Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views United Automobile Workers of America (UAW)
16711 messages, Last post on Dec 01, 2009 at 11:23 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: dallasdude1 (Nov 29, 2008 2:53 am) The contractors impacted by the housing bubble burst in CA and FL are hurting a lot more than the UAW workers. I would bet over 3 million jobs have already been lost due to the mess Congress made with sub prime lending. When you start subsidizing any entity there is no end in sight. The Banking and Insurance bailouts should show you that. |
|
|
Replying to: tlong (Nov 28, 2008 9:05 pm) b - declare bankruptcy and walk away" Therein lies the problem. I'm sure GM would rather do A. Problem is, so many taxpayers are doing B, the banks that GM owes money to can't give them A. Enter the taxpayer. We give these banks a big chunk of change, and they refuse to hand it out. We paid for it, why shouldn't we get it back??? Because too many of us chose B, and the bankers are still sweatting bullets, and are too scared to sit down with GM for A.
|
|
|
Replying to: cooterbfd (Nov 29, 2008 6:17 am) Loans are getting much easier here in CA. Those that can now qualify for a home loan has increased since last year. Mainly because of home price deflation. Lots of ads for refinance loans as low as 5.25%. I still get CC offers on a daily basis. I think the difference is they are not lending to poor risk borrowers. That would be GM for sure. Would you lend money to a company that owes $200 billion and have lost close to $100 billion over the last 5 years? One of the holdups on that original $25 billion loan program was insurance on the loans. There was a $6 billion insurance policy for every $10 billion that would be loaned to GM. GM is a horrible risk to ever pay any money back. We could loan them $25 billion tomorrow and a year from now they will be in the same mess. So when they do finally throw in the towel we will be stuck bailing out all the retirees they leave hanging. Save that $25 billion and just plan on picking up the pieces in 2009.
|
|
|
Replying to: dallasdude1 (Nov 28, 2008 1:43 pm) Dr. Mark J. Perry is a professor of economics and finance in the School of Management at the Flint campus of the University of Michigan. Perry holds two graduate degrees in economics (M.A. and Ph.D.) from George Mason University in Washington, D.C. In addition, he holds an MBA degree in finance from the Curtis L. Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota. Since 1997, Professor Perry has been a member of the Board of Scholars for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a nonpartisan research and public policy institute in Michigan. A Detroit bailout would also be unfair to other companies that make cars in the U.S. Yes, those are "foreign" companies in the narrow sense that they are headquartered overseas. But then so was Chrysler before Daimler sold most of the car maker to Cerberus, the private equity fund. Honda, Toyota and the rest employ about 113,000 American auto workers who make nearly four million cars a year in states like Alabama and Tennessee. Unlike Michigan, these states didn't vote for Mr. Obama. But the very success of this U.S. auto industry indicates that highly skilled American workers can profitably churn out cars without being organized by the UAW. A bailout for Chrysler would in essence be assisting rich Cerberus investors at the expense of middle-class nonunion auto workers (see chart below). Is this the new "progressive" era we keep reading so much about? If Uncle Sam buys into Detroit, $50 billion would only be the start of the outlays as taxpayers were obliged to protect their earlier investment in uncompetitive companies.  Regards, OW |
|
|
"Why is it there are still PLENTY of 1960s, 70s, and 80s Detroit cars out there, yet the Japanese cars are conspicuous by their absence?" lemko, I don't think that matters to someone who wants to buy a car new, or used under 5 years old...the fact that some 60s and 70s Big 3 cars are still on the road simply means that a few of them were cream puffs, nothing more... Remember, all those buyers who deserted Big 3 cars in the 80s and 90s (not really that many of them in the 70s, the major onslaught started in the early to mid 80s) felt they were being sold junk at the time and turned to the imports as an alternative...just because a few Caddys and Impalas survive today does NOT offset all those who were burned, often burned multiple times... lemko, what it boils down to is this: YOU have been treated well by Big 3 cars, and I am happy for you...but you continually post as tho you cannot understand what OTHERS have been thru, assuming that they foolishly deserted the Big 3 because of the high quality of their cars, when a GREAT number of buyers over the last 20-plus years have an experience diametrically opposed to your cream puff experiences... Just on Thanksgiving day I met a man who is service manager at Lexus, and who worked in quality control for Cadillac from 1973-1993...he told me how cars coming off the line, Caddies, had doors that would not close and hoods that did not line up with fenders, also that he had many coffe cans on his workbench full of extra screws, nuts and bolts that were just lying various places in the vehicle...he also said that in 92 or 93 (I may be wrong on the year) someone drove up in a new product, the Lexus LS, and when the Caddy guys saw it and examined it, my new friend said his only words were "Boys, we're in serious trouble"...he knew back then that the Caddy would look like junk next to the flagship Lexus, and he was a loyal Caddy worker...he also saw the handwriting on the wall and went to work for Lexus... So, really, the fact that you and a few others have vehicles from 20 years ago means nothing about the overall market...your experience with a 20 year old Buick will not send ANYONE to a Buick dealer solely becayse yours is still running...your experience is almost unique, and certainly has no bearing on today's market... Plus, those Japanese rustbuckets of the 70s were improved over the last 20-30 years, whereas the Big 3 have only drawn more complaints...I still maintain my main point, buyers have deserted the Big 3 because of their own bad experiences and they went over to imports voluntarily with nobody holding a gun to their head... So, while Toyota did have a sludge problem and Honda may have a VCM problem on their new V6s, overall many folks have had better experiences with imports as smoother cars and better fuel mileage than they did with Big 3 cars... I hope your Buick and Caddy continue to run forever, but your experience with 20 year old GM cars is completely irrelevent in today's market...and I do appreciate the knowledge that you informed me when you taught me that the Lucerne was a DTS w/o the price and status... I, personally, may buy a Buick or DTS from your experience with your NEW DTS, but the fact that you have 20 year old cars just means you were one of the lucky few from back then, because too many of their cars were barley qualified as boat anchors for the QE2... 
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: marsha7 (Nov 29, 2008 6:45 am) lemko, I don't think that matters to someone who wants to buy a car new, or used under 5 years old...the fact that some 60s and 70s foreign brand cars are still on the road simply means that a few of them were cream puffs, nothing more... ....just because a few Accords and Camrys survive today does NOT offset all those who were burned, often burned multiple times... lemko, what it boils down to is this: YOU have been treated well by foreign cars, and I am happy for you...but you continually post as tho you cannot understand what OTHERS have been thru, assuming that they foolishly deserted the foreign brands because of the high quality of their cars, when a GREAT number of buyers over the last 20-plus years have an experience diametrically opposed to your cream puff experiences... .... So, really, the fact that you and a few others have vehicles from 20 years ago means nothing about the overall market...your experience with a 20 year old Honda will not send ANYONE to a Honda dealer solely becayse yours is still running...your experience is almost unique, and certainly has no bearing on today's market... Plus, those American rustbuckets of the 70s were improved over the last 20-30 years, whereas the foreign brands have only drawn more complaints...I still maintain my main point, buyers have deserted the foreign brand makers because of their own bad experiences and they went over to imports voluntarily with nobody holding a gun to their head... So, while Chrysler did have a sludge problem and GM may have a UIM problem on their new V6s, overall many folks have had better experiences with imports as smoother cars and better fuel mileage than they did with Big 3 cars...
|
|
|
Replying to: marsha7 (Nov 29, 2008 6:45 am) |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: imidazol97 (Nov 29, 2008 7:40 am) |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views United Automobile Workers of America (UAW)
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
