a much different world.. From Osha to Unemployment, the government has taken over what the union used to stand for.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Con Seannery
January 8, 2009 10:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@thebluepill: Well, one other thing a Union should do is get as much as they can for its members WITHOUT running the employer bankrupt.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
acknight
January 8, 2009 4:51 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@kwsventures: The Jobs Bank should be thrown on the Management side. It was their idea, not that of the UAW.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trick
January 8, 2009 3:19 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@kwsventures:

GM is not going to fail. Congress will continue to give them bailouts until there is no more money left to give.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
parad0x360
January 8, 2009 1:57 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@kwsventures: The UAW should take a $3/hour pay cut if the person is making $28 or more an hour and they need to drop the job bank which is an utter waste of money.

I know I know pay cut evil rawr! Lets be honest here, $25 an hour or 48k a year is a pretty good salary for one person in the middle class with 2 kids. Chances are this person's wife or husband also work so add their income too and its plenty.

Im a single father, I dont make $48k a year, my ex doesnt give me child support but I have enough money for our apartment and a nice car plus enough amenities to be comfortable.

Sacrifices need to be made by both the UAW and the companies. If they dont make these changes at least for the time being then they may find they have no jobs at all.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ARP
January 8, 2009 3:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@parad0x360: Are you also suggesting that GM reduce all Senior managements' total compensation by 25% and cap it? If not, why should UAW be the only one that suffers? I'm willing to bet the UAW would be more willing to sacrafice if they didn't feel like they were the only ones.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Snarkysnake
January 8, 2009 1:17 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

GM's chickens have finally come home to roost. \"Gadfly types\" have been warning the company (and the buying public) for years that poor quality,ham handed customer service and overly generous pay and benefits for workers AND management would wreck this company and well... That day is here. Oddly enough, for most of it's life,GM built a pretty good car (at least by American standards), but when the accountants and finance types took an iron grip on the executive suite,the decline began and hasn't stopped.

I personally am so pissed off that the way that they have handled this bailout scenario (run it into the ground so far that only the taxpayers can afford to save it) ,that I will personally NEVER buy a GM made car again. Fuck you, General, I gave at the office.

BTW- Before you zombies start your \"Do you know that American cars are just as good as Japanese blah,blah,blah\" , I must politely tell you that you should look at a blue book pricing guide. Japanese cars hold their value better because they have paid their dues in this market with dependable,economical cars. they don't build the Corolla or Civic as an afterthought- the build them to win customers for life. hell,Toyota took one of GM's own plants and taught them how to build a car the right way and the arrogant bastards still couldn't get it right.Let them fail.

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
SonicMan
January 8, 2009 2:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Snarkysnake: Funny, Even Us Zombies know that many of these Terrible American Cars are Japiness Ones that just have an american tag.


So Blah Blah Blah, Some of those American cars ARE Japanese cars.


Unless its the magic US symbol on the car that makes them break.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
snowburnt
January 8, 2009 2:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SonicMan: Most Japanese cars sold in America are built in America by Americans.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
parad0x360
January 8, 2009 2:01 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Snarkysnake: The hourly wage of their employees isnt what I would call overly generous. Its fine really, I would say maybe $3 too much an hour at most...well so long as they are actually spending all that time working and not dicking around.

GM's biggest issue is and has been quality of their vehicles. Slowly over time their brand perception was eroded and people started seeing them at bad cars to buy which killed sales. The current economic situation didnt help so now they have gone from few auto sales to no auto sales.

they could easily support their work forces wage rate if they ran their company a little better. Perhaps before you blame the UAW you might consider how much those CEO's are making...the same CEO's who never do any hard labor and at the same time run the company into the ground with bad decisions.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Con Seannery
January 8, 2009 11:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@parad0x360: Well, you know, if a GM worker loses their job due to automation, they can't be fired for it, and so they show up to work and dick around in a game room all day for 98% of their former pay. The UAW made the same mistake the RIAA did: they killed off the people they try to get money from.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
trujunglist
January 8, 2009 9:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@parad0x360:

I agree, it really is brand perception that has completely annihilated them. I haven't even considered buying an American car since I've been able to drive because of their incredibly poor reliability. And that's not just people saying they suck, I've rented plenty of brand newAmerican cars that can't hold a lick to my '00 Nissan. At this point, they need some quality products to fix their reputation. I don't think that entirely ditching their brands is a bad idea... There's a reason that Nissan stopped using the Datsun name.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
IrvCrapper
January 8, 2009 1:22 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

The government could nationalize healthcare, relieving the company, and many others, of enormous health care liabilities.

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
Con Seannery
January 8, 2009 11:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@IrvCrapper: Well, that's a whole new can of worms, there. I say GM should just go bankrupt. Plenty of companies have come out of bankruptcy before and been much better off for it. This bailout soup line they have forming now is going to turn into something companies factor in to their business plans. Bailouts undermine the free market by rewarding the losers. If the losers get the government to pay their expenses, how can anybody make a competitive business with a good business model? These companies should have to go the old method of restructuring, bankruptcy, and layoffs to stay afloat. If they want a bailout, go for it, but we should collateralize all of their assets, loan them 50 cents on the dollar, and set a definite date to pay it all back with interest by. If they miss the date, start selling their assets.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
David Brodbeck
January 9, 2009 6:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Con Seannery: The problem with bankruptcy is buying a car is a long-term relationship. People won't buy a car from a bankrupt company because they'll worry the warranty won't be honored. Bankruptcy would kill GM stone dead.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
berribrand
January 12, 2009 8:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@David Brodbeck: Maybe GM should die. Perhaps a better car company would then increase production in the US to make up the loss of an automaker (say Honda or Toyota) and then re-employ some (or all?) of those workers that lost their jobs. The supply chain of jobs could be re-tooled to supply for Toyota/Honda. It's a long term vision, but then, our economy is a long term problem.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
barty
January 8, 2009 4:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@datruesurfer: It isn't quite as simple to just stop making one car at a facility and start making another. Just making changes between model years may shut down a line from anywhere from 1-2 weeks, to a couple of months depending on the extent of the changes being made. This is just to build the SAME vehicle.

The big 3s problem is that they never got a clue back in the 70s that you can't treat the small to mid size car market as a \"me too\" product. Cars like the Escort, Focus, Cavalier, etc., never really fit into their core strategy. They were viewed as a way to fill a gap in the line up instead of being a part of the total brand. Ford at least had the chance in the early 2000s to really build the Focus into a segment leader (it has been, and continues to be a popular vehicle overseas), but let the design languish in the North American market and did not promptly address some of the quality problems that plagued early models. So while it has never sold poorly, it was never kept up to its full potential, IMHO.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ARP
January 8, 2009 3:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@IrvCrapper: It would actually help our general manufacturing enconomy. There are numerous car plants in Canada because they take care of pensions and healthcare. So the cost of paying for universal healthcare would be more than made up by reduced costs. Think about it, the average company pays about 1/2 to 2/3 of each employee's healthcare costs. So even if we have to raise taxes to pay for it, there should be increased salaries because companies have a huge liability lifted off them.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
thewriteguy
January 8, 2009 1:31 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@IrvCrapper: Hell, it would probably cost less for the government to buy GM and steadily sell of its assets over a period of time. The taxpayer may even profit from this, or at the least zero out.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
coan_net
January 8, 2009 1:29 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Even though I agree with many of the \"fail\" points, and about how a lot of it needs fixed - but I do worry about what would happen to the thousands of retired workers if GM does fail (or if the UAW sells them out and gets rids of the pensions & health care that they worked loyalty for years at GM for), and of course retired workers have no current vote at the UAW so it might be easy to sell these people out - people who worked for years at GM to get the pension & health care to provide for them in the later years.... and now with the posibility that if GM fails, not only will you have the thousands of current workers out of work (along with the thousands of non-GM workers who supplied parts to GM out of work), you will all of a sudden have the thousands of retired workers now unable to maintain their lives.

So when people say you can't let GM fail... I agree with that. And I do hope that management, the suppliers, and the current UAW will do everything possible to make it work.

Reply
7 replies
\"user-pic\"
Con Seannery
January 8, 2009 11:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@coan_net: That argument isn't all true. If GM goes down, it's not like it just rolls up the carpet and everyone's screwed, someone will buy it. Now, yes, a decent portion of people will be jobless, but it's not like everything is just GONE if GM dies.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
BytheSea
January 8, 2009 3:34 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@coan_net: They need to phase out retirement benefits, instead of leaving people high and dry. It will take time for this to benefit the company, but it took decades to get GM in the state it is, not to mention the US economy. Throwing money at the company won't make us allwake up tomorrow to a happy successful GM.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Hyman Decent
January 8, 2009 3:23 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@coan_net: IIRC, in the last contract negotiations, the UAW agreed to assume responsibility for the pensions and healthcare of retirees, after getting a lump sum from each of the Detroit 3 to fund those benefits. Since I don't foresee the UAW managing those benefits any better than the companies did, it looks like the UAW did sell out the retirees, kind of.

As for the UAW being willing to do \"everything possible to make it work,\" remember, they refused the demand by Senate Republicans to drop wages to the level of those offered by foreign automakers in the U.S.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
coan_net
January 8, 2009 2:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Hyman Decent: I don't remember the UAW refusing to drop wages - the UAW was trying to make clear that they had already taken cuts and gave up some in their last contract, and the management and outside contractors who also do work with GM have given up nothing. The UAW wants to make sure that EVERYONE involved gives back, and if that happens - they are more then willing to look into lower wages..... but the UAW does not want to be the only ones to give back.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
parad0x360
January 8, 2009 2:02 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@coan_net: $3 an hour paycut to anyone in the UAW making $28 an hour or more and getting rid of the JobBank would save them more money than they are getting from the bailout.

More than fair.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sleze69
January 8, 2009 1:36 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@coan_net: Maybe they could sell the UAW golf course that consistently loses money to help compensate the retirees?


[theunionnews.blogspot.com]

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Glamourdammerung
January 8, 2009 1:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sleze69: Could you link something a bit less biased and credible next time? Unless you think that their front page \"stories\" like \"Wealthy, pro-union collectivists kiss off democracy\" and \"Labor's socialistic power to be tested\" are not one step about the late \"Weekly World News\".

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
datruesurfer
January 8, 2009 1:41 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

This couldn't be more true... and it applies to not only GM, but Ford and Chrysler as well. It sickens me to drive past an American auto dealership and see nothing but trucks and SUV's lined up that nobody wants to buy. They need to make drastic and I mean DRASTIC cuts to stay competitive. Take Ford for example...

According to their website, there are currently 19 vehicles that bear the Ford name, over half of which are SUV's or Trucks. I would cease production of about half of their lineup to just the basics:

Small Car - Fiesta (Should be an EV within the next 5-10 years)
Sedan - Focus
Crossover - Edge
SUV - Escape (Hybrid Only)
Pickup - F-150
Cargo Van - E Series

Same thing goes for Lincoln. If it isn't selling, drop it.

Once you have eliminated the unprofitable cars, the factory should only make cars that they think are going to sell. If dealers aren't selling F-150's, stop making them and devote those resources towards more profitable cars like the Focus (which is a great car by the way, I just got one myself)

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
MrEvil
January 8, 2009 1:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@datruesurfer: I don't know what you're considering an SUV. But by my Count Ford only has six SUV and truck models. Not half of your 19 figure.


Escape
Explorer (I lump the Sport Track in with the Explorer because they both share alot of parts)
Expedition
Ranger (still considered to be on the chopping block)
F150
Superduty


I wouldn't count the E Series as consumer vehicles because the only E Series vans the dealers keep on the lots are the cargo vans. There's still a few conversion van companies out there, but most all are special order these days. Not only that, but the E Series vans actually Make Ford money. Also I wouldn't lump their crossovers in the truck/SUV category, because they're much more car than they are truck. A truck/SUV would imply a Longitudinally mounted engine which the crossovers don't have.


Mind you this kind of change at Ford has been in the works long before the Financiapocalypse. Ford got their wake-up call with the Firestone tire debacle.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
kmw2
January 8, 2009 1:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@datruesurfer: One of the problems with this is that many auto production lines can't be easily swapped between vehicle models (which is why typically, most or all of one model of Ford comes out of a single plant). This is a solvable problem, but it's not one that American car manufacturers have put a lot of effort into solving, which is why they were making trucks and SUVs for a year after no one could afford to drive one further than the gas station.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
TheSpatulaOfLove
January 8, 2009 1:48 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I see all kinds of fail in that graphic. Lots of outdated information and rife with media sensationalism. Sure there is truth to a few of the items on there, but this guy is trying to sell posters.

To all you armchair auto executives wanting to dance on GM's grave, we've heard you over and over, GM got the message - no sense spewing your shit anymore. Your precious Toyota and Honda are suffering the same fate and it will get progressively worse as the tier 2, then tier 1 suppliers start falling off - but you won't hear about their pain and suffering because that's reported in Japanese, not English and you can bet your ass the Japanese government is helping them out.

Reply
8 replies
\"user-pic\"
berribrand
January 12, 2009 8:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TheSpatulaOfLove: Considering its my (and yours) tax dollars that are being given to GM/Ford/Chrysler, I would say that makes my voice highly relevant and necessary in this discussion. If those companies still are not willing to make the drastic changes demanded by Congress (and ergo the people), we should continue to yell and scream at them.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ARP
January 8, 2009 3:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TheSpatulaOfLove: Yes, but is Toyota asking for a bailout? They've operated conservatively and probably have plenty of cash on hand to weather the storm. If they're smart, they'll continue to work on hybrids and EV's, so that when the economy improves and oil shoots back up, they'll be well positioned. It's often what a company does during the bad times, that most impacts their sucess during the good times.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
barty
January 8, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: I was wondering when one of the union cheerleaders was going to step in.

I have no objection to an employer offering health insurance as a benefit. However, for the union representing the union to demand top wages and FREE health insurance (last time I checked, UAW workers still do not pay anything per month for their insurance) from the hire to the grave, it is a recipe for disaster.

Part of what is killing industry and business in this country as a whole is a resistance to global pressures. We have this attitude that we should not have to bend to what is going on in other countries in terms of wages, benefits, tax policy (that's a big one), etc., and it is just sucking the life out of our economy. It is no surprise that most of the industries that are hurting the worst right now (outside the financial industry) are heavily unionized.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
David Brodbeck
January 9, 2009 6:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@barty: We have this attitude that we should not have to bend to what is going on in other countries in terms of wages, benefits, tax policy (that's a big one), etc.

That's because people here are understandably resistant to sliding into the same living standards that exist in Mexico and China.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
January 9, 2009 4:13 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@barty: Barty has got a good point. The United State's position on top of the world economy is over. Companies simply cannot afford to pay their workers good wages and health care and remain competitive in today's modern market.This pill is so hard to swallow that we have all borrowed it away for the past 20-some-odd years. It is time to face facts.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
oneandone
January 8, 2009 9:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@barty: I'm confused as to what is going on in other countries that you would have us bend to, since most of the countries with enjoyable standards of living have nationalized health care, better nationalized pension systems, much more generous family leave & vacation policies, higher income taxes, and much higher sales taxes. Surely you're not suggesting that?


You're exactly right that part of what is killing industry in this country is a resistance to global pressures - the pressures to realize that there's a lot more to the economy than the employee-employer relationshp, and that the massive external forces (aging population, increasing health care costs, increasing child care costs) need to be managed by an external actor looking out for national economic interests, ie the government.


Or maybe you meant that we need to bend to the pressure of making more stuff for cheap, and rollback decades of worker protection laws & equal employment rights?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MeOhMy
January 8, 2009 3:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Kevin Weber:

It takes time for resale value to adjust to changes, since Americans are dumb and cling to stereotypes for longer than they're true.


The trouble is that when you're referring to a $10-50k long-term purchase that you rely on for safety and transportation, pretty much one failure is one failure too many. Consumer reports could tell me Ford make the most reliable cars available, I *STILL* wouldn't buy one. I wouldn't take one for free. I'll never get back those hours that I wasted standing on the sides of highways waiting for a tow truck and I won't risk it when I've had cars from other manufacturers (Foreign AND Domestic) that haven't failed me multiple times.


Poor quality is the cardinal sin of cars. If you lose a customer due to quality failures, you will never - ever - get them back, and they will probably steer their family and friends away as best they can as well.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
magic8ball
January 8, 2009 4:35 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TheSpatulaOfLove: Actually, major American news outlets recently reported that Toyota would lose money this year for the first time. So did Consumerist. [consumerist.com]

Reply
\"user-pic\"
thisotherguy
January 8, 2009 1:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@magic8ball:
Luckily for Toyota, losing money doesn't mean you fail. In fact, just about everyone lost money this year.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mibi
January 8, 2009 4:55 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@magic8ball:

This must be from the desk of the \"No Shit\" department.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mibi
January 8, 2009 1:57 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TheSpatulaOfLove: While Toyota and Honda are wrapped up in the global downturn, their execs haven't been shitting the bed for years, so they will survive. It's not like car manufacturing is going anywhere, but the companies in the best position will last, GM is not in that category.

Media sensationalism? lol.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
mibi
January 8, 2009 1:52 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

There is still a market for cars and trucks. The loss of GM will only mean someone else will pick up the slakc, maybe Toyota. Those workers at a GM plant might only have to switch the labels on their uniforms, and ofcourse take a pay cut.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Hyman Decent
January 8, 2009 3:26 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mibi: It's been said that if even one of the Detroit 3 goes out of business, it will lead to some parts suppliers going out of business, and the U.S. factories of foreign automakers will be unable to get all the parts they need. Could be FUD, though.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Con Seannery
January 8, 2009 11:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Hyman Decent: There will be a few suppliers that die off, but they won't just be gone, they'll get absorbed, and others will pick up where they left off.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
morganlh85
January 8, 2009 1:54 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I want to know the guy's sources...from what I have read, many of his facts don't seem to be accurate. For instance, isn't worker pay only something like $21 an hour now due to negotiations?

Reply
1 replies
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Kevin Weber
January 8, 2009 2:11 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Snarkysnake: Consumer Reports has recently admitted (a big step for them, as they've all but had sex with Japanese automakers in recent years) that Ford is on par with the best Japanese automakers in quality. Mercury consistently is one of the top three brands in all of autos in long term reliability (JD Power). It takes time for resale value to adjust to changes, since Americans are dumb and cling to stereotypes for longer than they're true. Resale value, at least with Fords, will compare to Toyotas and Hondas in a few years' time. Ford is going to survive this crisis. Probably not Chrysler and maybe not GM though.

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
Snarkysnake
January 8, 2009 2:33 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Kevin Weber:
I agree with you that Ford probably will survive and their quality has improved somewhat (but don't say that to anyone who ever owned an Aerostar or Windstar,they won't listen),but the article above referenced GM specifically, and that is what my remarks are directed toward. The arrogant,incompetent management of GM is still in place. The workers on the line are going to pay with their jobs and their futures because of the mismanagement of this outfit. I hope Ford makes it-they didn't try to suck tax money out of us taxpayers. But the world will be a better place if GM has to face the problem that they created.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Hyman Decent
January 8, 2009 3:33 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Snarkysnake: No doubt Ford would've liked to get some government loans; they didn't ask at this time because of the strings that would've been attached, not because of any feelings of honor.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MrEvil
January 8, 2009 1:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Hyman Decent: I think Ford was lobbying more out of concern for the suppliers they share with GM and Chryslerberus. GM going under would probably sink alot of the D3's suppliers which could severely threaten Ford's survival.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mibi
January 8, 2009 2:17 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Kevin Weber: Chryslers losses can be absorbed. It's part of a much larger conglomerate. Not so, Ford and GM.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
kmw2
January 8, 2009 1:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mibi: Daimler considers its remaining stake in Chrysler to have a current book value of $0, and Cerberus (in addition to being run in part by Dan Quayle) has many other holdings, but Chrysler is a major part of them. I wouldn't assume that Chrysler's current losses will be absorbed for long.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Hyman Decent
January 8, 2009 3:32 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mibi: Cerberus, the entity that owns 80% of Chrysler, is an investment fund, not a conglomerate. Cerberus also owns 51% of GMAC (oddly enough). I wouldn't put much faith in Cerberus's prospects right now.

And the guy who make this graphic thinks GM is in the most dire position? Judging from each of the Detroit 3's current models, I'd say Chrysler takes that (dis)honor.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
youbastid
January 8, 2009 2:27 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

He might have benefited from a little spell checking before sending that one out to press...I find that to be consistently helpful :)

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
January 8, 2009 2:31 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Working families that don't live in the Deep South making a few dollars more an hour than someone living down there don't go far enough.
Workers not living in a no-union, \"right to work\" state should have to labor for free, and their wommin used as hourly chattel and their children ground into food products.

I mean, so long as we're blaming skilled but non-graduate degree-holding for the uppityness of having health care, a decent (not upper, or even upper-middle) wage and a fairly reliable (gulp) pension.

Much simpler to cut to the chase: feudalism, here we come!

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Con Seannery
January 8, 2009 11:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: Nobody's saying to enslave them, they want them to make SOME SORT OF A CONCESSION because, you know, if they don't, they won't have ANY pay and benefits. That's the kind of thing that happens when things suck and the company is headed down, and it's got a stubborn union sucking away everything it has. The UAW misses the point of bleeding an employer dry: YOU DON'T KILL THE EMPLOYER. Nobody here is mad at the workers for getting their pay, we're mad at the union for not working with the employer. If the UAW doesn't make some decent concessions fast, those workers won't have any pay at all.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
AdvocatesDevil
January 8, 2009 2:44 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

We will never buy American again. We've owned one Buick and so many STUPID things went wrong with it... Within 50,000 miles of purchase (2 years), the following things happened: dash board controls \"burned out\" and needed replaced at a cost of $600; huge sections of paint starting peeling off within months of the sale; a window stopped working; a seat belt stopped \"clicking\" into place; the stupid rear view mirror fell off the windshield; the cheap plastic cup holder broke... I could go on and on. If they got these SIMPLE things wrong, what's going to happen with all of the important things like the engine??

My parents have owned 4 Camrys in the last 25 years, put over 250,000 miles on each of them, and NEVER had the stupid problems we've had with this Buick.

So you tell me -- why should we buy a Buick ever again when Toyota has always delivered a quality, well-made vehicle in our experience??

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
Justifan
January 9, 2009 6:43 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@AdvocatesDevil:
01 camry, paint was tarnishing in one area just 1 year after purchase.
now the clock/mirror controls fuses keep blowing.
also had a civic that suffered engine troubles.
quality problems exist on all makes.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
snowburnt
January 8, 2009 2:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@AdvocatesDevil: I'm not a fan of American cars myself, but have you ever heard of a lemon? Toyota makes them too. Of the thousands upon thousands of each of those cars sold you happened to get a crappy one and your parents got two bad ones, doesn't indicate that the entire brand is crap...it's more like you won the crap car lottery.

I've owned a Buick and the thing was a tank, lasted me 150k without any problems and I was the worst driver you could imagine plus I didn't take care of it very well. Eventually I traded it in.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Con Seannery
January 8, 2009 11:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@snowburnt: My Buick is pushing 175k, we just had to rebuild the transmission, the fluid pump on it died and it ground itself into a mess. Other than that and an occasional window motor, it's been very good.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
madog
January 8, 2009 5:54 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@AdvocatesDevil: \"your mileage will vary\" can be used literally here. Some people are just trying to point out that ALL American cars don't suck, just quite a few of them. More so than the Japanese manufacturers. And then, they still have some suck. However, the ratio of suck will vary per ones experience with the suck. It's all very technical, as something can only suck so much before it turns into a shifty mess. The amount of suck is inversly proportional to the resulting shifty mess and again, will vary upon exerience, bias, and unions.

After explaining it in such simple terms, anyone can understand.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
DrJimmy
January 8, 2009 2:46 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Hmm. A couple of those internal Fail trailers aged out at least a decade ago, and a couple of the externals aged out last month.


How long should they remain relevant in this illustration? Perhaps the designer should animate this critter and make it interactive on a subscription basis.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
January 8, 2009 7:56 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DrJimmy: Not so much. The symptoms (slaying the EV1 instead of taking it forward in a Saturn-structured embracing of a hybrid-embracing, polar bear cub frolicking alternate present) may be dated, but the overall attitude remains. Three (or is it four) models of Hummer vs one model of EV1. The defense rests: let's all buy Japanese!
That's why they're there, and still make sense.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Con Seannery
January 8, 2009 11:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: The EV1 was canceled because it didn't meet safety regulations and it was given a limited duration permit by the DOT, not because GM is an evil corporation.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mibi
January 8, 2009 3:13 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DrJimmy: It takes time to build failure. You can't look at a companies stock price at noon, and determine it's health. All of the factors listed have contributed to the fall of GM. It's a process that has taken decades, and is so listed.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Darklighter
January 8, 2009 3:28 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Labor costs only account for ten percent of a vehicle's production cost. So why is the UAW such a large part of this diagram?

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
Hyman Decent
January 9, 2009 7:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Darklighter: How are Hyundais, Kias and Chevy Aveos so much cheaper than cars built in the U.S. or Canada, then?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Shadowman615
January 8, 2009 4:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Darklighter: The creator of this graphic seems to have an agenda here.

But I'm not sure I get his point about some of it. Should they stop offering health coverage for their employees? That's not like an extravagance unique to GM.

Maybe if the auto industry hadn't historically acted with such callous disregard for it's employees in years past they wouldn't have had to deal with unions. But they've already managed to screw that up and certainly would do it again if the UAW disappeared.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ARP
January 8, 2009 6:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Shadowman615: Yes, the UAW is partially a monster of GM's own creation. You can't keep paying your executives more and more money and at the same time ask for your line workers to give up more and more. The UAW got fed up and now they're not budging on anything (perhaps unreasonably so). But as I've mentioned, I'm willing to bet that if the executives make sacrafices, then the UAW would be willing to do that as well. Or, why not tie average wages to executive pay. If executive pay goes up so do regular wages, if it goes down, so do regular wages. Then we'll see how serious the executives are about turning GM around.


Part of the reason that the Japanese companies aren't unionized is that they historically (and now) take care of their employees fairly well. Perhaps its cultural as the Japanese tend to feel some moral obligation to their employees and in return they usually get better loyalty.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
January 8, 2009 7:58 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Darklighter: Because of the Right Wing Hot Air Machine?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
coolkiwilivin
January 8, 2009 9:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: Well that's a thoughtful answer. The Union is the biggest stone around GM's neck. For ie, why did they stop producing the camaro several years ago? It was a top selling car and turned a good money for them? B/c they made a ridiculous deal with the union to never close down that plant as long as they made that car. So b/c of a deal with the union they cut off their arm to get out of a contract. The union time and time again is concerned about getting the most money for their employees for the least amount of work. I don't blame the union, they are doing what's human nature but at the same time when they've sunk the companies they work for b/c of their burdensome demands, then don't come begging to me for money. Trai_Dep get a clue, the government or the Left is NOT your source of provision.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Con Seannery
January 8, 2009 11:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@coolkiwilivin: See, I was also under the impression that employees were better of WITH a job than without one...silly me.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Grrrrrrr, now with two buns made of bacon.
January 8, 2009 3:29 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I want a well built small car that's economical, fun to drive, gets decent gas mileage and keeps its resale value.

Oh, and it has to be practical, like a small wagon or hatchback.

Wait, GM doesn't build anything like that.

Plus, every American car I've ever owned had just stupid things go wrong with it every sixth months. Every Japanese car I've ever owned needed oil changes and regular service on wear items.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
MrEvil
January 8, 2009 2:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@☠Grяrяrяrяrяrяrя now gets up to 29 MPG highway (kindasortam...: Actually, GM does make that car. Two of my friends have Chevy Cobalts and while I don't drive them everyday they appear to be really well built vehicles with a very low up-front price. Both friends have had their Cobalts about a year and neither have had to go back to the dealer for any problems. I mean apart from the resale value it's got what you want.


Also, people should stop obsessing over resale value. One reason this country is in the financial situation its in is because folks bought into the automakers' Bullshit myth that always having a new car with warranty was less costly than just keeping your used car going long after its paid off. Ok, maybe on a Honda or Toyota that might be true (because those manufacturers price their replacement parts extraordinarily high) but on all the worn-out crap I've owned the amount of money I spent on auto repair wouldn't even cover the INTEREST on a new car. Heck, the $1500 I paid for my '98 Crown Vic won't even make a decent down payment on a new car.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Hyman Decent
January 8, 2009 7:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MrEvil: The Cobalt's not available as a wagon or hatchback.

Another GM car for Gr... to consider: the Saturn Astra

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Saboth
January 8, 2009 2:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MrEvil:

Lol you aren't seriously comparing a COBALT to cars like Corolla, Matrix, Honda Fit, *Mazda 3*, etc?

It is half the car of any of those, is far more poorly built, and is just cheap with a poor resale.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Hyman Decent
January 8, 2009 3:40 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@☠Grяrяrяrяrяrяrя now gets up to 29 MPG highway (kindasortam...: What about the Pontiac Vibe, which is, in essence, a Toyota Corolla and built alongside the Toyota Matrix by a partnership of GM and Toyota? True, its resale value probably will be lower than the Matrix's, but its purchase price would probably be lower, too.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
jasonof2000
January 8, 2009 3:49 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I stopped reading when I got to the thing about the EV1, it wasn't the future, it was a very limited vehicle that is probably one of the most over hyped by the media ever.

No bod

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Con Seannery
January 8, 2009 11:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jasonof2000: And it was only given a limited time to live by the DOT because it didn't meet safety regulations.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Hyman Decent
January 8, 2009 3:51 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Resisting Change
Seat belts, airbags and catalytic converters were all fought before implemented late in the game
Implemented late in the game? With a few minor exceptions, none of the other auto manufacturers implemented those features until they were mandated by the government.
Fumbled Electric Vehicles
The EV1 was the future and GM pulled the plug prematurely
O RLY? How many vehicles equipped only with electric motors are on the market today? None that are available to the mainstream car shopper. (Hybrids are a different matter, but the creator of this graphic lists them separately.)
Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
CaptainConsumer
January 8, 2009 4:21 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wow, I mean WOW, where to begin. I could pick a lot of this apart and serious attack the author as an auto industry insider.

According to your EV1 point, guess who else had an electric vehicle out at the same time as the EV1? Toyota. It met with the same fate. Know who sides with all of GM's contentions about not being able to sell the EV1? Toyota. Yep, everybody's favorite GREEN company.

Why is it only TODAY Toyota announced another kick at the wildly popular OnStar can?

Slow on hybrids? OK, how well did hybrids sell vs economic cars last year? THEY BOMBED:

\"Hybrid car sales dropped 51.2 percent in December from a year ago and were down 12.7 percent for all of 2008, according to Autodata Corp. Sales of the Dodge Ram pickup alone (245,840) nearly matched demand for all hybrid cars combined (247,488) last year.
Even the iconic Toyota Prius saw sales slide 12.3 percent to 158,884 vehicles last year. The fuel-efficient Chevy Cobalt (188,045) and Ford Focus (195,823) outsold the Prius.\"

Are you BLAMING GM for selling SUV's to an SUV happy public? Was it GM's fault the public were lapping them up?

Check your quality numbers, which company recalled more cars in the US than they sold in 2006? Toyota. Which car did CONSUMER REPORTS (certainly NO FRIEND to the US Automakers) call the BEST car in America? The Chevy Malibu, which has won over 30 industry awards since it's release in 2008.

Which company builds the highest Kelly Blue Book value car? GM (The Cadillac CTS)

Know why GM has so many legacy costs? HEALTH CARE. Is the current health care situation in America now GM's fault too. For DECADES they helped BUILD the middle class by offering GOOD WAGES and insure MORE AMERICANS than anyone but the US Government. Were you complaining THEN?

Complaining about a government bridge loan? The Japanese government backed the Prius research. They are offering Toyota money NOW in fact. Anytime Toyota has ever needed money, the Japanese government has been there for them. Governments in progressive nations such as Sweden and France and Germany and Japan have all ponied up billions to support THEIR auto industries. What do they know GM haters here don't?

I could go on and on but I'd say part of the reason for the perception problem is half-cocked, half-assed researched cutsie pie articles like this one...

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
shadowkahn
January 8, 2009 7:49 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@CaptainConsumer:

1) Toyota not being able to sell their electric car (variant of the RAV-4). Yeah, I suppose it would be hard to sell a car when the batteries are no longer legal to make because GM bought the patent and then promptly sold it to Texaco/Chevron, which put it in a lock box and won't let anyone license the technology.

2) Of course hybrids bombed. They're stupid. Even the best hybrids available now aren't getting the mileage the high-economy Civics were getting in the late 80's. The hybrid Escape gets something like 3mpg better than the non-hybrid version, and repair bills will be far higher. It's an economic loser to buy one. And that's not even factoring in the fact that every type of car bombed because the economy is in the toilet.

3) Yes I blame GM for the SUV problem. Why? Because had they bothered to think ahead they'd have realized that oil was not going to stay low-priced forever. They'd have realized that OPEC has us by the short hairs and can do whatever they want with oil prices and we have to bend over and take it. They'd have looked back to the 70's oil crisis and reasoned that, hey, if OPEC did it once, they might just do it again, and maybe we kinda ought to have efficient vehicles ready to go when that happens.

4) Bridge loan. GM has mismanaged itself for decades. They purposely and knowingly shoved crap out the door and told us it was a car. They even several years back had to take out an ad essentially saying \"Hey we know we've built utter garbage for 20 years but please give us another chance.\" Saying now that the Malibu is a good car is irrelevant. It's like the kid who fails every test but aces a pop quiz near the end of the term. He's still gonna fail.

Is the UAW contract hurting GM right now? Sure. Two points. A) GM signed the damn thing. More evidence of mismanagement if indeed it is to blame. B) If GM had bothered to make decent cars for the last 3 decades instead of rolling out crap like the Cavalier, the Cimarron, and the truly awe-inspiring Aztek, they'd have customers who were actually willing to buy more of their cars, and would be able to sustain their contract due to having money flowing in.

Your healthcare point we agree on. Healthcare should not be left in the hands of private megacorporations, nor should it have to be paid for by employers. It's gotten us into a mess where 50 million people can't get health insurance, and those who have it run a good risk of being denied coverage if they get sick, not to mention the staggering costs that employers (not just GM) have to pay in order to partially insure their workers. That system is broken and must be fixed.

In fact, that's a pretty good plank in someone's platform isn't it. \"Wanna really save GM? Then quit voting against a national healthcare plan.\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Hyman Decent
January 8, 2009 6:12 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@CaptainConsumer:

Which car did CONSUMER REPORTS (certainly NO FRIEND to the US Automakers) call the BEST car in America? The Chevy Malibu
WRONG. In the magazine's latest ratings of family sedans (January 2009, page 51), in the $20,000 to $25,000 group, the Malibu with the four-cylinder engine ranks tenth in overall road-test score. In the $25,000 to $30,000 group, the Malibu with the V6 engine ranks sixth, tied with the Hyundai Sonata with the V6. (The Nissan Altima came out on top by a single point in both groups.)
Reply
\"user-pic\"
CaptainConsumer
January 8, 2009 12:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Hyman Decent:

Consumer Reports JUST put out, it's not even available in print yet a look at the US Auto Industry, it's what the blog Truth About Cars was crying about asking WHY CR would do such an article calling the Malibu the best family sedan in America, not JUST 'domestic built'. They said Ford had VASTLY improved and listed several Ford models on par with if not better than the Japanese carmakers.

I suggest you look for it online or wait for your subscription

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Hyman Decent
January 8, 2009 7:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@CaptainConsumer: You and your source are full of it. I have the issue you're referring to; it's the February 2009 issue. The article is titled \"Report card for Detroit\" and starts on page 14. There's this sidebar on page 15:

Best & worst American vehicles
Ranked by overall test score. Only recommended vehicles are in the winners list. They tested well, are reliable [i.e., they have a predicted reliability of average or better], and performed adequately if crash-tested or included in a federal rollover test.
The V6 Malibu does come out on top of this list. But in the rankings I mentioned before, almost every (foreign-branded) model that scored higher or tied the Malibu is recommended, too.

The Ford Fusion and Mercury Milan indeed are among the most reliable cars in this group, but they didn't score as well as the Malibu in the road test, much less the Japanese models (save the base Toyota Prius, which the four-cylinder models outscored by a single point, and the Mitsubishi Galant).

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
kreatre2009
January 8, 2009 4:32 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Basically, these companies were poorly ran and they deserve to fail. That being said, government needs to stay out of the way and not interfere. The UAW also needs to recognize that the glory days of sapping the auto makers for billions of dollars in pay in benefits are coming to an end. The auto makers have been the source of a lot of prosperity yet, the UAW can't take some cuts. It's wrong to expect to continue getting paid when you're not working. When you retire, it's not the company's responsibility to sustain you for the rest of your life.

One more thing... It really is irrelevant what the execs make per year. These are private companies. They can pay what ever they want. If the employees don't like it, they can go someplace else to work -- the same goes for the execs.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
savdavid
January 8, 2009 5:55 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

For years and years GM thought they were the best (or they told themselves and us they were) while spending less on research and development and more on CEO golden parachutes. The executives would stay for the short term, collect their pay-out and retire in luxury while we watched their market share decline. Oops!! Now they want us to not only buy their crappy cars but give them bailouts from the taxpayer which go to the executives as they head for the door or bankruptcy court. Bittersweet joke on them and us.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Con Seannery
January 8, 2009 11:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@savdavid: And, see, it's people like you that insist on turning a blind eye to the high reliability American cars have had for the past several years that are one of the biggest causes of GM's woes.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
eric.bragg
January 8, 2009 6:53 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I was under the assumptions that the reason GM would fail was our free market. We keep being told that we need to spend more money and buy American to save the economy but why would any reasonable person buy American when the imported alternate is cheaper and more reliable? We need to get rid of some of this dead wood that thinks it has an inalienable right to exist.


If GM fails it will suck for a lot of people but something will rise up to take it's place and hopefully that company will learn from the mistakes. Give a man a fish feed him for a day...

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Con Seannery
January 8, 2009 11:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@eric.bragg: I want this bailout business to stop just as much as you do. I think the biggest problem GM has is the union, but if the government rewards the losers with a bailout, the free market is undermined. Lasseiz-faire. GM can take their woes to bankruptcy court or private lenders. Then they can restructure and come out swinging or wallow in self-pity and a union mess until they die.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Justifan
January 8, 2009 7:19 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

americans with healthcare and pensions and decent pay.
thats just awful, we should never support that!

i guess we get the country we deserve:P

as for the EV1, it was half baked back then, even now. unless gm pulled a magic rabbit out of its hat to make it viable it would have bled them dry. it tells you something when enviroconscious socialistic europeans and the japanese didn't bother to go down that road either. the best japan could do was the prius, and its green credentials are rather dubious to say the least, its mostly about advertising your green credentials instead of actually making any sense. so slamming gm on the ev1 is really not fair. its been made into a mythical lie by its supporters and that rather dubious film.

americans claim they support things like healthcare and fair wages. but when it comes to putting money where their mouths are, they shop at walmart and buy foreign. sure they put some lip service into it when it comes down to buying free trade coffee, but when it comes to american workers, its really just f*** them!

the reality is reliability has been quite good for domestics for quite some time now. and the complaints about small cars not existing really are based on nothing. people would rather buy foreign out of snobbery.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
David Brodbeck
January 9, 2009 5:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Justifan: I agree. I think GM basically learned everything they could from the EV1 and they pulled the plug. It was a worthy effort but electric cars just aren't practical except as fashionable toys for wealthy elites to show off their green status.

I remember a GM engineer once being asked what the EV1's range would be on a cold Michigan morning, with the heater on. He shrugged and said, \"maybe 15 miles.\" Battery technology just isn't up to making pure electric cars practical for real driving.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
eric54
January 8, 2009 8:31 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Stop blaming the UAW. They deserve every penny they make, and really we should all look at them and think \"why the HELL don't I have that kind of health care benefits/wage?\". Start looking at them as an ally in getting more from your employer, or demand Universal health care like everyone else on the planet. Don't blame the unions because they leveraged their assets to ensure a fair wage free from the tough's of the economy. I assure you that after this recession you will be making more than them and the point will be moot.


The job bank is supported by the company, not the taxpayer (directly anyway) and keeps the livelyhood of the families using it upheld. Taking care of your wounded is a sign of a principled company, now if only they could hire a smart up and comer marketing student to turn the company around :P

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Con Seannery
January 8, 2009 11:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@eric54: Pardon me, but isn't it better to have a job with steady pay even if it's a little less than you took when times were good than to have no job and no pay when times are bad and nobody's hiring? Maybe I'm just not as enlightened as you.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
doodzed
January 8, 2009 9:50 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

GM stil sells more vehicles in the US market than any other maker. It should offer a vehicle is most classes. It does not.

Look at the small vehicles it sells. Anything different. Anything close to premium. By premium I am just saying decent plastics, remote trunk entry, decent manual and a light sporty engine.

They have always expected us to buy larger, FWD vehicles with automatics and V6s if we wanted something with decent power and some features.

Some of us want a small car because we like them and by not paying attention to that in the boom years now they are screwed. Imagine a small( Honda Fit or smaller) GM vehicle. Would have sold fairly well now wouldn't it.

As a former driver of a 1986 Cavalier I4 wagon I do not feel bad for the corp going down the drain. Someone will pick up the assets and make a better compay out of them.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
faintandfuzzies
January 8, 2009 12:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Why are we giving them our money if they are doomed to fail anyway. I smell something fishy in the executive world. I will bet they still walk away with millions.


BTW... in was in the news this morning that Chrystler said they still will not survive even with the money we gave them. Uhhh... can you give it back please?!?!

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Pibbs
January 8, 2009 1:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

When you're the big man in the crowd, you tend to get noticed more than anyone else. Does anyone remember that Toyota made plenty of SUVs in the past 15 years as well? Everyone ran to the cash cow when the public was running to dealerships buying gas-guzzlers. Yet everyone blames GM for it, not the ENTIRE auto industry. All brands, foreign and domestic, had a hand in pushing SUVs on the public. Just because GM sold more shouldn't make them public enemy number one.

Just because you don't see a gas-guzzling Land Cruiser everyday doesn't mean Toyota doesn't make the 18mpg hwy/14mpg city behemoth.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Con Seannery
January 8, 2009 11:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MrPibbistheGreatestSodaEver: Of course! Toyota is the Barack Obama of car companies. And GM was in the wrong to give the people what they wanted, we all know that!

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
shepd
January 8, 2009 2:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Please, GM, last until at least September! My car insurance is through you. :(

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Saboth
January 8, 2009 2:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I agree with too many brands (well the rest too). Why does a company need 40 car models and 60 truck/suv models? I mean..the HHR? Why not have like 10 GOOD car models, 3-4 SUVS, and 3-4 pickups? Just focus like hell on making those 20 models the best you can. We don't need 30 different SUV models.....think of all the R&D and resources pumped into stuff to make flops.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
dangermike
January 8, 2009 4:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Saboth: not sure sure I buy that argument. I mean, how much R&D does it really take to go from an avalanche to an escalade ext? Or a sierra to silverado? Or a suburban to yukon?

Kinda reminds of the old joke: What's the difference between a GMC and a chevy?

Lockwashers.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
ARP
January 8, 2009 3:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@parad0x360: I think they're willing take a paycut, if everyone else is as well. So cut the top level managements' total compensation (salary, cars, jets, apartments, memberships, etc.) by 25% and cap it and I'm sure UAW will step up as well.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Con Seannery
January 8, 2009 11:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ARP: Well, it's a paycut with a job, or a total loss of pay and no job.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
mariospants
January 8, 2009 4:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This Infographic = FAIL.


I'm not impressed: there's nothing on there but a list of factors everyone already knows. it doesn't in any way provide any new insight or information that points you in the direction of \"GM will surely fail\". They might as well have included \"cost of metal going up\", \"poor color choices last year\" and \"corporate and individual municipal taxes skyrocketing\". These are business factors. He's missing the converse: sales figures, profit margins, some excellent new models, sell-offs of unprofitable business units, any positive brand identity they still have. You can't say that a bailout is all GM has, because there's more to the equation than just a handout.


Heck, just imagine this graphic with Donald Trump in the center instead of GM, and items such as \"too many buildings\", \"dead ratings on TV show\" and \"bad hair\". That's the stuff he has to deal with every day. Doesn't automatically mean he's going bankrupt again.


In retrospect, it's a lame infographic, actually.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
mibi
January 8, 2009 6:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mariospants:

I think the problem is most of the dicussions around GM's failure center around one issue or two, when the truth is that there are multiple factors spanning decades that have finally resulted in GM current position. This graphic sums that up well.

And a bailout is all the current GM has. After they sell off assets, go through bankruptcy, etc. Is that the same GM? They probably will not even have the same management next year, let alone business model. The current GM is failing, what emerges will be something entirely different.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
vladthepaler
January 8, 2009 5:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Lousy graphic. Look at the 3 gears on the left. The jaws can't close (unless the gears break).

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
mbz32190
January 8, 2009 5:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Of course GM (and others) isn't(aren't) going to make it. People aren't buying cars in general, let alone GM ones.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
vita2us
January 8, 2009 5:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I have to admit that I don't really know how a union works. Out of the $28 per hour that a UAW employee makes, how much of that goes to the union in dues? How much does the UAW management/bosses make per year? Not at all sure if it makes a difference in the long run, but it seems as though the government would need that information to really determine the full scope of what would be needed to save GM.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
valthun
January 8, 2009 6:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I think that GMs biggest downfall is not getting the Camero out 3 years ago with the release of the Transformers movie. They lost a significant amountf money to get their new pony car out. Announced before the Challenger and still not available. Those that didn't want the Mustang got the Challenger which reduced sales for the Camero. Good luck GM you screwed the pooch with a huge advertising vehicle as a blockbuster movie and didn't give us the goods.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
AtomicPlayboy
January 8, 2009 6:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Could we please move from \"Too Big to Fail\" to \"To Broken to Bail\" and allow the market to clean this mess up already?

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Kuonji
January 8, 2009 7:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"Japanese and Asian\"

They could have just said \"Japanese and Korean\".

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
snowburnt
January 8, 2009 8:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Kuonji: I heard there were a few Chinese and Indian cars trying to break into american markets

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
pschroeter
January 8, 2009 9:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I worked in health care in a hospital. At times I use to wonder why I bothered to go to college when the auto workers were paid more and had better health benefits than me. Then I remembered the work they did was mind numbing and soul killing.

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Eli, ElyNumsane
January 8, 2009 10:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

graphic is inaccurate. pretty sure GM was the first to the market with air bags in the 70s...

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
jimconsumer
January 9, 2009 12:28 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

This graphic is every leftist's wet dream. To wit, it's bullshit. It blasts GM for focusing on trucks and SUVs instead of hybrids - hey, did anyone bother to look at the top ten vehicles sold in 2008? The first one is a Ford F-150. The second is a Chevy Silverado. Number 7 is a Dodge RAM, 9 is a Honda CRV SUV, and the rest are sedans.

Your precious Hybrids are nowhere to be found, people. You say \"Nobody wants GM's trucks!\", but you're full of BS. The data proves exactly the opposite: People want them and they're buying them. People don't want hybrids and they aren't buying them. Go on, tell me about all the Priuses sold - When gas was $4-$5 a gallon last summer, GM was still selling more pickups than Toyota was selling Priuii.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
asherchang2
January 9, 2009 4:57 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wait a sec, I thought that that $28 dollars an hour bit has been debunked at least last month...

Reply
","","","","","","","","","");