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 GM News, New Models and Market Share
8523 messages, Last post on Nov 30, 2009 at 8:34 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: gagrice (Nov 10, 2008 4:52 pm) You know, it's funny. I think that the last 25 years have been a dizzying roller coaster ride for the economy and the public as well. In a simpler time (say, back when you became a phone guy  ) people rolled out of high school and into the factories, worked hard for 45 years (or more), took their pensions, and lived out the rest of their lives quietly. Then came the mid '80's. 55 became the new 65 (yes, retirement age), people had to go to college, then "find themselves" before they went to work, work for as few years as possible (25, 30???) then float down to Fla or Az. to retire for the next 30 or more years. THAT, more than anything stresses pension funds. In a nutshell, for the last 25 years, we as individuals and as big companies have been trying to fund our lavish lifestyles with the market and credit instead of good old fashoned hard work ( even that has been hard to do, as it seems as though our jobs are constantly being threatened by the "world economy"). People seem to think that they are entitled to retire at 55, earn top dollar on their investments no matter what, and pay as little as possible for everything. Personally, I think we should get the highest pay we can, pensions and fully paid health care, and gas under a buck a gallon  , but with these things come the responsibility of not abusing the system, trying to take advantage of every little loophole to get ahead, even if it means stepping on your neighbors head.
|
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Nov 09, 2008 8:44 pm) I support it. They have contributed billions of tax dollars here over the years. If they need some help, I am for it so long as it's fair and paid back. Workers need to contribute also, the unions and their ridged labor practices and wages are very much a contributor to the demise and high costs of manufacturing. In the end, governments have no choice but to help. A collapse of banks, car companies and other large manufacturers can not be allowed or this little recession will become a depression very quickly. I am talking world wide!
|
|
|
Replying to: vanman1 (Nov 10, 2008 6:26 pm) I don't think it will be paid back. I would look at it as money spent to keep the Big 3 afloat. Unlike the Chrysler loans in the early 1980s. Chrysler had a plan and put it to work with the money we loaned them. It was paid back in 4 years with interest. All I hear from GM is we will be broke in the next quarter without the bailout. That does not sound like a loan. It is a gift the same we are giving to all the loser banks that are going belly up. So if Canada has an extra $25 billion USD to give the Big 3 they need to get out the check book. Is it worth it to save 400,000 Canadian jobs? That is about a years wages for those workers. Better hold onto it as you may need to pay long term retirement and unemployment.
|
|
Ideally if the Detroit automakers were as heavily engineering dominated in the upper management ranks as German manufacturers are, I'd say they'd be in a lot better position than their present condition is. The ability of upper management to understand the fundamental aspects of product is important, ask why military hardware manufacturers or aircraft manufacturers in the US can still perform well in spite of everything.
|
|
|
Replying to: aldw (Nov 10, 2008 8:11 pm) Not one more job goes outside of the U.S. from the day they get that money. Build a plant if they have to, but taxpayer money shouldn't go past our borders. That defeats the entire purpose of trying to stimulate the economy. We're supposed to stimulate OUR economy, and not China's or Mexico's. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: aldw (Nov 10, 2008 8:11 pm) Perhaps because the government is paying the bills for the military hardware and they buy from only US concerns? Notice also that Boeing is the last of US makers building commercial aircraft. Where is Douglas? McDonell?, General Dynamics? Hughes? All the commercial aircraft companies are combined into one, Boeing. And the only real competitor is a French based company. Supply and Demand and when there is only 2 suppliers and the demand is there you can charge what you need to. |
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Nov 10, 2008 7:23 pm) |
|
|
|
|
There are still some fishy things going on with this whole "GM in trouble" thing that don't make sense. First, if GM is in such bad shape, why is 95% of the ad space here at Edmunds sponsered by them? I mean, it's been nothing but GM ads on here for at least the past year. Same goes for the other car sites I visit. Surely, they still have a large advertising budget? Second, GM also just announced a new plant opening in Russia to the tune of 300 million dollars to pump out Cruzes and SUV's. Where is this money coming from? Also, (This one irks me the most) why is it that now that GM is supposedly "in trouble", the fear mongering is rampant calling for a "total collapse of the American economy" or (Lemko's apocolypse come true) yet when the news of Chryslers eminent demise/sale/dismantling not even 1 month ago, the reactions were nothing more than ...meh, Chryslers done for, so what  Are they just not that vital to the American economy as much as the General is? How come their demise would have next to zero effect while the loss of GM in this country would turn this place into a third world disaster area? Same goes for Ford, whom over the years has had its own share of ups and downs yet, nobody is dreading it's demise and the effects it would have on the economy or the thousands of its employees? Are both of these companies expendable? Anyways, I'm not rooting for anybody to go out of business, and would like to see a bright future for the American automakers, even if it means doing the right thing and restructuring through BK but sometimes the priorities on this dilema can be downright baffling. |
|
|
Replying to: anythngbutgm (Nov 11, 2008 6:09 am) Like I stated before, now is not the time to introduce a new car, they need a restructure first.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: anythngbutgm (Nov 11, 2008 6:09 am) The entire industry was caught by surprise 3 months ago by the credit issue. This came on suddenly. Even Toyota is very surprised at the loss in business and they may even make no money this coming year in the US. So everyone was going forward with their business such as opening a plant in Russia where sales are going gonzo. One year ago inside GM everything was looking up. The UAW issue was evened out with the competitors, the health care issues were evening up, the quality was evened up and MPG was evened up. But with sales suddenly in the dumper all the cash flow to pay the bills stopped. No credit is really killing the entire market. Even the $700 Billion is doing little because the companies that got it are sitting on it. I think it was a mistake to give it to them because they did not do anything with it as the were supposed to. Our wise congress jsut gave them free money with what looks like no strings attached. So the bottom line is our entire industry, and our entire country was surprised by what happened. No one is buying anything. We are going into a world wide depression if it goes much further. As far as the marketing, Marketers make media buys months in advance. Money is already spent. Now Ford is in a better position because they "sold" all their assets (plants, buildings, etc.) a year ago for credit. They are now living on all that credit. GM still owns everything but in todays credit crunch they cannot get anything for them.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views GM News, New Models and Market Share
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
