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)
16668 messages, Last post on Nov 11, 2009 at 8:03 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: dieselone (Feb 27, 2009 6:27 am) My grandparents on my Dad's side usually bought a brand-new car every 3-4 years, but it was never anything all that extravagant. Their first car was actually a used 1949 Ford, but then they bought a very well-equipped '57 Ford Fairlane 500 4-door hardtop. It was around $3500, and adjusted for inflation, probably the most expensive car they ever owned. It was followed by a '61 Galaxie and a '63 Mercury Monterrey, and each of them was around $3500, as well. After that, they went to smaller cars. First a '66-67 Tempest hardtop coupe, then a '71. Then a '75 Dart Swinger, followed by a '77 Granada, '81 Granada, 85 LTD, 89 Taurus LX, and finally a '94 Taurus GL. Both Grandmom and Granddad worked, so none of this Leave-it-to-Beaver stay-at-home-Mom mythology for our family! When Granddad retired in 1974, he was making $6.00 per hour. I dunno what Grandmom made when she finally retired. On my Mom's side of the family, they always had two or more vehicles...a car for Grandmom, a truck for Granddad, and usually some spare beater that Granddad picked up for little or nothing. Again though, it was never anything extravagant. The most expensive vehicle they ever had, when you account for inflation, was probably a '76 GMC 3/4 ton crew cab pickup. It was around $8,000 new. The last car they bought was also the most luxurious...a 1985 LeSabre Limited, almost fully loaded, for around $16,200. First car they ever had with power windows, seat, locks, etc. The last truck they bought was a 1985 Silverado, for around $13,500. For the most part, they just had mainstream, run-of-the-mill cars. It's not like they were farmers, hospital workers, and railroad workers driving around in a brand-new Cadillac every two years. I also had a 75 Buick Regal coupe with a 350. I remember when my Grandpa gave it to me in '87. He was so proud he had gotten 120k miles out of it. Boy was that a beaut. 150 or so HP and 4000lbs, 15mpg at best, maybe 11 second 0-60. My Mom bought a 1975 Pontiac LeMans coupe, brand-new, for around $5,000. I remember the car was pretty tired by 1980, when she traded it on a new Malibu coupe. It wasn't rusting yet, and thankfully didn't have a vinyl top to peel, but I just remember it getting hard to start, not driving very well, and Mom was complaining about its fuel economy. In the car's defense though, Dad wrecked it in 1977, and even though it got fixed, it just never ran right. Interestingly, the '76 Grand LeMans I have now is probably in better shape at 33 years old, than Mom's '75 was at 5! I remember last year, my Mom saw my '76 LeMans, took a good look at it, and with a confused look on her face asked, "was my '75 really that big?! I can't believe I used to drive a car that big!" Which I don't fully comprehend, because she and my stepdad have a 2002 F-150 and a 1998 Expedition! They also have two Altimas, a '99 and an '08 though, and that's what they mainly drive. I guess those old cars can seem kind of intimidating though, with the long hood. With a pickup truck, you sit up towards the front of the vehicle, so it doesn't necessarily feel so big, as long as you forget about all that mass behind you!
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Feb 27, 2009 6:53 am) I'd be curious to look at the dimensions of the '75 Regal/Lemans. I wouldn't be surprised if they were wider than a current SUV.
|
|
|
Replying to: dieselone (Feb 27, 2009 7:10 am) My '76 LeMans coupe is 208" long on a 112" wheelbase. I think it's about 53" tall, and around 77-78" wide. I think the base weight was around 3850 lb, but once you throw on a/c, power windows, and a few other odds and ends, I'm sure it's around 4,000 lb. |
|
|
Crime rates skyrocketed in the 1960s, when American industry was booming. They declined in the 1990s, when America was supposedly "deindustrializing." There is no credible proof that economic downturns bring about an increase in crime. Contrary to popular belief, crime was not a problem during the Great Depression. Most criminals engage in illegal activities because of attitudes about work and wealth, not because they were denied a student loan. Criminals don't have the discipline to pursue higher education, even if they were given the money. Virtually all criminals prey on people in their own neighborhoods...those crimes just don't make the six-o'clock news, or the front page of the local paper. Criminals from Philadelphia aren't invading the Main Line.
|
|
|
Replying to: grbeck (Feb 27, 2009 7:53 am) If things were so great during the 1960s for the UAW workers and the auto Industry, why the 1967 Detroit riot. One of the worst in US history. 2000 buildings burnt. Sounds like the 1960s were utopia for the UAW and Detroit, NOT. I think rocky's family are looking at the past through rose colored glasses. The 1960s under socialist LBJ were horrible. I guess every generation has to go through times like that.
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Feb 27, 2009 8:09 am) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Rioting/protesting/dropping acid were just part of life in the late 1960s. The cars were hot then, though. Can anyone say 426 HEMI, GTO? 
|
|
|
"How is someone with your mentality that all factory workers are undeserving of a livable wage suppose to afford you or are they just suppose to take out a loan and pass it on to their kids as another debt." I never said that factory workers are undeserving of a livable wage...what I have repeatedly stated (anything I write after 11 pm I am not responsble for, since I am half asleep... ...) is that floor sweeping and tightening lug nuts simply is not worth $35/hour, even if the President were to do it...my argument is simply that the UAW was able to get unskilled labor paid far in excess of what anyone else in the entire universe would pay for the same job...they lived in fantasyland, and made junk for years, because we had nothing better to compare it to... Then, we started getting products from Honda and Toyota that are manufactured with far fewer workers (simply more efficient than the union featherbedding) and, accoding to many Americans and reflected in their market share, far superior in quality...rock, you NEVER answer the efficiency and quality factors that have been destroyed by the UAW, all you yap about is why can't a worker with a 3rd grade education get $65K a year for sweeping floors...the inherent worth of the labor simply is NOT there...it is up to the individual to better themselves, and the UAW always seems to reach out for the lowest common denominator... Numerous posters here have adequately described how they joined a union workforce and were gently "told" to slow production so that they don't make the others look bad...again, the lowest common denominator from the union... So, I am not against anyone making a living wage, but they must perform work that earns that wage...why can you not see that??? If YOU had to hire someone to sweep the floors in your house, would YOU pay them $35/hour plus benefits for 8 hours daily, 5 days a week, plus overtime ($54/hour) on weekends???...if you were Warren Buffet you wouldn't pay that because you know that the work is not inherently worth it...why should a Ford floor sweeper be any different??? The competition from superior manufacturers like Honda and Toyota has removed the curtain from the UAW Wizard, and we can all see the emperor has no clothes...just face it, rocky...the UAW deceived us long enough, it was nice while it lasted, but the truth is now known and it ain't pretty...the UAW simply is NOT worth what they are paid, and every taxpayer in the US now knows it... Yogi Berra said It ain't over til it's over...Guess what???...It's over...
|
|
|
Replying to: marsha7 (Feb 27, 2009 8:55 am) Hell, that UAW floor sweeper/janitor is making more than Buffet's secretary who is the gatekeeper for an organization that is worth more than the D3 combined! I should say used to get paid more, as from what I understand, those unskilled positions are getting a pay cut to the $14/hr range, once the UAW concessions take effect. |
|
|
Replying to: dieselone (Feb 27, 2009 6:27 am) I'm with ya. The first car I remember was my dad's '52 Plymouth. I can still remember him and the mechanic down the street doing a "ring job" on it on a lot at the end of the back alley. This was at 50,000 or so miles. The old brake shoes were always needing replacing, and your point about points (sorry for the pun), carburetors, etc is right in line with my recollection. When I started driving it was on the '52 Plymouth, then graduated to a '62 Rambler. I replaced the rings on it too, but this time had a garage to use. You never hear about cars needing rings jobs today. Most new vehicles will go 100,000 miles with not much more than fluid changes and consumables (wiper blades, tires, brake pads) replaced.
|
|
|
Replying to: srs_49 (Feb 27, 2009 9:05 am) LOL, just remember to turn the ignition off before using the feeler gauge to check the point gap!! I've done that ONLY once!! Quite a shocking experience;) |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views United Automobile Workers of America (UAW)
