[mark2410]

i think they should just let the car companys go bust, its not like its just a short term problem they have its that they have been declining for years and seem utterly incapable of making anything even americans want.

its like the uk car industry was, so unionised it was basically communist and they just kept pumping out any old crap that no one wanted, the gov set out to protect it with taxes and tariffs and subsides. none worked, the basic fact was their products were crap and they had no incentive to make anything people actually wanted.

its their own fault their going bust, they have been for years and this is just all an excuse to get the us gov to protect them

 

[davidhunternyc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by digger945 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'd buy a new car if it had vacuum tube audio

I'd buy a new car if it could fly.

 

[Edwood]

Bail out needs to have a billion strings attached, otherwise executives will pocket a huge chunk of the money for their personal fortunes. I don't see Big 3 Detroit executives leading by example. They'll layoff everyone before taking paycuts themselves.

 

[mark2410]

if the us gov insisted on bailing them out they could have done something more usefull for people like go buy a few billion dollars worth of cars from them and give them away to tax payers randomly picked out by their social security number. fairly sure for 95 billion they could have probably bought quite a few and stimulated the economy that way

pay them to build stuff rather than pay them not to

 

[earwicker7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mark2410 /img/forum/go_quote.gif i think they should just let the car companys go bust, its not like its just a short term problem they have its that they have been declining for years and seem utterly incapable of making anything even americans want. its like the uk car industry was, so unionised it was basically communist and they just kept pumping out any old crap that no one wanted, the gov set out to protect it with taxes and tariffs and subsides. none worked, the basic fact was their products were crap and they had no incentive to make anything people actually wanted. its their own fault their going bust, they have been for years and this is just all an excuse to get the us gov to protect them

Yeah, it's the fault of the communist unions

.

Why is it that the executives get all the credit when things are going well, but when things go poorly it's the fault of the unions? The union didn't make the decision to only build SUVs, the execs did. Everyone whines about the workers making a living wage, but nobody complains (well, they are now, but they weren't a couple of months ago) about the obscene pay of the execs.

And since we're talking about products being crappy, would you rather have a car built by someone who has been in the union for thirty years, or some worker with no skills who was only hired because they'll work for slave wages?

I know correlation and causality aren't the same thing, but there is a strong correlation between the country's economic strength and union membership. When union membership climbs, so does the standard of living. We've just been subjected to so many years of corporate propaganda that it's almost axiomatic that unions are bad for America.

 

[cash68]

Funny that. The whole reasons SUVs and trucks have different safety standards than automobiles is due to unions. Union representatives would go to washington and tell them how they wanted the standards to split, otherwise the union members weren't going to vote for so and so. So... in a way, Unions are completely responsible for SUVs becoming what they were.

 

[earwicker7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cash68 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Funny that. The whole reasons SUVs and trucks have different safety standards than automobiles is due to unions. Union representatives would go to washington and tell them how they wanted the standards to split, otherwise the union members weren't going to vote for so and so. So... in a way, Unions are completely responsible for SUVs becoming what they were.

I'm not talking about safety standards, I'm talking about the management deciding that SUVs were going to be their focus. This is one of the major causes of the US auto industry downfall, and the unions had nothing at all to do with it. Unions are scapegoated to an extent that is almost pathological... notice how teachers are the enemy to a large part of the population?

I'm curious... do you have any documentation about the unions being able to persuade the government to change their safety standards? I'm not saying it didn't happen, it's just not something I've ever heard about. Thanks.

 

[marvin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by earwicker7 I'm not talking about safety standards, I'm talking about the management deciding that SUVs were going to be their focus. This is one of the major causes of the US auto industry downfall, and the unions had nothing at all to do with it. Unions are scapegoated to an extent that is almost pathological... notice how teachers are the enemy to a large part of the population?

US auto management didn't really have a choice. The increased cost of union labor rendered them non-competitive in the US built small car segment and the SUV arena was where they had a major advantage over the Japanese. It was the correct business move at the time.

Also, GM and Ford both have more than decent small/midsized cars in their stable. But, in a colossal stroke of management idiocy, they decided that Americans are too dumb to buy quality small/midsized cars and left the damn things in Europe. Of course, there is the minor issue of UAW restrictions on car imports by the Big 2.5...

Really, the UAW should be making major concessions to the Big 2.5 until the auto industry stabilizes and the Big 2.5 recover. But, thanks to politics that I won't get into, they don't need to and won't. As a result, the Big 2.5 will be on the brink of death indefinitely and will continue to consume taxpayer money.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cash68 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Funny that. The whole reasons SUVs and trucks have different safety standards than automobiles is due to unions. Union representatives would go to washington and tell them how they wanted the standards to split, otherwise the union members weren't going to vote for so and so. So... in a way, Unions are completely responsible for SUVs becoming what they were.

I'd say that CAFE was the reason why SUV popularity skyrocketed. Americans love overpowered land barges and the looser mileage standard on light trucks made them better land barges. More of an unintended consequence issue than "UNIONS R BAD".

 

[earwicker7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvin /img/forum/go_quote.gif Also, GM and Ford both have more than decent small/midsized cars in their stable. But, in a colossal stroke of management idiocy, they decided that Americans are too dumb to buy quality small/midsized cars and left the damn things in Europe. Of course, there is the minor issue of UAW restrictions on car imports by the Big 2.5...

Agreed; the car I have now (and the one I drove previously) is a Ford Focus. Less money on cars=more money on audio goodies.

 

[883dave]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mark2410 /img/forum/go_quote.gif if the us gov insisted on bailing them out they could have done something more usefull for people like go buy a few billion dollars worth of cars from them and give them away to tax payers randomly picked out by their social security number. fairly sure for 95 billion they could have probably bought quite a few and stimulated the economy that way pay them to build stuff rather than pay them not to

X2

 

[cash68]

Quote:

Originally Posted by earwicker7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm not talking about safety standards, I'm talking about the management deciding that SUVs were going to be their focus. This is one of the major causes of the US auto industry downfall, and the unions had nothing at all to do with it. Unions are scapegoated to an extent that is almost pathological... notice how teachers are the enemy to a large part of the population? I'm curious... do you have any documentation about the unions being able to persuade the government to change their safety standards? I'm not saying it didn't happen, it's just not something I've ever heard about. Thanks.

Ah but you are wrong. You see, the division in safety standards and emissions requirements brought about the SUV in the first place, a vehicle that when equipped with leather and a few pieces of chrome, could make an amazing net profit for the automakers. It was the most profitable vehicle they had, so they tried to sell as many as they could.

Sure, it's all talked about in this book, check it out at your local library, or buy a copy for less than $5 on amazon:

Amazon.com: High and Mighty: SUVs--The World's Most Dangerous Vehicles and How They Got That Way: Keith Bradsher: Books

It's a really REALLY interesting read. Check it out.

 

[amphead]

Well, how about a little rough justice for those who did the wrong thing.

 

[cash68]

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvin /img/forum/go_quote.gif US auto management didn't really have a choice. The increased cost of union labor rendered them non-competitive in the US built small car segment and the SUV arena was where they had a major advantage over the Japanese. It was the correct business move at the time.

Disagree. I feel they were just greedy and instead of looking after the health of the country, they wanted to be the business major ********* who was responsible for making the most profit, short term. So, the push the most profitable vehicle while ignoring the writing on the wall, and hope that gas stays cheap forever.

Quote:

Also, GM and Ford both have more than decent small/midsized cars in their stable. But, in a colossal stroke of management idiocy, they decided that Americans are too dumb to buy quality small/midsized cars and left the damn things in Europe. Of course, there is the minor issue of UAW restrictions on car imports by the Big 2.5...

Like what? Ford does, sure, but I'm not sure what GM/Chrysler vehicles you are referring to back in the mid to late 90s.

Quote:

I'd say that CAFE was the reason why SUV popularity skyrocketed. Americans love overpowered land barges and the looser mileage standard on light trucks made them better land barges. More of an unintended consequence issue than "UNIONS R BAD".

Overpowered? Most SUVs are slow as hell and handle like ass. The reason they became so popular is that the industry themselves pushed it on people. They shoved ads down people's throats that equated the SUV to "single, adventurous, and outdoorsy", which many people aspire to, thus in order to feel that way they felt they needed to purchase an SUV. Nevermind that camping, mountainbiking, climbing, etc can all be done with a compact car, or a station wagon. They shoved them down people's throats and did everything in their power to get people to buy them, purely because they made the most profit.

 

[elrod-tom]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwood /img/forum/go_quote.gif Bail out needs to have a billion strings attached, otherwise executives will pocket a huge chunk of the money for their personal fortunes. I don't see Big 3 Detroit executives leading by example. They'll layoff everyone before taking paycuts themselves.

I don't think if we run the numbers that the biggest problem with the Big 3 is that the execs are making too much money. That's overhead, and it may be too high from a philosophical point of view, but it's not incredibly out of balance with the competition.

Fact of the matter is that the big 3 have a labor cost per hour that is much higher than their competition. Like it or not, it's the single biggest thing that is making it impossible to produce a small car profitably. It's the reason that they've made decisions to manufacture mostly larger, more profitable vehicles - that and (until recently) people were buying them like crazy. It's simply not sustainable long term.

I take no joy in saying that. I've got good friends and family that's made a living working production for generations...lots of them are laid off right now. I've also got good friends and family working white collar management...and a lot of them were let go recently too. The difference is, when production goes back up, the production workers have an opportunity to be called back. Once white collar positions are cut, they're usually cut permanently.

 

[SactoMan101]

Unlike GM and Chrysler, I think Ford will survive, mostly because they are ready for the transition to the next developments in automotive technology.

Ford has done a LOT of work with hybrids, PHEV's and clean turbodiesels, and we could see the result of these research over the next 3-4 years. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised that Ford gets special Federal assistance to develop turbodiesel engines that meet even the very stringent CARB 2009 standards (EPA Tier 2 Bin 4), which will end up on all of Ford's SUV and light pickup models and even cars as small as the Fiesta subcompact.