Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?

How will that improve GM management?
Would GM sell more Cobalts/Vues if it wasn't burdened by union
contracts?

 

Together GM and Ford have $500.000.000.000 in debt

Merged into one bankruptcy it would be spectacular

 

This is the most pro-capitalist thing we could do.

 

If those were some of the worst Toyotas ever, then Toyota is an even
better company than realized because I remember those cars as being
very reliable in the company fleet. One person thought his Nova was
proof the American car industry could match the Japanese in quality,
and I hated telling him it was actually a Corolla.

 

A high ranking GM manager told me the reason they changed to FWD was that
they could build the car $50 cheaper than a RWD. I have no idea if that is
true.

 

It won't help management much. However, you cannot ignore the facts
about the horrendous burden that extremely high salaries (when
compared to value provided), high healthcare costs and ridiculous
retirement costs -- all the result of union demands have and
continue to be at least one of the major causes of unprofitability.
Even if the management teams of Ford and GM could somehow produce
some desirable cars anytime soon, the profit margins would still be
too low.

 

Not in my book it isn't. I'm not denying that our current
healthcare system needs fixing. Handing it to the government isn't
the fix it -- or much of anything else for that matter.

 

It won't.

Yes, as they could price them $1-2,000 cheaper and they would likely
have higher build quality.

Matt

 

Part union demand, part company willing to give in. Year ago, in a growing
economy, the companies figured increased sales and inflation would take care
of increased costs. Rather than fight the UAW, they gave in easily. Each
contract a different automaker was targeted. Rather than lose sales to a
competitor, they settled fast. It did work for many years.

I'm not pro-union by any means, however, if someone is giving, I'm going to
take whatever I can get. While good wages make for good consumers,
excessive wages are a burden on industry. Remember the cleaning woman in
the new recently that was pulling about 100k in wages and pension? She was
smart in taking what she could get, but the company was negligent in making
that possible and passing on the cost to the auto buyer. .

 

It only worked if you ignore the long-term effects -- which we're
now seeing. All the while it was 'working', the competition
(without the same burdens) got stronger and stronger.

I agree with 'excessive wages [being] a burden on industry', I'm
having a problem with, 'if someone is giving, I'm going to take
whatever I can get'. In this case the excessive wages and benefits
were not just offered by management. They were demanded by the
unions. Long-term thinking cannot overlook that it's a hollow and
short-lived victory for those that are taking or demanding out of
proportion to what they are actually earning. Since the result is
that Ford and GM are now close to bankruptcy, the unions are close
to being ignored as a reasonable force towards change, but also may
end up falling completely apart -- along with all of those over-paid
jobs they had, 'while it was working'.

All of this doesn't absolve management for caving in too easily or
for thier mis-management but unless they were really, really good
managers, few could overcome the burdens forced on them by the
greedy unions and their workers.

I wouldn't call what she did smart. It was totally unreasonable.
Again, I agree that the company was stupid in allowing it to occur.

 

It was a low mileage trailer queen, that's why it is still around


mike hunt

 

That would have made it two Jap cars at an old cars show. There were more
Fiats than that LOL


mike

 

As well as many Jap cars from the eighties.

mike hunt

 

Perhaps, but there are many more of the cars I mentioned in museums, as
well. The cars I saw were driven to the show, for the most part, not museum
cars .


mike hunt

 

For sure but they could have been used to bring the more technologically
advanced cars we can buy today, to market ten or fifteen years sooner.


mike hunt

 

You can tell your 'high ranking' friend he does not know what he is taking
about. Ford sold the first FWD Fords to dealers below cost, just to meet
CAFE, so they could still sell the larger RWD cars they were still building
to make money. It took three years for economies of scale to bring down
the build costs

mike hunt

 

At Toyota, FWD is less expensive to make than RWD. I do no know why the
same is not true at Ford.

 

It would be just as correct to say that Ford sold small cars below
cost to offset poor milage due to big cars. I don't see what FWD has
to do with it.

Besides, there is a limit to how much you would be willing to lose on
small cars just to hit the CAFE numbers. Remember, you don't have to
hit the CAFE numbers. Ferrari and Rolls Royce never made the numbers
but they are still allowed to sell cars here.

 

Well possibly, but what point is there to this anyway? You were
originally claiming that this had something to do with vehicle
longevity, not who had made the most museum pieces.

 

Merging Ford with GM in order to save them would be like tying the
Titanic to the Hindenberg in order to keep it from sinking.