Saving the US Auto Industry
How do you feel about sending taxpayer money to save any one or all of the Big Three?
Against.
I worked as a nurse for GM (Truck and Bus division) back in '97. I came home one night after working and said, "This company won't last ten more years." Workers would clock in then come to medical and say, "I"m sick, send me home." If the company nurse sent them home, they got no demerit points and were paid.
They'd come to work whacked out or drunk and the union rules were that we were to "sober up" the asshat (in medical, no less) and periodically give the person sobriety tests. If they ever passed the test, they could go to work. Many of them just slept in medical for 8 hours, collected their pay and went home. I had asthmatics smoke cigs until they went into an attack and had to be transported via bus to the hospital, diabetics who would let their sugar drop to get out of work, and one woman came to medical one hour after her shift had started to announce that she thought she had a tampon stuck. Unwilling and unable to do the honors, we sent her to an Urgent Care. No tampon, but she was paid for all the time she was gone, as were the others. Never, ever have I witness such gaming in my life. The auto workers, those proud All-Americans, put the nails in their own coffin. Every single car or truck ever bought included the price of elbow, wrist, hand, shoulder surgery paid for by GM. And once Mama and Papa knew the tricks, they passed them down like precious recipes to Jo jr. and Dolores Dre. Entire families gaming.
They got what they deserved.
:fuse:
Interesting insight. But I have to say, I see a lot of that behavior in other industry as well. It use to be worse in the DOD than it is now, but they have their fair share of slackers as well.
I also worked for AK Steel in medical dept. They were nothing like the doodie heads at GM. In contrast to Generous Motors, they had maybe one bad apple to 9 good ones, where gm had 10 bad apples to 9.
There was a deer in the parking lot: Joe Asshattery ran it down with his truck, killed it and was going to take it home (mmmm, truck killed baby deer!) when he got arrested.
Another proud GM worker, pissed at a security guard, brought the severed head of a PIG to work and set it in a place where he knew security guard woud see it.
Guy came to work, shot his woman in the face in the parking lot.
Because union rules said they didn't have to tie back their hair, woman on line was scalped. YOU paid for that if you bought a car, truck....
Dude arrested and jailed for dealing weapons (GUNS) at work was released after a year and got his job back. YAY UNION!
the monthly union letter, written by their "president" read like the ramblings of a drunk maniac.
Yeah. I've a grudge, but so what? They BEGGED to be shut down.
The problem is I don't think Pelosi and Reid have the balls to do it. Shut it that is. Most of the rational economists I have heard on NPR say let it fail or at least go to Chapter 13 and reorganize. It would be painful for many people but something has to give. We can't just keep handing out Billions to these failing corps.
And how many of the
266,000 GM employees did you see gaming the system? :eyebrow:
Read "
Life on the line", by Solange De Santis.
As a veteran business reporter, Solange De Santis covered her fair share of layoff announcements and plant closings, but almost always from Management's point of view. That is, until this mid-career, mid-thirties, Ivy League-educated journalist quit her job to become an assembly-line auto worker.She was hired at a doomed General Motors plant, and quickly learned... More about the bone-crushing realities and elusive rewards of hard, physical work. In Life on the Line, DeSantis offers a glimpse into a world that too many of us shy away from acknowledging, even as we accept the keys to our new cars. Completely candid, and as unexpectedly poignant as it is funny, Life on the Line will change the way you view blue-collar work and the cars on which we all depend.
And how many of the 266,000 GM employees did you see gaming the system? :eyebrow:
All of them. Just extrapolate: 10 out of 9 apples at my GM plant were bad.
90,000 dollars a year for a janitor, who
still lives in a trailor on the wrong side of the tracks? Full medical? Gramma's and Grappy's putting grandchildren on their insurance coz mom and pop are meth addicts? Yeah. And there's so much more.
Read Rivet Head: Tales from the Assembly Line by Ben Hamper.
For the RECORD, bruce, I worked with steel workers,too, who were pretty much the salt of the earth. Good men and women. Mostly ex-military. A lot of Vietnam Vets. Lot of Gulf War vets. They were NOTHING LIKE the GM babies I saw.
Bullshit.
Oh, you worked at GM? then you know.
ETA: when they got "laid off" they collected their pay. Getting "laid off" was a wet dream for them. They went practically berserk with happiness.
If "10 out of 9" were gaming the system and reporting to medical to get out of work every day, how the hell did any thing get built? That's impossible and union or not, the plant would close very quickly. Since you are saying all 266,000 GM employees fall in this catagory, then GM never built any cars/trucks. Bullshit.
I didn't vote because I haven't a clue what is really needed to save this situation. And my family's livelihood depends on Chrysler staying in the business.
Bri, I worked in a couple of transmission plants and I saw all kinds of people who came to work everyday and do their jobs. Everyone I know who works there works hard.
And most of these jobs aren't kind to the body. Neck and back problems end up plaguing a lot of these people. After a year of it I had to have two herniated discs (that caused me severe pain for 6 months) removed. The repetition of my job aggravated a problem that normally wouldn't have surfaced for another ten years or more.
I didn't vote because I don't fit any of the above.... I buy to a certain extent the argument that a total shutdown will lead to too much job loss, etc.
However I just don't see what good it is to give bales of cash to owners and management that have, by definition, screwed up. Who really thinks that a large influx of cash will suddenly enable the same people to run at a profit? In the case of the post-9/11 airline industry, it seems to have delayed the inevitable, and I see the same here.
Picture this, GM sold off piece by piece and busted into half a dozen small innovative car companies building the cars people want and need. Let it fail.
I wonder how much job loss really would occur under reorganization? And for how long, before they got their shit together under new management, and started rehiring again?
You're obviously right, bruce. Some GM people did work. ok: 9 out of 10 gamed the system.
In GM's case alone they have to many parts. Like Griff says, let them fail, re-organize, and be sold off to those who have the money to keep them going. Problem is not all the bits are going to be bought off, esp some of the auto production parts. I am afraid IAW may have been part of the problem here. If you look at other plants that do not have IAW involvement they seem to be doing better financially.
And if you had worked in the cafeteria, 9 out of 10 would have been hungry. Limited perspective. ;)
I'd rather see the money go to mass transportation, higher fuel efficiency development, bike paths and work-from-home practices, and while we're at it, to me. Or at least not more from me.
I had no idea they owned a part of so many smaller companies: Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GM Daewoo, GMC, Holden, Hummer, Opel, Pontiac, Saab, Saturn, Vauxhall, and Wuling.
GMAC finance part alone is the biggest part of the ship under water.
I'd rather see the money go to mass transportation, higher fuel efficiency development, bike paths and work-from-home practices, and while we're at it, to me. Or at least not more from me.
Get out of my country, ya damn hippie. :lol2:
Get out of my country, ya damn hippie. :lol2:
Comrade, do not try to resist. Resistance is FUTILE! :D
The Asian auto manufacturers have a secret weapon -
Feng Shui. We simply can't blame the incompetent leadership of any US automaker or coddling by both parties in Congress that mistakenly thought that giving in to requests to not toughen pollution/mileage/safety regs would actually
help them build better cars. No, that would require someone to actually take responsibility.
So I propose a feng shui solution, one that will cheaply solve the problem without assigning blame to any group.
Step 1: On the 4th Monday of any month, go to headquarters building of automaker needing assistance.
Step 2: At 1:34 PM local time, open windows in top two floors of the building starting from one of the four cardinal directions depending on season (East/Spring, South/Summer, West/Autumn, or North/Winter) in a counter-clockwise order.
Step 3: Throw any guy wearing a suit out of one of the open windows.
Picture this, GM sold off piece by piece and busted into half a dozen small innovative car companies building the cars people want and need. Let it fail.
I wonder if a half dozen little guys, without an established dealer network, could win the trust of the public. Might need a new system of handling parts and warranty work through independent outlets.
No, I'm not buying a car from fucking walmart.
Of course they might just coalesce like the baby bells. :confused:
Let it go and restructure - then they can also renegotiate with the unions for a more realistic compensation situation. I heard that the average employee gets something like $55 and hour plus some insane benefits. That just is not gonna work in a globally competitive market :headshake
$55 and hour plus some insane benefits
Not true. :headshake
Nope not true at all. We live on an autoworkers salary and although we live in ease...we are barely into middle class.
Got any numbers then? What is the average? Anyone?
In GM's case alone they have to many parts. Like Griff says, let them fail, re-organize, and be sold off to those who have the money to keep them going. Problem is not all the bits are going to be bought off, esp some of the auto production parts. I am afraid IAW may have been part of the problem here. If you look at other plants that do not have IAW involvement they seem to be doing better financially.
IAW?
I googled UAW average salary and found this one at the top.
According to Forbes:
Labor cost per hour, wages and benefits for hourly workers, 2006.
Ford: $70.51 ($141,020 per year)
GM: $73.26 ($146,520 per year)
Chrysler: $75.86 ($151,720 per year)
Toyota, Honda, Nissan (in U.S.): $48.00 ($96,000 per year)
According to AAUP and IES, the average annual compensation for a college professor in 2006 was $92,973 (average salary nationally of $73,207 + 27% benefits).
Bottom Line: The average UAW worker with a high school degree earns 57.6% more compensation than the average university professor with a Ph.D. (see graph above, click to enlarge), and 52.6% more than the average worker at Toyota, Honda or Nissan.
That's what the automakers claim each UAW employee costs them, including all the lawyers, accountants, clerks and hot nurses in the dispensary, it takes to service them.
Some of it are projected costs if they live to be the average actuarial age, collect a pension equal to the average worker at retirements years of service, has a spouse with survivor benefits that lives to the average actuarial age.
Some is services the company is willing to provide, even if the employees don't choose to take advantage of them.
There are plenty of people making more and plenty of people making less. But they make a good living because thanks to the union, they are getting a fair piece of what the company makes on their labor. They are the middle class.
If they chose to be garbage collectors or college professors, they would get what that was worth to their employers.
I never serviced no auto worker.
...steel workers, now, that's a horse of a different color...
and just to stir the pot some more: if an IEU member (our plant was International Electricians Union) got a speeding ticket in the city the plant was in, a union member went to court for them to get the ticket thrown out. I know you think I'm making this stuff up, but, honey, you couldn't make this stuff up!!
IAW?
Yea, my mistake. UAW.
You know Bri, I'm just thinking that if 9 out of 10 workers spent their time in sick bay with the nurse, it's no wonder they didn't make enough cars. ;)
You know Bri, I'm just thinking that if 9 out of 10 workers spent their time in sick bay with the nurse, it's no wonder they didn't make enough cars. ;)
All the guys in the shop knew how hot the nurse was. Blame it on the nurse. :D
Yeah...it's all Bri's fault that the US auto industry is collapsing. lol
Might I just say that the Australian industry isn't doing all that much better. No one is buying cars at the moment, but the advantage that we have is that most of our manufacturers make more small cars than large, so they've got half a chance of surviving.
Well Ford would make a killing if they started to import the same cars they have in the UK, with the steering wheel on the proper side, unlike the UK. The diesels over there have fantastic gas milage.
According to AAUP and IES, the average annual compensation for a college professor in 2006 was $92,973 (average salary nationally of $73,207 + 27% benefits).
Bottom Line: The average UAW worker with a high school degree earns 57.6% more compensation than the average university professor with a Ph.D.
In all fairness, the average UAW worker actually produces something useful.
What, graduates aren't useful?
if an IEU member (our plant was International Electricians Union) got a speeding ticket in the city the plant was in, a union member went to court for them to get the ticket thrown out. I know you think I'm making this stuff up, but, honey, you couldn't make this stuff up!!
I assume it was a union official that got the ticket squashed, for the member. Good, don't you wish the people you voted for would take care of you?
Oh, from another forum...
I'm laid off again, about the 14th week this year. We just laid off another 250 hourly employees permanently! We now have laid off, permanently, more employees than we currently have working in the plant. We also let go a very good maintenance supervisor, so we could move a supervisor with no maintenance experience to that position, because he has the right friends. Why worry about keeping highly productive, quality people when you need to make sure the popular guy stays?
G.M. top dogs came in to evaluate our progress on our new 010I Duramax Project. This is their way of thinking. We machine our own heads, cranks, rods, and blocks here in Dayton, Ohio. They want us to package them up and ship them to Detroit, so they can have their "experts" inspect our quality. Then they will repackage these parts and ship them back to us for assembly. It is nice to know people actually think my insurance and benefits are what is killing G.M. and not the idiots that throw away ten times that amount of money taking care of their buddies in management.
My plant has had competitive wage and benefits agreements given to them by the union in every contract since before I hired in, yet G.M. has done nothing but waste those savings!
All together now... 85% of all... :blush:
I assume it was a union official that got the ticket squashed, for the member. Good, don't you wish the people you voted for would take care of you?
Oh, from another forum...
All together now... 85% of all... :blush:
Shoot him he's chokin me!
-No shoot him! He's chokin me!
Sorry, all...I buy Toyota. I've has more luck with foreign cars.
I don't think we need our tax money to step in, I think they have other options and opportunity, they just want to be proud and not sell off. They are their own business, let them take care of it. I do wonder how much unemployment tax payers money goes towards laid off autoworkers in comparison to the tax money thought to help fix them.
By Al Lewis
Dow Jones Newswires
A government bailout of General Motors Corp. is an all-American vote of confidence in CEO Rick Wagoner.
"What the industry needs now is the most competent, most experienced, most capable leadership team they can have at each of the companies," Wagoner said in video interview with Automotive News on Monday. "And I think we have a great team at GM."
This great team led the industry with a 45 percent plunge in October car sales.
GM's stock recently hit a level not seen since 1943, a decade before Wagoner was born. And soon taxpayers may be forced to cover the $2 billion a month GM is guzzling like a rusting fleet of Chevy Suburbans.
So Wagoner — despite his clean- shaven face, neatly parted hair and self-professed greatness — was asked whether he should consider resigning.
"The issue hasn't come up, and I expect it wouldn't come up," Wagoner said, even though the issue had just come up in the interview.
And then Wagoner declared that U.S. taxpayers should trust him best to run GM.
"Any support we get is going to be based on the fact . . . that it's a good investment on the part of the taxpayer," Wagoner said. "That the business will actually be better in the future. And one of the key aspects of that is to make sure you have the strongest possible leadership in the company."
Wagoner has said he's willing to accept limits on golden parachutes and even executive compensation. But getting rid of him? "It's not clear to me what purpose would be served."
Hmm. Now there's a puzzler.
Let's go back. Way, way back. To seven weeks ago, when Wagoner appeared certain his perennial turnaround efforts were finally complete, despite whatever rocks an avalanching economy might dump on the road ahead.
"GM is here to stay," he declared, announcing a new 4-cylinder engine plant in Flint, Mich., on Sept. 25. "And today we celebrate the latest evidence."
A few weeks earlier, on Aug. 18, Wagoner was on PBS's Charlie Rose Show, boasting of a $26 billion liquidity position that would carry GM through at least 2009.
"We believe, under conservative market scenarios . . . we're good through '09," he told Rose. "And we've got capability to work beyond that. . . .
"At this point, I think the message I would like to leave you with here is GM is here to stay. . . .
"We've put together plans based on conservative industry, economic and market forecasts, conservative oil prices," he continued. "And under those scenarios that we look at, the answer is GM is going to be around and healthy and robust."
Can a CEO this wrong be trusted with shareholders' money, let alone taxpayers' money? What's wrong with a basic bankruptcy reorganization?
In a Nov. 7 interview with Fox Business News, Wagoner said consumers will simply stop buying GM cars if the automaker files Chapter 11.
"We would not be talking about reorganization," he said. "We would be talking about a liquidation. It would be a catastrophe."
But millions of U.S. consumers have filed bankruptcy themselves. Perhaps they would understand. After all, they spend money at bankrupt phone companies, bankrupt retailers and bankrupt airlines. Right?
"Sure," Wagoner conceded in the Fox interview. "So they buy a $300 ticket and use it three days from now. It's quite a bit different from paying $25,000 and planning on getting service and support for the car you just purchased for the next five to 10 years."
So I guess if GM is forced to file bankruptcy, its CEO has already put consumers on alert that he doesn't expect them to buy his cars.
Even if they are great cars.
Back to the Nov. 10 Automotive News interview:
"People will say, 'Well, boy, you can't do great cars,' " Wagoner said. "People who say that today are just not looking at the facts. They're not looking at Chevy Malibus or Cadillac CTSs or other products."
I hate when an entire market is wrong.
"Let's be honest," Wagoner said. "This industry is running at 11 million units today (as opposed to the 14 million Wagoner had expected), not because the OEMs (manufacturers) all of a sudden began to deliver poor products. We're running at 11 million units because the credit system in the country has failed. . . .
"It seems a little silly to use problems that come as a result of the credit crisis as an excuse to wipe out, really, the most important industry in the country."
Not to mention a great management team.
So for these reasons Wagoner wants another big piece of the American Pie. But maybe we should play him a verse from the song, "Drove my Chevy to the levee, but the levee was dry."
Al Lewis: 201-938-5266 or [email]al.lewis@dowjones.com[/email]
See tw, it's not his fault. :lol2:
Well Ford would make a killing if they started to import the same cars they have in the UK, with the steering wheel on the proper side, unlike the UK. The diesels over there have fantastic gas milage.
The auto industry and the oil industry are so intertwined that they don't want fuel efficiency as it will affect profits. Want to watch a good documentary? "Who killed the electric car" It goes over the Hybrid test back in the 90s in California and how well they worked, but how the oil industry didn't support it, resulting in a pull of their test models to demolish (actually had to return their car and let them be taken to an empty lot until they take them to crush them all). Good documentary.
Well Ford would make a killing if they started to import the same cars they have in the UK, with the steering wheel on the proper side, unlike the UK. The diesels over there have fantastic gas milage.
They have cleaner diesel in Europe so their emissions on American fuel probably wouldn't pass. VW finally got their diesel cleared, so its possible. [shrug]
I think it has been a secret of the car industry here for years. They, US car makers, have been making cars over there that get 30-50 miles per gallon. It's bullshit. I think the UAW has something to do with it because the engines are made over there.
By Al Lewis
Dow Jones Newswires
Truly, a Renaissance man.
I think it has been a secret of the car industry here for years. They, US car makers, have been making cars over there that get 30-50 miles per gallon. It's bullshit. I think the UAW has something to do with it because the engines are made over there.
Years ago my Uncle had one of those little VW pickups with a diesel engine 50plus mpg and ran forever.
Oh boy, more of Merc's conspiracy theories. :rolleyes:
To expand on what Griff said, ultra low sulpher diesel became law in Europe in 2005, available here in 2006, and law here in 2007, except for non-stationary/off-road/maritime use. So up until last year they couldn't use the emission controls US law requires on diesels now.
Oh, and their vehicles are lighter as they don't have to meet US crash standards.
Years ago my Uncle had one of those little VW pickups with a diesel engine 50plus mpg and ran forever.
I was so disappointed. My 1990s Honda Civic never got better than 49 MPG on consecutive tanks of gasoline.
Meanwhile, what every post forgot to mention. Europeans cars were being designed by people who innovate. Mercedes had performed massive innovation in diesels to make more use of the fuel and significantly lower emissions. Meanwhile, that bus or truck you are following? That is the best innovation from any accountant. How to make a diesel pollute less? Yes, low sulfur fuel is necessary (and we have burned most of that already). But the solution to less emissions is to burn more of that fuel into energy. Lower pollution also means more horsepower and better MPG - when you get your facts from those who do the work - not from MBA trained management.
The solution is not diesels (even though diesels do adapt better to changing loads). The solution is directly traceable to auto companies who did ZERO innovation except when required by government regulation.
Let's see. The Europeans did diesel innovation. Japanese did gasoline innovation (ie hybrids). Americans did what? GM still makes engines without overhead cams (1970 innovation), still makes cars with sub-70 hp/liter engines (1980 innovation), and no hybrids (1990 innovation that even the US government paid for - see the Ford Prodigy and GM Precept - 1999 American hybrids quashed by communists such as Rick Wagoner).
Oh. GM spent $1billion on hydrogen fueled vehicles when anyone with basic high school science or some college training in thermodynamics knows a hydrogen fueled vehicle always was a myth. And according to that Washington Post article, GM is still wasting money on hydrogen fueled vehicles.
Just more examples of a communist bean counter (ie Rick Wagoner) throwing money at problems like a grenade because he does not even drive a car.
"Drove my Chevy to the levee, but the levee was dry." So I could not even abandon it in the river. Just another way my GM product costs more money.
You're obviously right, bruce. Some GM people did work. ok: 9 out of 10 gamed the system.
Brianna is correct in that she only saw one part. I saw what happened when those same workers ended up in a GM plant where the workers had control of their jobs.
Because GM workers were considered so dumb, massive layers of management told them everything they could and could not do including going to the bathroom. GM assembly plants created the workers they wanted - as Brianna demonstrates and as William Edward Deming said why it happens.
Because GM workers had to take charge of their work - work like an independent contractor - the UAW and GM negotiated a special condition for this GM plant. If the assembly line worker did not like working without communist control, then he could apply for a transfer to any other GM plant.
Reality, only one person did not like having control of his work - took the free transfer. Once those employees with bad attitudes could be in control of their own job, then those employees were very productive.
According to Forbes:
Labor cost per hour, wages and benefits for hourly workers, 2006.
Ford: $70.51 ($141,020 per year)
GM: $73.26 ($146,520 per year)
Chrysler: $75.86 ($151,720 per year)
Toyota, Honda, Nissan (in U.S.): $48.00 ($96,000 per year)
A highest paid union worker was making somewhere between $70,000 and under $100,000 annually (stated by him and his peers). Why? He would take all overtime he could get - about 80 hours per week. Once a union worker is offered overtime, he goes to the bottom of a list. Since GM had so much overtime work and since so many workers were turning down overtime, then this GM employee got plenty of overtime.
I don't know where those Forbes numbers come from. It probably included money GM is supposed to put in pension and medical benefit funds (and did not), health insurance, etc. The numbers imply that is salary without overtime. Numbers probably include all costs including those that GM was not funding (which explains another myth called 'legacy costs').
Meanwhile, unions have made so many concessions that new union employees are now paid $14 per hour. GM is successfully lowering the American standards of living.
Before those concessions, Japanese workers were sometimes paid more than American auto workers - a number that varied with currency values, etc. Why do Japanese products routinely cost so much less to build? All previous posts forget to add more important facts.
How much labor goes into a car. For an expensive and unprofitable vehicle - maybe 40 man hours? Do the math for a $20,000 car. Why does everyone forget that labor is not the major car cost? Because some want to blame the unions rather than first see GM's real problem.
How much labor in the profitable cars? Last estimates were 26 man-hours for the entire vehicle.
Massive vehicle expenses include design, number of parts - even that the car is so anti-American as to need wheel alignment. No wonder GM does everything to dump warranty repair costs onto dealers who in turn must do anything possible to deny a warranty repair. All cost increases directly traceable to bean counter top management. Same costs that Iacocca in Chrysler and Petersen in Ford fixed to go from record losses to record profits in but years. Excessive costs were not the unions. Excessive costs directly traceable to stifled innovation.
So anti-American is GM management as to require two extra pistons in each engine. So many more parts that - well blame the unions so that a Cellar majority did not calculate the horsepower per liter number for and did not know what makes the GM car cost so much.
What was the horsepower per liter for that new Chevy Cobalt that was recently touted as the new GM?
GM cars are so badly designed as (rumored) to cost more to build than to sell. Sales so bad that 25% of all sales are to employee and supplier families at reduced prices. What the Economist suggested should be called socialism. Massive losses masked by $5000 per vehicle profits on SUV - vehicles with minimal engineering and 1968 technology engines. Last number I saw when GM was claiming profits - GM's average profit per vehicle was only $200.
Why does a Honda or Toyota cost less to build? Routine: when employees do the designs and make changes, then products cost less. Now there is no need for massive layers of management. I would see this in the GM plant where union workers loved what they did - because they made things work. They had control of their job - unlike those in assembly plants.
At one point, I had to get something fixed. The engineer had to get permission from management who would deny it due to technical ignorance. So I found a union worker, who threw a disparaging arm salute at the direction of a mythical boss, and then went off to solve the problem - now. How did I get things accomplished in GM? Find a union employee who knew what was involved.
In that GM plant, an employee (probably) setup the machine improperly. When I got there, another employee had just corrected the problem. I asked him why he entered a room full of HCl gas. He said he held his breath and solved the problem before the problem became massive. Wacky? Well he knew what was necessary to protect the production line. In other plants, the union guys probably would have walked away since they had no control over their job and would wait to be told what to do.
Later I got dragged into a meeting called by the plant manager. Maybe 50 people in that meeting - except a guy who made the original connection and a guy who fixed the problem. Even in a productive GM plant where inspired union employees would solve problems - still the plant manager was only interested in having a meeting. Imagine how much worse it is in GM assembly plants.
A meeting resulted in nothing - just wild speculation and no conclusions. But because she was an MBA, then the meeting had solved everything. Nobody knew why that failure happened. But she did what any bean counter dummy would do - have a meeting - CYA.
I talked to those who created(?) and solved the problem. I knew what happened. And I knew the problem was solved only because union guys were empowered. They loved working at a job where they could take charge - not in an assembly plant where everyone had to wait for an MBA to tell them even when to go to the bathroom.
I saw a sign that used the word "employe". One day, the sign read, "employee". I noted that someone had finally learned how to spell. No. The sign was changed because Roger Smith had resigned two days ago. All signs in GM had to be misspelled because Roger Smith could not spell employee. And all signs changed back when he was gone. Even spelling employe was more important than the product. No wonder union workers get a bad attitude. Some pet dog got treated with more respect. Treat them like dogs. Then their pay must be higher. Then get member of the Cellar to blame union workers rather than Roger Smith or Rick Wagoner.
'I support saving any one or all of them' using 'another plan to save them from certain death.' But the poll does not permit clicking both.
Camaro concept becomes a reality
Chairman and Chief Executive Rick Wagoner responded to what he called an "overwhelmingly enthusiastic response" by announcing the automaker will begin production of the revived Camaro at the end of 2008, slated to hit dealer lots in the first quarter of 2009. ...
The concept, first driven across the Cobo Center floor by GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz, pierced ears with a 6.0-liter V8 engine cranking out 400 horsepower, tied to a six-speed manual gearbox.
... while Ford Motor Co. have pledged to join the muscle-car caravan with a 325-horsepower version of the Shelby GT and the Dodge Challenger, respectively. ...
Despite claims that GM is missing the mark with some of its new products, Joe Wiesenfelder, senior editor at Cars.com, said that the company almost has to go this route with the Camaro.
... "On paper, the outgoing Pontiac GTO sounded great, but it was a relative flop.
Deja vue 1970s - same mistakes made by the same companies before bankruptcy finally fixed them.
Why Bankruptcy Is the Best Option for GM
General Motors is a once-great company caught in a web of relationships designed for another era. It should not be fed while still caught, because that will leave it trapped until we get tired of feeding it. Then it will die. The only possibility of saving it is to take the risk of cutting it free. In other words, GM should be allowed to go bankrupt.
After 42 years of eroding U.S. market share (from 53% to 20%) and countless announcements of "change," GM still has eight U.S. brands (Cadillac, Saab, Buick, Pontiac, GMC, Saturn, Chevrolet and Hummer). As for its more successful competitors, Toyota (19% market share) has three, and Honda (11%) has two.
GM has about 7,000 dealers. Toyota has fewer than 1,500. Honda has about 1,000. These fewer and larger dealers are better able to advertise, stock and service the cars they sell. GM knows it needs fewer brands and dealers, but the dealers are protected from termination by state laws. This makes eliminating them and the brands they sell very expensive. It would cost GM billions of dollars and many years to reduce the number of dealers it has to a number near Toyota's.
Foreign-owned manufacturers who build cars with American workers pay wages similar to GM's. But their expenses for benefits are a fraction of GM's. GM is contractually required to support thousands of workers in the UAW's "Jobs Bank" program, which guarantees nearly full wages and benefits for workers who lose their jobs due to automation or plant closure. It supports more retirees than current workers. It owns or leases enormous amounts of property for facilities it's not using and probably will never use again, and is obliged to support revenue bonds for municipalities that issued them to build these facilities. It has other contractual obligations such as health coverage for union retirees. All of these commitments drain its cash every month. Moreover, GM supports myriad suppliers and supports a huge infrastructure of firms and localities that depend on it. Many of them have contractual claims; they all have moral claims. They all want GM to be more or less what it is.
And therein lies the problem: The cost of terminating dealers is only a fraction of what it would cost to rebuild GM to become a company sized and marketed appropriately for its market share. Contracts would have to be bought out. The company would have to shed many of its fixed obligations. Some obligations will be impossible to cut by voluntary agreement. GM will run out of cash and out of time.
GM's solution is to ask the federal government for the cash that will allow it to do all of this piece by piece. However, much of the cash will be thrown at unproductive commitments. And the sense of urgency that would enable GM to make choices painful to its management, its workers, its retirees, its suppliers and its localities will simply not be there if federal money is available. Like AIG, it will be back for more, and at the same time it will be telling us that it's doing a great job under difficult circumstances.
This is contradictory to some of the opinions previously posted here.
How does this affect your thoughts on the bailout of the big three? Can we selectively bailout one or two of them and not the other? Is GM that much worse off than the others? Do they all deserve to deal with their own issues with no bailout whatsoever?
Requoted from classicman
It supports more retirees than current workers. ... It has other contractual obligations such as health coverage for union retirees. All of these commitments drain its cash every month.
None of these commitments drain cash IF GM did what once was required. A responsible company has those employee costs funded before an employee retires. When an employee retires, the company pays nothing more - no legacy costs.
Since GM cars were so crappy, GM used pension funds to claim profits. This was acceptable with so many new spread sheet deregulations. New standards that even assumed a pension fund would always have a 10% ROI (even though history says it is always less than 8%). A solution that also assumed GMs pensions would be picked up by the government - see my warnings years ago about PBGC. This meltdown and lying was known so long ago that even I knew about it.
Had GM been required by responsible accounting to fund those pensions, et al, then GM would have faced bankruptcy earlier and solved this with little pain. GM would have fixed their only problem - top management. 85% of all problems are directly traceable to ... Instead Enron accounting was alive and well. No regulations did so much good - right.
GM's problems have been entrenched for 30 years. Since we are foolishly discussing bailouts, then those MBAs are making no plans to restructure. Rick Wagoner said last week that GM has no restructuring plans. Of course not. Government welfare will save GM. Why should they do what is necessary? They are MBAs - ostriches.
Ross Perot defined GM's problem 25 years ago. GM throws money at problems like a grenade. That means solutions are impossible.
Restructuring - eliminate many GM models. Start retooling now for only a few base models, as Toyota, Honda, and VW have long done. for example, only one intermediate frame - not three. IOW, GM must innovate - do what everyone else did more than 20 years ago. It cannot happen until everyone admits GM's only problem - Rick Wagoner and an entrench cadre of MBAs who routinely stifle innovation.
Rick Wagoner has no restructuring plans. $50billion thown into a company now only worth $1.8billion? Only a fool would even consider that. What happens when bean counters were replaced by car guys in 1979/1981? Restructuring was conducted ASAP. GM has no such plans because Rick Wagoner is an MBA waiting for government rescue.
How many of these divisions must be eliminated now - Buick, Saturn, Hummer, Pontiac, or Saab. At least two must go immediately if GM has any hope of being saved.
I vote 3 go - Pontiac, Buick and Saab or Hummer.
I just saw a show on cnbc about this too - they predict one to 2 million jobs lost, no matter what. If we give them the bailout then it just prolongs the inevitable even longer and further wastes money. The UAW is standing firm that they will not negotiate their contracts nor benefits at all. I wish them well with that. They really don't have a choice do they? BTW, one of the men remarked that there was a senator who had brought up this issue the last time they got bailed out... John McCain. He was overwhelmingly criticized for his "negative" opinion.
I don't support welfare whether for poor or rich. But if you give thewelfare to the poor at least they'll spend it and keep the $ in circulation. If you give it to automakers they'll mostly use it for 85% of top management salraies and they won't spend it. They'll invest it and then we'll end up giving them even more money when their investment house of cards gets knocked down.
I'd say just cut right to the chase and distribute Milwaukke's Beast, Ciggies, and scratch-offs directly to the poor.
I'm not in favor of taxpayers bailing out private companies, but I don't have an alternative. all i do know is that if the big 3 go under, Michigan dies. Detroit's pretty much dead already, Flint's a zombie (but we knew that), Ypsi's on life support, Ann Arbor is still waiting for a pacemaker after Pfizer pulled out last year, and the rest of the state makes/grows the stuff the inhabitants of the Mound of Venus spend their money on. dead :( it's not just about those companies -the network of businesses and livelihoods supported by them and their employees is huge and underlies the whole economy of the state. We're doomed, doomed I tell ye!
Might I just say that the Australian industry isn't doing all that much better. No one is buying cars at the moment, but the advantage that we have is that most of our manufacturers make more small cars than large, so they've got half a chance of surviving.
Err, pardon?
Autralia has four car manufacturers. oops, three - Mitsubishi just shut down.
Holden (GM) makes commodores (in Adelaide). 6 or 8 cylinder.
Ford makes falcons (in Geelong). 6 or 8 cylinder.
Toyota makes camrys (near Melbourne). 4 or (I think) 6 cylinder.
Mitsubishi made 380s (in Adelaide, aka deadelaide). 6 cylinder.
While each brand does have smaller cars on the market, they are (AFAIK) all imports. Locally made cars are all medium to large family cars. Which was why Mitsubishi shut down when the price of petrol went through the roof. Ducks, can you confirm?
I googled UAW average salary and found this one at the top.
According to Forbes:
Labor cost per hour, wages and benefits for hourly workers, 2006.
Ford: $70.51 ($141,020 per year)
GM: $73.26 ($146,520 per year)
Chrysler: $75.86 ($151,720 per year)
Toyota, Honda, Nissan (in U.S.): $48.00 ($96,000 per year)
According to AAUP and IES, the average annual compensation for a college professor in 2006 was $92,973 (average salary nationally of $73,207 + 27% benefits).
Bottom Line: The average UAW worker with a high school degree earns 57.6% more compensation than the average university professor with a Ph.D. (see graph above, click to enlarge), and 52.6% more than the average worker at Toyota, Honda or Nissan.
Labor cost is not the same as earned wage. The issue with the American auto companies isn't necessarily what they are paying current employees, it is the staggering weight of their legacy costs. Every retiree still has medical coverage that is second to non and a pension.
I grew up in a UAW family in a UAW town and I even worked in one of the UAW plants. My father and most of my extended family survive on what the UAW negotiated for them at contract time. Unions paved the way for employee rights we all enjoy today.
The UAW is just as guilty as GM, Ford, and Chrylser management if we really look at their current problems. The Unions pushed contracts in the '70's and '80's that they knew were not sustainable - but they sure looked good at the time. That's all fine and there is plenty of blame to pass around but now the day of reckoning is upon us they want government bailouts? BS. No thanks.
When JI Case, Case International, etc were circling the drain the company and the union went back to the drawing board. The UAW gave concessions (they gave up some benefits) in the name of keeping the company alive so they could at least keep the sustainable portion of their benefits. There was no government bailout.
If the UAW can't figure something out with the big 3 then let them go to bankruptcy. The companies won't close their doors, they'll simply restructure.
No government money for them, not a single penny IMO.
I'm not in favor of taxpayers bailing out private companies, but I don't have an alternative. all i do know is that if the big 3 go under, Michigan dies.
How many times do I remind everyone of what is now monster’s myth? Throwing money like a grenade only destroys jobs. Did Perot teach you anything? Anyone with any grasp of history would know that.
monster - what saved 1979 and 1981 Chrysler and Ford? No bailout. Both companies were finally forced to submit detailed restructuring plans. President Ford also said "Ford to NYC Drop Dead!" Only then was Ford, Chrysler and NYC all saved. Get a grip.
Throwing money at GM only guarantees Michigan job losses.
GM's only problem is stifled innovation. How did Chrysler and Ford get saved in only years? Once top bean counters were replaced by car guys, then all jobs were saved by liberating stifled innovation. Only one reason for that stifled innovation. Top executives did not even have driver's licenses. Did you learn from history?
Why is GM still doing no restructuring planning? Because your post (like so many others) endorses corporate welfare and protects Rick Wagoner. Your ‘worry’ or indecision is exactly what Rick Wagoner needs to save his job and to destroy jobs.
You know the difference between Chapter 7 and Chapter 11? Wagoner needs you to be ignorant. He needs you confused - to assume Chapter 7. Therefore his job is protected.
Clinton got all three to design hybrids in the 1990s - as only an American patriot would do. If informed, then you can name those 1999 hybrids - Precept from GM, Prodigy from Ford, ESX3 from Chrysler. Where are they? Oh. Wacko extremists (George Jr et al) said a $100million government investment was Clinton and must be wasted. Of course you remember that mantra. If Clinton advocated it, then it must be wrong. Everyone remembers that.
So wackos especially did not want innovative cars. We want to burn more oil – and even have White House lawyers also rewrite science papers on global warming - to justify stifling innovation. It was by Clinton so it must be wrong. The wacko extremist mantra that protected Rick Wagoner and promoted more Michigan job losses.
So GM still has no hybrids? Fifteen years later, $100million later, 8 years after completed designed were demonstrated? You would even endorse more stifled innovation by throwing $50billion into a company only worth $1.8billion? You would advocate the destruction of Michigan jobs?
Only an ostrich does not know what "70 horsepower per liter" means. Another example of destroyed American jobs. Twenty five years later – monster advocates more cars without 70 Hp/liter engines. More government protection means no 70 Hp/liter engines. monster – tell me no 70 Hp/liter saves Michigan jobs. When do you advocate a solution; not more welfare to stifle innovation?
Give Telsa Motors that money to manufacturer what is more innovative than anything in GM. Or give patriotic companies such as Honda, VW, and Toyota that money to actually save American jobs. Oh. But GM needs that money to start selling a
400 Horsepower Camaro. Monster - why do you approve of a car with as much or more horsepower than BrainR's 80,000 pound 18 wheeler? That is what you advocate.
History repeatedly defines the only thing that saves the worker's jobs. Bankruptcy - ie 1979/1981 Chrysler and Ford.
His name is Rick Wagoner. He created massive losses in GM North America. So they made him CEO. Now all of GM has no profits. This is no exaggeration. And monster would protect him? Sorry. But your protection of those who destroy Michigan jobs is obvious - if you learned from history. Yes, 1970's deja vue. Not stated politically correct. Stated instead with the same supporting facts that also denies those Saddam WMDs - with the same sound byte - deja vue.
The Unions pushed contracts in the '70's and '80's that they knew were not sustainable - but they sure looked good at the time.
It's not the union's job to protect the company. That is management's job. If unions were so overpaid, then why was the largest featherbedding in management? Why did management in GM grow to 52 layers? Oh. Unions should take a lower pay because executive salaries were growing exponentially AND GM was adding management layers?
It is management's job to agree to responsible contracts. Why did management agree to those concessions? Because they had already decided those health care costs would be covered by future management. If those union concessions were paid by current management into trust funds, then current management would have not conceded.
I forget the name of the two brothers and a third union executive who negotiated those 1970s contracts. But later they also were appalled at how GM, et al conceded. Appalled, but it was not their job to make concessions or protect the company. They were paid to get unions a best contract. Meanwhile, GM executives took even larger pay increases - a fact that is ignored by lookout123. Corporate management constantly took pay, bonuses and benefits that always were greater than union compensation.
If compensated equally, then unions would have been paid even more. Oh. Unions also made numerous concessions to save the company while top executives are taking increasing and record high bonuses. Why does lookout123 also forget that fact?
Well, when a car guy replaced bean counters, then the car guy took only $1 per year until the company was finally profitable. Why does lookout123 also ignore what good people do? Why does his post not blame GM's only problem - Rick Wagoner?
How bad was GM? Comic pictures were carefully mounted where management could not remove them. GM was claiming profits in the spread sheets. However the spread sheets were manipulated so that the profits did not appear in auto operations. The cartoon showed Chrysler and Ford employees with massive bonuses in wheel barrows. However the GM employee was carrying his wang as a Christmas bonus.
That year, GM claimed a large profit. GM management was reaping record bonuses. But the employees got no Christmas bonus that year. lookout123 also forgets those stories. No matter how much the union was compensated, GM management always took home increasing amounts of money. Large Christmas bonuses even in years that GM lost money and when employees got none.
Rick Wagoner said GM has no plans to restructure. GM, Ford, and Chrysler executives all said the same thing in late 1970s as they campaigned for government restructiion on imports. Deja vue.
When did Ford and Chrysler finally plan a restructure? When bankrputcy threats finally removed America's enemies: Townsend and Richardo in Chrysler and Henry Ford in Ford. Once replaced by car guys, only then did each company get profitable. Bean counters will only protect their incomes at the expense of the company which is what MBA trained management does. Deja vue.
Err, pardon?
Autralia has four car manufacturers. oops, three - Mitsubishi just shut down.
Holden (GM) makes commodores (in Adelaide). 6 or 8 cylinder.
Ford makes falcons (in Geelong). 6 or 8 cylinder.
Toyota makes camrys (near Melbourne). 4 or (I think) 6 cylinder.
Mitsubishi made 380s (in Adelaide, aka deadelaide). 6 cylinder.
While each brand does have smaller cars on the market, they are (AFAIK) all imports. Locally made cars are all medium to large family cars. Which was why Mitsubishi shut down when the price of petrol went through the roof. Ducks, can you confirm?
Mostly 6's because there's not the market for 8's here as much although we know Ford and Holden make their performance vehicles for the rev heads.
Toyota make mostly 4's. (Aurion is the only 6 manufactured here whilst Camry, the 4 is by far the biggest seller)
And of course, Mitsubishi aren't doing so well are they?
My point was that we don't make a whole heap of 4wd's and large specialty vehicles like Hummers for example. Yes we do make 6's and 8's here, but I think in general, most of them are pretty average verging on small compared to US manufactured vehicles.
The US auto industry shouldn't be bailed out. The idea that Michigan would go down in flames is predicated on the belief that the people there are capable of only one thing- working in an auto plant.
Just as a for instance. Why not re-tool all the plants to build rail cars and get the country into feasible rail travel? You know, if I'm not mistaken I'm pretty sure somewhere over in Europe people travel in trains.
Why not re-tool all the plants to build rail cars and get the country into feasible rail travel?
All patriotic auto companies had retooled their factories 10+ years ago to be flexible as well as build the new models. For example, a Toyota plant in Indiana making Tundras was changed in maybe a month to make Camrys. That was the latest auto industry innovation a decade ago when GM decided to address quality - a 1970s technology.
It takes GM something between three months and one year to retool a factory. Just another example of why GM needs bankruptcy. GM bean counters decided that flex manufacturing would only increase costs.
Remember the first Saturn factory in Spring Hill TN? GM cannot even decide what to make there. Every time a decision is made to make a new car there, the plans get quashed. Management plans to convert the factory to a new car. Long later, GM learns the factory is inflexible - cannot make that car. GM has gone through this 'maybe we will do this' cycle twice. Spring Hill may get closed because GM bean counters stifled another innovation over a decade ago - flexible manufacturing.
It's not the union's job to protect the company. That is management's job. If unions were so overpaid, then why was the largest featherbedding in management? Why did management in GM grow to 52 layers? Oh. Unions should take a lower pay because executive salaries were growing exponentially AND GM was adding management layers?
The Union's job is to take care of the union members. Part of taking care of the members would seem to be helping ensure there is a company around to keep paying those benefits out.
You're so busy attacking GM for being a shit company that you don't even take the time to notice no one is disagreeing with you. GM sucks. Now what?
Just as a for instance. Why not re-tool all the plants to build rail cars and get the country into feasible rail travel? You know, if I'm not mistaken I'm pretty sure somewhere over in Europe people travel in trains.
Screw it. Let's re-tool all the factories to produce wargoods and then announce we are defaulting on the US debt.
"HAHA China, You're Effed for buying all our debt! Now whatcha gonna do!?!":lol2:That's what I'm talking about.
You're so busy attacking GM for being a shit company that you don't even take the time to notice no one is disagreeing with you. GM sucks.
If you were honest, then your post would have addressed GM's only problem - Rick Wagoner and his executives. Unions were never compensated equally. Management was always reaping bonuses and salary increases even when the company was losing money. You conveniently forgot to mention that part while taking a cheap shot at employees.
Employees have taken repeated concessions. GM management has taken none. Meanwhile, only GM management is why GM cars need V-8 engines. GM managment is why GM SUVs feature 1968 technology. Unions did create those high costs. A GM car has so many more parts as to cost more than a compartively equipped Mercedes. When the LA Times noted that problem, GM management took revenge on the LA Times rather than addres their only problem. A problem only made worse by those who would blame the unions - and not Rick Wagoner.
If lookout123 was honest, he would have identified their #1 problem. GM sucks only because bean counters run the company and design the products. But that means lookout123 would have to admit his peers are GM's problem.
Well, personally, I'm pretty sure it's got nothing to do with lookout123. At least, no more than it's got to do with tw or UG or Bullit or anyone else that posts on here.
I'm admitting to tail posting, as I need to get to work, but this was on my mind last night.
Bri's tales are similar to tales I've heard around here: many from GM employees themselves.
The wage breakdown is really interesting. Honda, who has manufacturers in our area, pays their employees well. They get paid to WORK. They don't get away with a whole lot of crap: I've heard people say they are just a number there, but that they are a number who gets paid well for working hard. I hear few complaints.
The GM stories I've heard are different. Retirees have told me of days spent playing cards. They make much more than Honda employees, but don't seem to have the accountability...therefore GM is paying people more, to get less production and, it follows, less quality. THough I am sure this is not true of all employees by a long shot...the fact that this environment exists at all has always been troubling.
The problem: the other big employers in this area are suppliers. If GM goes down, they suffer. Honda suffers because they are paying more to make up for business the supplier isn't getting from GM...the trickle effect is quite scary.
I wish I could say let them fail, but I see the job market in this area already.
Obviously, a blank check is not in order. I don't know the solution, but both extremes are not good, imho.
The smartass side of me thinks that perhaps some of the employees could sell their RV that's bigger than my place, their top of the line Harley, their 45000 ton pick-em-up truck, and learn to live like the rest of us schmucks who get by with so much less.
The failure of companies is part of the dynamism that makes the US strong.
In the 1950s, Massachusetts was concerned about the tremendous loss of jobs, as their famous textile mills shut down one by one. But a lot of mills were converted to office space where computer companies moved in, and suddenly Mass. had the Rt. 128 corridor, and a mini silicon valley with DEC, Data General etc., fueled by M.I.T. and the minicomputing revolution.
Now those companies have been eclipsed again and now the area turns to newer possibilities such as biotech. But if we had demanded the preservation of the mills in 1950, none of this would have happened... and we would be talking about places like Burlington and Woburn in the same tones as we talk about Flint and etc... dead-end towns with dead-end jobs.
If lookout123 was honest, he would have identified their #1 problem. GM sucks only because bean counters run the company and design the products. But that means lookout123 would have to admit his peers are GM's problem.
Are you seriously fucking deranged? What peers do I have at GM? When have I ever defended GM management? Learn to read instead of just seeing a post and deciding you have a cut and paste job that will fit nicely behind it.
The smartass side of me thinks that perhaps some of the employees could sell their RV that's bigger than my place, their top of the line Harley, their 45000 ton pick-em-up truck, and learn to live like the rest of us schmucks who get by with so much less.
Sell them to whom? ;)
Do they deliver? I could use a shed. I'd pay $100 for a large RV. I'm sure my neighbors would be thrilled if I parked one in my back yard.
Sell them to whom?
I dunno: Honda employees? :lol:
Haa...true! The smartass side of me doesn't always think things through.
So we have to change our entire culture that you don't have to have the biggest bike on the block, the nicest house in the hood, and the biggest camper in the camp. Not gonna happen. The smartass side of me wants to say: sorry dumbass, you should have saved a dime or two from your ridiculous wages, and not spend it all on pretending you're somebody.
The Ant and the Grasshopper
IN a field one summer’s day a Grasshopper was hopping about, chirping and singing to its heart’s content. An Ant passed by, bearing along with great toil an ear of corn he was taking to the nest.
“Why not come and chat with me,” said the Grasshopper, “instead of toiling and moiling in that way?"
“I am helping to lay up food for the winter,” said the Ant, “and recommend you to do the same.”
“Why bother about winter?” said the Grasshopper; “we have got plenty of food at present.” But the Ant went on its way and continued its toil. When the winter came the Grasshopper had no food, and found itself dying of hunger, while it saw the ants distributing every day corn and grain from the stores they had collected in the summer. Then the Grasshopper knew:
“IT IS BEST TO PREPARE FOR THE DAYS OF NECESSITY.”
The Grasshopper went back to his RV and tried to hang himself, but the ceiling wasn't high enough.
Of course, the modern version of the Ant and the Grasshopper has the Ant putting all his food in the 401K storage room only to have it be eaten by hungry mole digging through.
Sell them to whom? ;)
The Chinese, obviously.
Do they deliver? I could use a shed. I'd pay $100 for a large RV. I'm sure my neighbors would be thrilled if I parked one in my back yard.
There's a house in my neighborhood that was either remodeled, or custom-built in the first place, to have a part of the garage be two stories high, so they can park their RV inside. It's pretty funny looking.
The problem: the other big employers in this area are suppliers. If GM goes down, they suffer. Honda suffers because they are paying more to make up for business the supplier isn't getting from GM...the trickle effect is quite scary.
You have ignored lessons from history. If GM goes down, all those supplies and all those employee jobs are saved. GM then reorganizes. However if GM gets $billions, then those jobs are lost later and supplies go under.
Stated was a fact you should know - Chapter 7 verse Chapter 11. Liars tell us that if GM goes down, that all jobs are lost. Wrong. Wrong are repeatedly demonstrated in history.
Meanwhile, this will do nothing to affect Honda’s part prices. In fact, using basic economics, Honda’s prices will go down. No, prices won’t because of other facts based in a concept called quality – beyond this discussion.
GM has no intention of fixing their problem because of a big carrot - $billions of free money. GM will not fix anything until bankruptcy theats force GM to fix their only problem - Rick Wagoner. The longer Rick Wagoner is there, then Chapter 7 becomes more likely.
We are all expected to learn from history. Next post will provide but another historical example that everyone should know. Again, company saved once the only problem was removed.
Why does IBM still exist? John Akers, an MBA, was running IBM into the ground while claiming to be fixing IBM. In 1992, Bill Gates finally understood why he had so much trouble with IBM. 1990s IBM desks had IBM-XT PCs with CGA monitors. No software sold in malls could run on computers in IBM Corporate. John Akers did not even know how to use a computer except for e-mail and stock quotes. He also promoted a myth called computer literacy. Akers was the classic bean counter who stifled innovation (especially in mainframes) and therefore destroyed 100,000 jobs.
How did IBM save itself? From Wikipedia, Louis Gerstner
is credited with saving IBM ... he describes his arrival at the company in April 1993, when an active plan was in place to disaggregate the company. The prevailing wisdom of the time held that IBM's core mainframe business was headed for obsolescence. The company's own management was in the process of allowing its various divisions to rebrand and manage themselves — the so-called "Baby Blues."
Gerstner reversed this plan, ... His decision to keep the company together was the defining decision of his tenure. The subsequent refocusing on the IT services business, the embrace of the Internet as a business phenomenon, and a broad effort to revive the company's culture are widely seen as having resulted in one of the most remarkable turnarounds in business history.
IBM stopped firing employees when Gerstner enabled employess to focus on products.
What is always needed to save a company? 85% of all problems are directly traceable to ... but then how many finally appreciate what everyone should have known long ago.
John Akers became IBM's president in 1983. Therefore ten years of stifled innovation terminated over 100,000 jobs. How does GM fix itself? Their Akers (Wagoner) must be replaced by a Gerstner. However some are so misinformed as to blame employees or unions rather than stifled innovation. John Akers and Rick Wagoner are classic bean counters with no grasp of the product and a denial that they are the problem.
Deutsche Bank has a target price for GM stock at zero dollars.
The GM stories I've heard are different. Retirees have told me of days spent playing cards. They make much more than Honda employees, but don't seem to have the accountability...
Then you did not work in a GM plant. These are very hard working people - very responsible. When a bad attitude exists, you can quickly see why. Bad attitude is created by bad management. Management so self centered and so destructive to even change all signs to read "employe". Spend massive money only because the boss is important.
Productive company - your boss works for you. Communism - you work for your boss. GM is very communist. Obviously, employees will have a bad attitude. The CEO makes that obvious.
Yes, one day there were many idle employees. A 747 carrying essential parts crashed in Malaysia. Slowly employees had no more work. Therefore those employees are lazy? Hardly.
What happens in a Honda plant if the door manufacturer delivers one defective door? Everyone in Honda stops working. Are those Honda employees lazy? Nonsense. Someone else screwed up. So very responsible employees are doing what they can do - maybe play cards.
If GM employees don't have work, the layers of management have screwed Americans again. 85% of all problems are ...
How many times do I remind everyone
who knows? you repeat and contradict yourself so often they haven't yet invented terms for numbers that high :rolleyes:
of what is now monster’s myth? Throwing money like a grenade only destroys jobs. Did Perot teach you anything? Anyone with any grasp of history would know that.
monster - what saved 1979 and 1981 Chrysler and Ford? No bailout. Both companies were finally forced to submit detailed restructuring plans. .
wait, where did I say I was in favor of a bailout? I understand it can be hard when you're just bursting to condescend to someone, but please, spare me your ego.
I realize I have the answer to pretty much everything, but I think it's going a little far to say that me admitting that I don't know what should happen is a
myth....
thank you for your considered response, Governor Palin.
OOOOOOOOOOHH, DAAAAAAA-YUMMMMM. Sarah Baracuda is gonna be pissed at that dis.
You have ignored lessons from history. If GM goes down, all those supplies and all those employee jobs are saved. .
if it's just GM, maybe. But if it's all of them, no. We're already hanging on by threads, waiting for the turn-around. We've been there for years. We've done chapter 11 -even survived it. But it will take too long for it to work this time. workers for suppliers are already not being paid but it's not just the suppliers, they're only a little part of it. it's the caf on the corner where the workers eat lunch, the preschools where there kids go, the people who clean their houses, mow their lawns, pack their groceries and ask them if they want fries with that. Half of these went in AA when Pfizer closed. they can't survive another so soon. The company logistics may be following the pattern described by events past, but the characters in this play have different structures and the old framework won't fit and can't be made to. Square peg, round hole. Your ivory tower theories of history repeating itself might be comfortable up where you are, but down here on the ground, we can see that the cows are in fact small and not just far away.
(points for that one, Brits and Britophiles....)
Then you did not work in a GM plant. These are very hard working people - very responsible. When a bad attitude exists, you can quickly see why. Bad attitude is created by bad management. Management so self centered and so destructive to even change all signs to read "employe". Spend massive money only because the boss is important.
Productive company - your boss works for you. Communism - you work for your boss. GM is very communist. Obviously, employees will have a bad attitude. The CEO makes that obvious.
Yes, one day there were many idle employees. A 747 carrying essential parts crashed in Malaysia. Slowly employees had no more work. Therefore those employees are lazy? Hardly.
What happens in a Honda plant if the door manufacturer delivers one defective door? Everyone in Honda stops working. Are those Honda employees lazy? Nonsense. Someone else screwed up. So very responsible employees are doing what they can do - maybe play cards.
If GM employees don't have work, the layers of management have screwed Americans again. 85% of all problems are ...
Honey, I'm just reiterating what people told me. And I'll bet you a LOT of money that no one who works at Honda has ever sat around on the clock playing card. Huh-uh. IN fact, my buddies would laugh to hear that.
But you're right, I blame management. My post did not NOT blame management. You silly wabbit.
Shawnee...down time happens a lot because they dont have parts. What are they going to do while they are waiting? Does Honda insist that employees clock out?
Then whoever is in charge of ordering the right parts should be fired. Or the vendor who consistently doesn't deliver on time should be replaced. It's a symptom of a larger problem, but it's still a problem.
And I'll bet you a LOT of money that no one who works at Honda has ever sat around on the clock playing card.
It’s called just in time delivery. That means parts are always provided.
Toyota had a problem where the only manufacturer of Camry brake cylinders had a factory wide fire. So Toyota management did their job. They got a manufacturer of sewing machines to immediately shift to production of brake cylinders. If I remember correctly, Toyota employees were only idle for a few days.
JIT can only work when management comes from where the work gets done. Rick Wagoner has been a bean counter his entire life. GM's CFO before running GM North America into massive losses and all of GM into the ground today. JIT cannot work where the most ignorant are top executives. Therefore employees get paid to be unproductive.
That, BTW, was also the point of William Edward Deming's famous bean experiment. I understand his beads are now in the Smithsonian. Deming routinely proved that employees are only as productive as the bosses permit. Ironic that he used beans to demonstrate reality.
I think the down times are partially due to just-in-time manufacturing process and its not possible to prevent every contingency that would delay parts getting to a line. Management would rather pay idle employess than keep an over stock of parts.
eta: damn you tw, if only I was a faster typist. :P
Management would rather pay idle employess than keep an over stock of parts.
Why?
:shrug:
good question
It must have something to do with accounting....whereas labor is different from inventory. (??)
Some of what I might do If I were in charge of this entire mess:
--GM cuts down to Chevy, Pontiac and Cadillac. Maybe keep the Buick name in China or change it to Cadillac or Opel. Sell Saab & Hummer. Get rid of Buick and GMC. GM makes all their dealers Chevy, Pontiac & Cadillac while paring down a bunch of dealers.
--Ford gets rid of Mercury and makes all their dealers Ford and Lincoln dealers, while paring down a bunch of dealers. Sell Volvo.
--GM buys Chrysler with an assist from the Feds. Goodbye Dodge and Chrysler brands...integrate any viable products into what GM currently has. Jeep stays.
--Wagoner and the guy that run Chrysler have to go. Mulally seems to know what the fuck he's doing at Ford...he stays.
--$$$ from the Feds to the auto industry. An initial lump sum with stringent conditions attached. More money may be obtained if certain benchmarks are reached.
Based on what I've seen and read, I think the Big 3 will get help. The Republicans don't want to become completely insignificant, and the effects of either GM or Ford tanking could hurt the entire auto industry around the world and possibly send the US into a depression. They make good cars...now we just need to convince people to start buying them once we pull out of this economic mess.
Interesting...this is an e-mail that I just got from GM (as I own an '07 Chevy Cobalt...which I love):
Dear (Mrs. Sycamore),
You made the right choice when you put your confidence in General Motors, and we appreciate your past support. I want to assure you that we are making our best vehicles ever, and we have exciting plans for the future. But we need your help now. Simply put, we need you to join us to let Congress know that a bridge loan to help U.S. automakers also helps strengthen the U.S. economy and preserve millions of American jobs.
Despite what you may be hearing, we are not asking Congress for a bailout but rather a loan that will be repaid.
The U.S. economy is at a crossroads due to the worldwide credit crisis, and all Americans are feeling the effects of the worst economic downturn in 75 years. Despite our successful efforts to restructure, reduce costs and enhance liquidity, U.S. auto sales rely on access to credit, which is all but frozen through traditional channels.
The consequences of the domestic auto industry collapsing would far exceed the $25 billion loan needed to bridge the current crisis. According to a recent study by the Center for Automotive Research:
• One in 10 American jobs depends on U.S. automakers
• Nearly 3 million jobs are at immediate risk
• U.S. personal income could be reduced by $150 billion
• The tax revenue lost over 3 years would be more than $156 billion
Discussions are now underway in Washington, D.C., concerning loans to support U.S. carmakers. I am asking for your support in this vital effort by contacting your state representatives.
Please take a few minutes to go to www.gmfactsandfiction.com, where we have made it easy for you to contact your U.S. senators and representatives. Just click on the "I'm a Concerned American" link under the "Mobilize Now" section, and enter your name and ZIP code to send a personalized e-mail stating your support for the U.S. automotive industry.
Let me assure you that General Motors has made dramatic improvements over the last 10 years. In fact, we are leading the industry with award-winning vehicles like the Chevrolet Malibu, Cadillac CTS, Buick Enclave, Pontiac G8, GMC Acadia, Chevy Tahoe Hybrid, Saturn AURA and more. We offer 18 models with an EPA estimated 30 MPG highway or better — more than Toyota or Honda. GM has 6 hybrids in market and 3 more by mid-2009. GM has closed the quality gap with the imports, and today we are putting our best quality vehicles on the road.
Please share this information with friends and family using the link on the site.
Thank you for helping keep our economy viable.
Sincerely,
Troy Clarkesidebar: History does not repeat itself.
The best thing that could happen to GM is a frigging Chapter 11. Close all their plants, regroup, figure it out, reopen, and try to make the best of it. I promise you this, if they can't stay in operation till 20 Jan, they are hosed.
sidebar: History does not repeat itself.
... but it does rhyme. [COLOR="White"]/U2[/COLOR]
good question
It must have something to do with accounting....whereas labor is different from inventory.
The logic is so true. In MBA run operations, there is almost no limit the Capital dollars. But money for daily operations is rationed like it was Venusian Kolars. It makes no sense. But that is another problem obvious in GM plants where MBAs - not car guys - make decisions.
But that logic does not explain why JIT means parts are always available - and why stocking parts even causes parts shortages. Again, return to the company who demonstrates how to be destructive, anti-innovative, and therefore anti-American - GM.
GM had decided that parts cost too much when handled from the shipping dock to assembly line. So GM spent massive capital money and even rewired floors. Robots would carry parts from stock rooms to the assembly line. As a result, assembly lines were constantly short of parts. By stocking parts, GM assembly lines periodically had part shortages.
Because GM management is business school graduates, they could not address reasons for higher costs and part shortages. Instead we look at what an American (an enemy of the business schools) taught Japan.
Deming taught 1950s Japan concepts where parts arrive JIT. IOW suppliers delivered parts directly to the assembly line as assembly line workers used those parts. As each bin emptied, an assembly line worker would send the card (attached to that bin) into a system that immediately notified the parts supplier. No more stock rooms and shipping docks. Instead, the supplier delivered his parts directly to the assembly line with another card attached to the bin.
MBAs cringe. No paper work to verify parts are delivered and accounted for. But then quality also means eliminating that paper work. At the end of the assembly line are X cars requiring two parts per car. At the end of the week, the supplier's bill better match the number of cars produced. Guess what. Parts always available on the supply line. No stock rooms. No Receiving department. No massive MBA paperwork. Therefore the Toyota or Honda costs far less than a GM car.
But again, quality means eliminating useless overhead such as accountants, empowering the workers (who order more parts by sending out that card), eliminating a purchasing department, eliminating a receiving department, no wasted labor (or silly robots) taking parts from stock room to assembly line ... get the idea? And I have still not listed all the saving when everyone acknowledges that bean counters only increase costs.
Of course when your CEO was also the CFO, such innovations are not possible. Bean counters cut costs rather than innovate - which is why Deming was the enemy of business schools and why the Toyota way was legendary even in 1964.
How destructive are bean counters? Ford engineers developed the stratified charge engine in 1960. When did Americans finally see it? Another American innovation stifled by a bean counter named Henry Ford and rescued by patriots. The American innovation was called CVCC; found on 1980s Honda Accords and Civics. Therefore Honda had two best selling cars in America.
The CVCC story is not unique. It is exactly by GM products are all crap today. It is what Rick Wagoner and his predecessors did to GM.
What did the assholes do? Rather than learn from 1950s Deming; rather than use JIT - they installed robots to deliver parts to the assembly line.
Notice that nobody contradicts these stories. And yet still some remain so much in denial as to not demand removing GM's only problem - Rick Wagoner. Patriots save GM by not buying GM products AND mocking any anti-American so dumb as to buy those products over the last 20 years.
Not buying crap saved 1979 Chrysler and 1981 Ford before 'Townsend and Richardo' and before Henry Ford could do irreparable damage. Only a scumbag would ignore quality and instead install robots. But then capital money and daily expenses exist on separate spread sheets.
And you thought you were making a simple statement? Reality and the reason why GM needs Chapter 11 are never explained by sound bytes.
Kill it off while there is time. Obama will fix everything. He is our saviour...
Shawnee...down time happens a lot because they dont have parts. What are they going to do while they are waiting? Does Honda insist that employees clock out?
:D If you got time to lean
You got time to clean. :p
Just a little tongue in cheek. My guess is if it's that dire then yes, they would go home. But as tw pointed out, running out of parts does not happen there as you say it does at GM (
a lot) so running out of parts
a lot is part of the bigger problem as well.
Get it right Bri - they are Bean Counters - every one of them - dontcha know.
:D If you got time to lean
You got time to clean. :p
Just a little tongue in cheek. My guess is if it's that dire then yes, they would go home. But as tw pointed out, running out of parts does not happen there as you say it does at GM (a lot) so running out of parts a lot is part of the bigger problem as well.
Actually I don't know about GM. I know Chrysler. Well my husband does. There have been times when work stopped and they asked for volunteers to go home. Many do, but some stay...usually my husband is one of them and they usually give him a sweeping job if there isn't anything available on another line. But sometimes a line might be waiting on parts from another line and there is nothing to do while they wait. So they might play cards or do crossword puzzles or something. I work at Lowe's and I see a lot of the employees taking extra breaks or just hanging out with each other and talking. Its not that there isn't anything to do (they can always straighten shelves) its just that there aren't any pressing projects or maybe a lull in customers...so they goof off. Down time happens everywhere.
why does tw hate MBA's?
Because they are educated in concepts that we also know as communism. Because they are told to be the 'decision maker' when they have no idea how the work gets done.
How many examples would you like? Denny's destroyed when bean counters in TW Industries started destroying the company.
IBM had to fire 100,000 people before they finally identified the bean counters (Akers and Cannavino) as the only reasons for failure. The near destruction of Macy's when bean counters ordered inside purchasing agents what to buy.
Sears and Kmart who continue to die due to top management.
The Challenger - when every engineer said it was not safe to launch. Not one single engineer could be found to say it was safe to launch. So MBA types said the engineers could not vote and then murdered seven astronauts. Columbia - another seven astronauts murdered for the same reasons.
US Coast Guard that has now spent maybe $1billion on ships that are dangerous to use or that cannot perform the functions intended.
Unisys - the power of two when Blumenthal - a classic MBA - said that uniting Burroughs and Sperry would create economies of scale. Therefore the stock went from $60 per share to $2. The power of two because an MBA stifled innovation to honor the myth taught to MBAs - economy of scale.
HP - had to be rescued when another dumb bimbo names Fiorina also preached economies of scale by wasting $millions on Compaq. Stock dropped from $60 per share to $10. Fortunately, the BoDs were patriotic American enough to finally push Fiorina out the door before HP was driven to bankruptcy. Mark Hurd simply rescued innovation. The stock is now maybe $30 per share.
HP - when another MBA wasted so much money to buy Apollo Computer when it looked good on spread sheets BUT contained no innovation.
Microsoft - Ballmer is an MBA like the Vice Principle in school. He is necessary to the school's function as a disciplinarian. But typically is not principle (leader) material. Ballmer cannot innovate which is why his solutions is a big bucks purchase of Yahoo! rather than to develop new markets.
The various CEOs of AT&T who destroyed the one of this nation's largest companies by stifling innovation and then even wasting $150billiion on cable companies that could not do what AT&T needed. AT&T eventually sold those assets to Comcast for maybe $70billion because AT&T to management were only MBAs - cost controllers - stiflers of innovation - communists who will only destroy wealth, jobs, and the American standards of living.
AT&T is a classic example of what MBAs do - from stifling Unix, wasting money on some of the silliest PCs, refusing repeatedly to get into the internet (see Isenberg's paper on the "Dumb Network" - so they had to drive Isenberg from the Bell Labs). BTW, who owns the Bell Labs? The French. AT&T MBAs so impeded innovation that even the Bell Labs had to be sold to foreigners.
RCA who even had CMOS microprocessors about 1970 but could not sell them because management would not even let them create development systems for the product. Intel eventually started using CMOS in their microprocessors about 10 years later.
Bradshaw was so dumb - an MBA - that he all but gave away RCA to GE. Once Jack Welsh has offered Bradshaw a (rumored) $million bonus to make the sale, Bradshaw went for his personal wealth. That is what MBAs do - screw everyone else. RCA was sold to GE so cheaply that Welsh sold off RCA's other assets, and got the NBC TV network for free.
VCR was developed by whom? Japanese? Of course not. Japan only made all the VCRs. VCR was developed by Ampex Corp in California. As soon as Morita offered to buy the patents, the MBA of Ampex quickly sold out. There alone were 1 million American jobs that were instead given to the Japanese. An MBA can only see profits - has near zero concept of value because he is trained in the business schools. Ampex gave away the future because their MBA executive saw a personal big bonus in his paycheck that year.
But the most stunning example of what MBAs do is the 1970s recession. Business schools routinely instituted costs controls. Japanese used 1950's W E Deming - the enemy of business schools. Therefore Americans were fired - lost jobs - to innovative 1970s Japanese industries. Innovative? A large number if not most of those innovations were developed in America and stifled because top American executives were graduates of the business schools - did not come from where the work gets done - had no dirt under their fingernails - could not see an innovation even if it was stuffed up their nose. Sound like a crack addict? Well MBAs so routinely made dumb decisions that converting them to crack addicts may even make America more productive.
How's that for the short answer. Communism. If your roof is leaking, then you will fix it. But in a communist company such as GM, the roof is not leaking until Rick Wagoner says it is. After all, only MBAs are trained to make decisions.
Its not that there isn't anything to do (they can always straighten shelves) its just that there aren't any pressing projects or maybe a lull in customers...so they goof off. Down time happens everywhere.
Read "The Goal" by Eliyahu Goldratt and Jeff Cox. Appreciate a concept taught in school science class.
Your observations without first learning underlying concepts provide no knowledge - only myths. To appreciate a deeper meaning - the reality behind your observations - read that book. To know something, one must have both experimental evidence (your observations) AND a basic grasp of the underlying concepts (what results in a hypothesis). Without both, then urban myths are generated using assumptions and speculation. Story in that book explains or demonstrates the underlying concepts that you may not yet understand.
Ballmer is an MBA like the Vice Principle in school. He is necessary to the school's function as a disciplinarian. But typically is not principle (leader) material.
Huh. What an odd, yet completely appropriate analogy. I'd almost forgotten about the role of the Vice Principal, and I'm a much more recent high school graduate than you are, tw.
I think maybe tw taught high school classes, at some point. Eh?
I can't imagine TW ever having had any experience in a decision make capacity. People who exist in tight little boxes as he seems to rarely ever move into positions of authority because they are too busy identifying problems to actually get around to doing anything.
Huh. What an odd, yet completely appropriate analogy. I'd almost forgotten about the role of the Vice Principal, and I'm a much more recent high school graduate than you are, tw.
They were known as the 'emBallmer' and 'Pearly Gates'. It was a teams that easily manipulated IBM executives (ie Cannavino) who did not know how computers worked anyway.
From Dana Milbank of the Washington Post on 20 Nov 2008:
Auto Execs Fly Corporate Jets to D.C., Tin Cups in Hand
There are 24 daily nonstop flights from Detroit to the Washington area. Richard Wagoner, Alan Mulally and Robert Nardelli probably should have taken one of them.
Instead, the chief executives of the Big Three automakers opted to fly their company jets to the capital for their hearings this week before the Senate and House -- an ill-timed display of corporate excess for a trio of executives begging for an additional $25 billion from the public trough this week.
"There's a delicious irony in seeing private luxury jets flying into Washington, D.C., and people coming off of them with tin cups in their hands," Rep. Gary L. Ackerman (D-N.Y.) advised the pampered executives at a hearing yesterday. "It's almost like seeing a guy show up at the soup kitchen in high-hat and tuxedo. . . . I mean, couldn't you all have downgraded to first class or jet-pooled or something to get here?"
The Big Three said nothing, which prompted Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) to rub it in. "I'm going to ask the three executives here to raise their hand if they flew here commercial," he said. All still at the witness table. "Second," he continued, "I'm going ask you to raise your hand if you're planning to sell your jet . . . and fly back commercial." More stillness. "Let the record show no hands went up," Sherman grandstanded.
That these automakers are trying to be frugal or restructuring - another glaring symptoms that says no. Without bankruptcy, no automaker is willing to make serious and extremely difficult choices ... such as flying on a commercial airplane.
Wait. Denny's went under?
From Dana Milbank of the Washington Post on 20 Nov 2008: That these automakers are trying to be frugal or restructuring - another glaring symptoms that says no. Without bankruptcy, no automaker is willing to make serious and extremely difficult choices ... such as flying on a commercial airplane.
This whole thing makes me wonder whether there will be another French Revolution type uprising if the huge job losses do happen.
Oh, and TW...Im not really responding to you here...so if you feel the urge to insult my intelligence again...please dont.
Oh, and TW...Im not really responding to you here...so if you feel the urge to insult my intelligence again...please dont.
Fugetaboutit, he's in asshole mode. :rolleyes:
mode????
ETA: That was a bit unfair. Let me add ;)
Actually I don't know about GM. I know Chrysler. Well my husband does. There have been times when work stopped and they asked for volunteers to go home. Many do, but some stay...usually my husband is one of them and they usually give him a sweeping job if there isn't anything available on another line. But sometimes a line might be waiting on parts from another line and there is nothing to do while they wait. So they might play cards or do crossword puzzles or something. I work at Lowe's and I see a lot of the employees taking extra breaks or just hanging out with each other and talking. Its not that there isn't anything to do (they can always straighten shelves) its just that there aren't any pressing projects or maybe a lull in customers...so they goof off. Down time happens everywhere.
I see your point Pico. I broke it down into very simplistic terms, saying "this happens and it shouldn't" but I do understand there are other circumstances. I can't say that in an office we don't occasionally step away and chat. :D
Some of us come to the Cellar! Not me...:blush:
I really hope that things work out for the best for the employees and their families, and for our country. I have no idea what is best!
WAIT! What about my Grand Slam?!
The failure of companies is part of the dynamism that makes the US strong.
In the 1950s, Massachusetts was concerned about the tremendous loss of jobs, as their famous textile mills shut down one by one. But a lot of mills were converted to office space where computer companies moved in, and suddenly Mass. had the Rt. 128 corridor, and a mini silicon valley with DEC, Data General etc., fueled by M.I.T. and the minicomputing revolution.
Now those companies have been eclipsed again and now the area turns to newer possibilities such as biotech. But if we had demanded the preservation of the mills in 1950, none of this would have happened... and we would be talking about places like Burlington and Woburn in the same tones as we talk about Flint and etc... dead-end towns with dead-end jobs.
Please quit messing up my vanity searches. Thank you.
Somebody has suggested that the automakers be bailed out by the oil companies. It sounds good.
Now that makes a ton of sense.
I just ran across this from
here:
Like the mystic Paiute leader Wovoka, Rick Wagoner, through his tried-and true visionary powers as a corporate shaman, plots an automotive "Ghost Dance" movement. A prophetic, last stand for an industry which, like the native American tribes of the 19th century, stands at the brink of extinction
His belief (fueled by lack of funds) being that if he can just get all of the tribes together, dancing all day and all night for five days, maybe the former days of old technology / high profit SUV's and $1.00 per gallon gasoline prices will somehow, through the spirit world and their support of his righteous vision quest, come back. In the process, preserving and extending the life that he and his tribe once lived...
And, like Wovoka's vision and his misguided plea to his people to simply dance to bring back the former way of life, Rick's vision is based on desperation and on naive belief alone. The results of Wagoner's efforts, like those of Wovoka, could be met with an automotive version of the Wounded Knee Massacre, as early as this week.
- - your friend in D-town
it also touches nicely on some other recent threads.
Somebody has suggested that the automakers be bailed out by the oil companies. It sounds good.
Interesting thought!
Oh, and TW...Im not really responding to you here...so if you feel the urge to insult my intelligence again...please dont.
I never insult intelligence. I only post facts. And do so without any regard for something that is not technically relevant - emotions.
Again, I posted facts only like I was your best friend. Please don't insult me by assuming I am doing anything other than that. Please read what I post only for its technical content.
Now, if you were insulted, I have zero knowledge why. You did not specifically list reasons why. So I am completely confused as to why I 'insulted intelligence'. I posted like your best friend.
Meanwhile, you made statements about people straightening shelves or sweeping floors - to make work when work does not exist. As demonstrated in "The Goal", that same mistake was made in the corporation - made the place less productive. Make work was one example of how to reduce productivity. But again, I cannot explain it. If you did not learn from the book, then you have no idea why "sweeping the floors" can be the perfect example of how to make an operation less productive. Yes, your intelligence might be insulted without reading the book and instead jumping to conclusions. 'Staightening the shelves' is an example of what is demonstrated to not do. If you did not read the book, then you have no grasp of what I have posted.
Somebody has suggested that the automakers be bailed out by the oil companies.
Oil companies don't have $50billions of spare profits. Furthermore, oil companies have complained for generation about no innovation in domestic auto companies. Oil companies are a reason why oil prices have remained so low. Oil companies innovate dramatically. If the auto companies instituted even 10% of innovation performed in oil companies, then the auto companies would be fixed.
Nobody need bail out the auto companies. As demonstrated in 1979/1981 - replace top management and have all problems solved in years.
So what innovation has Rick Wagoner instituted to save GM? List them. Oh. Grilled even by Congressman, they could not state any solutions - not one. Why?
In an interview on WDIV TV in Detroit on 15(?) November, Rick Wagoner also stated GM is in the best shape it has been in 20 or 30 years. Michelle Maynard, the NY Times reporter in Detroit, noted that he does this often. He takes an optimistic attitude that slips out. IOW he does not yet acknowledge the depth and reasons for GM's meltdown. He is truly that much in denial. He truly believes if he can just get $25billion, then all problems will be solved.
I never insult intelligence. I only post facts. And do so without any regard for something that is not technically relevant - emotions.
Again, I posted facts only like I was your best friend. Please don't insult me by assuming I am doing anything other than that. Please read what I post only for its technical content.
Now, if you were insulted, I have zero knowledge why. You did not specifically list reasons why. So I am completely confused as to why I 'insulted intelligence'. I posted like your best friend.
Meanwhile, you made statements about people straightening shelves or sweeping floors - to make work when work does not exist. As demonstrated in "The Goal", that same mistake was made in the corporation - made the place less productive. Make work was one example of how to reduce productivity. But again, I cannot explain it. If you did not learn from the book, then you have no idea why "sweeping the floors" can be the perfect example of how to make an operation less productive. Yes, your intelligence might be insulted without reading the book and instead jumping to conclusions. 'Staightening the shelves' is an example of what is demonstrated to not do. If you did not read the book, then you have no grasp of what I have posted.
Your communication style sucks TW...its your own personal bottleneck. Maybe you need to re-read the book and apply the TOC to the way you deal with people.
Your communication style sucks TW...its
Adults who are still children wear their emotions on their sleeves. Adults don't need to have words carefully selected to appease their emotions. Instead, adults would ask, "did you mean this"? That would be the logical response.
You have no idea what I posted until you read the book. But again, grasp the technical content. Ignore any implications.
If you read anything implied in what I post, then you and only you are adding things that are not there. Therefore you are insulting me. Making conclusions from things I did not post. The only thing in that previous post was its technical content. Nothing more.
I don't worry about carefully wording for those who always see hidden messages - who need everything stated politically correct. It is, for example, why George Jr's lies about WMDs did not work on me. I also only see the facts and have contempt of implied conclusions.
I deal bluntly with reality. That means I expect you to quash emotions that jump to wild speculation and radical conclusions. That means my posting will upset those who let their emotions create implied conclusions.
IOW whose communications skills suck? The one who states honestly and bluntly? Or the one who sees hidden meanings into statements and then jumps to emotional conclusions? Apparently you did not understand what I posted, did not ask for clarification, and then got snippy. And again, words not chosen to be poltiically correct - just honest. Yes, I am again measuring you (in that last sentence) to see if you can deal honestly or need to be carefully petted.
tw, it's deja vu all over again with you, isn't it? QUIT picking on people. Only emotionally disturbed children bully others. *
* I say this with all the emotion of Spock telling Bones some fact of life or other. Dammit, tw, we are not all robots like yourself. We have feelings, dammit! (that was said in a Mock Bones voice, not my own. I'm a robot...but not a robot like you, tw)
tw, it's deja vu all over again with you, isn't it? QUIT picking on people. Only emotionally disturbed children bully others.
And yet I was not the one who ignored what was posted, jumped to an emotional conclusion, and attacked another.
Pico and ME still has not even stated what caused an emotional outburst. A logical response would have. I am still only guessing what caused it - what was not understood in which post. Still not listed is any quote. Still not asked for is clarification. Why? 1) Nobody knows what caused the unjustified outburst. It was never stated. 2) I still don't know what sentence insulted anyone's intelligence. 3) I still don't have a request to clarify an obvious conclusion. 4) And I still don't have an apology for an unjustified emotional outburst in response to what was only technical fact.
What bullying? I am the one accused of doing what never happened. So Brianna, since you know so much more, then you define the sentence that mysteriously mocked another's intelligence. You decided to stick you nose in it. So you can quote that sentence AND you can quote the bullying. Please - and I am laughing as I post this, Brianna - fill me with your wisdom.
[size=1] Why laughing? In part because I am wondering what wild conclusion Brianna will jump to.[/size]
I vote tw as Funniest Cellar Poster 2008.
I dunno...I think Radar is pretty funny too. ;)
Between the two of them we've had some pretty good action over the last couple of weeks. lol
Between the two of them we've had some pretty good action over the last couple of weeks.
I have calluses on my fingers. Oh. Maybe my fingers are just callous.
You know tw, those calluses could be from something else besides typing. ;)
I love the Camaro more than any man should love a car, but I have to admit I am pissed at GM and would not be sad if they went out of business. In fact if Ford, GM, and Chrysler all went out of business, it would take out about half a million jobs in total.
Well over 90% of America works for small business (500 employees or less) and these businesses won't get bailouts.
Also, GM sort of deserves it since they killed the electric car. They had a winner, and if they would have sold them, and expanded rather than killing it, they'd be kicking Toyota's butt right now because they had a 5-6 year jump on them.
It's poetic justice. They deserve it for their ties with big oil and for all the steps they've taken over the years to stifle competition and innovation. For instance they bought up all the street cars in L.A. during the 50s and ripped up all the track so people would buy more cars. They killed the electric car, and bought the battery technology that would have made electric cars viable for 90% of commuter driving and then promptly sold it to oil companies.
I love the Camaro more than any man should love a car,
Huh. Radar loves. Something, anyway.
and bought the battery technology that would have made electric cars viable for 90% of commuter driving and then promptly sold it to oil companies.
Conspiracy theory. I do not take such junk food for thought. But people whose pots couldn't exactly be called entirely intact -- they do.
I love the Camaro more than any man should love a car ~snip~
Do you have a mullet, and does your HS grad tassle hang from your rearview mirror, and do you have one of those funky programmable horns, and are your subwoofers really huge? :p
You thinking of the Challenger, you obviously haven't seen the Camaro.
Eh, in HS it was all the rage if a guy had a Camaro or a Trans Am. Same thing to me!
What the 'Uck is a Challenger? The Dukes car? Nah, again, just remembering the cool guys from school. Then the guys who were destined to fade into nothingness are still driving that car, with their tassle still hanging from the mirror.
Maybe it's a regional thing.
No, it's not regional, you're just living in the past.:haha:
Challenger.
Camaro.I haven't actually caught a glimpse of it, but there's a vehicle in the neighborhood that has programmed the horn to play that stupid Dixie tune like the Dukes' car played. It's irritating as shit.
Do you have a mullet, and does your HS grad tassle hang from your rearview mirror, and do you have one of those funky programmable horns, and are your subwoofers really huge?
From
here:
2. CamaroMullet: The CamaroMullet used to have full reign over the mullet brethren, but that was back in the 70's and 80's. This species has fallen from grace since, but can still be seen enjoying NASCAR events and shopping at Kragen, or up in the attic cooking up crank. Distinguishing features include: a molester mustache (peach fuzzy), tight-fitting acid wash jeans, and an ever-present key ring hanging from the belt loop.
Feel the mulletude emanating through your computer screen from this rare pic.
It is not recommended you confront the CamaroMullet, for they are very aggressive and cannot be hurt (this might be due to the frequent use of methamphetamines, angel dust, etc.).
Mulletude: 10
Aggressiveness: 10
Hobbies: primering cars, bar fights, picking scabs, losing teeth.
Sightings: Kragen, Grand Auto, working on a Camaro on their front lawn.
Favorite Band: AC DC
Bitchin' Camaro, Bitchin' Camaro!
I ran over my neighbors
Bitchin' Camaro, Bitchin' Camaro!
Now I'm in all the papers
My folks bought me a bitchin' Camaro
With no insurance to match
So if I happen to run you down
Please don't leave a scratch
I ran over some old lady
One night at the county fair
And I didn't get arrested
Because my dad's the mayor
Bitchin' Camaro, Bitchin' Camaro!
Donuts on your lawn
Bitchin' Camaro, Bitchin' Camaro!
Tony Orlando and Dawn
When I drive past the kids
They all spit and cuss
Cause I've got a bitchin' Camaro
And they have to ride the bus
So you'd better get out of my way
When I come through your yard
Cause I've got a bitchin' Camaro
And an Exxon credit card
Bitchin' Camaro, Bitchin' Camaro!
Hey man where ya headed?
Bitchin' Camaro, Bitchin' Camaro!
I'm drunk on unleaded!
Heh.
I forget where I was, shortly after college at a starter job or something, but there was this girl there. Hmmm, how to put it: she was really really really not smart, was really greasy and gross, and her big claim to fame was that her "boyfriend has a Trams Am." Yes, folks, a Trams Am.
Adults who are still children wear their emotions on their sleeves. Adults don't need to have words carefully selected to appease their emotions. Instead, adults would ask, "did you mean this"? That would be the logical response.
The above represents what the carbon-based life forms called homo sapiens call 'passive-aggressive ass-holery'
You have no idea what I posted until you read the book. But again, grasp I deal bluntly with reality. That means I expect you to quash emotions that jump to wild speculation and radical conclusions. That means my posting will upset those who let their emotions create implied conclusions.
The above is more of the same 'passive-aggressive ass-holery'
whose communications skills suck? The one who states honestly and bluntly? ...carefully petted.
YOUR communication skills suck. And, 'carefully petted'--WTF?
Anyhoo, tw, ya manky cock, I am laughing while I'm posting this.
The above represents what the carbon-based life forms called homo sapiens call 'passive-aggressive ass-holery'
Always amusing to prime the pump and see what comes up.
Always entertaining. Not always correct.
*waves* :)
Hi, tw!!!!
Nothing like a sparkling glass full of cool Brianna.
From the NY Times of 22 Nov 2008:
G.M. Pins Hopes on a Plug-In Car, 2 Years Off
Executives at General Motors, the largest and apparently the most imperiled of the three American car companies, are using the Volt as the centerpiece of their case to a skeptical Congress that their business plan for a turnaround is strong, and that a federal bailout would be a good investment in G.M.’s future.
In ads that ran this week, the company said of the Volt: “This is not just a car. It’s a vision of our future.” Another claimed that the vehicle would “completely reinvent the automotive industry.”
Hardly. The Volt is a hybrid with a battery charger. This is revolutionary? Even GM built a hybrid in the 1990s, and then killed it when George Jr advocated no innovation. GM will not innovate unless required by government regulation. Still cannot get a hybrid right after spending how many years developing a car that is still two years away? Anybody see that PBS show where GM tried to demonstrate the Volt - and the car would not move?
There is a long tradition in Detroit of relying on a single new model or technology as a silver bullet to quickly solve bigger problems. ... It is expected to cost about $40,000. ...
It plans to sell only 10,000 Volts in the car’s first year, or less than the number Prius cars sold by Toyota in October alone. And the Volt, roughly the size of a small family sedan, will cost around $15,000 more than a Prius.
One car that costs $15,000 more, that will not be sold everywhere in America, and will only sell a paltry 10,000 in the first years? This will save GM? Yes, GM executives are still living in a mythical world. No wonder Rick Wagoner said in mid November on Detroit TV, "GM is in the best shape it has been in 20 or 30 years."
Does anyone still foolishly think unions, Japanese competition, unfair trade, market conditions, or MBA created legacy costs are GM's problem? Those are only symptoms. GM's [FONT="Verdana"]
only[/FONT] solution to save GM is the Volt.
G.M. reportedly spent about $1 billion in the 1990s to develop the EV1, which it dropped after saying it could not make money on the cars. The EV1, which was available only in lease deals, sold for the equivalent of up to $44,000 but cost G.M. about $80,000 apiece to make. ... Only two years ago, G.M. promoted flexible fuel cars that run on E85, a blend of ethanol and gasoline, as the way to wean Americans off gasoline. ... In 2004, G.M. displayed a hydrogen-powered concept vehicle, the Hy-wire, at the Paris Motor Show, making similar promises that it would revolutionize the industry.
And 1999 GM Precept - their hybrid paid for by Clinton's government? All typical of management that does not drive.
Some years ago, newspapers would be under financial attack for reporting so honestly. Slowly, facts of total and complete mismanagement, especially in the last decade, are coming to light. Name a new and successful GM model or innovation in the past decade? None. MBAs spent massively. And every product was a flop: classic symptom of MBA management that believes innovation is created by throwing money at it ... like a grenade.
To show efforts to save the company, GM announced a sale of two corporate luxurious private jets. Why not all three? Rick Wagoner needs luxury, his high salary, and those bonuses that he is still scheduled to receive.
Why does GM need numerous private jets? GM corporate rules require all executives to fly in private planes because commercial airplanes are deemed too dangerous. Heaven forbid they should sit next to someone who drives a car.
If this was written in a novel, nobody would believe any MBAs could be this dumb. How to spell it: "employe".
This is quite entertaining.
Spin. GM announced that Rick Wagoner's pay will increase to be what it was in 2006 - $2.2million. That is a 33% salary increase. When did your employer give you or your peers a 33% salary increase?
Meanwhile, what they forgot to mention was his real paycheck. For example, when GM said his salary was lower with GM's lower expectations in 2007, his actual compensation increased 64% to $15.7million.
Did they forget to mention that part? Oh. But he is important. He deserved a 64% paycheck increase. Look what he has done for the company.
The average American income dropped 2% during George Jr's tenure. No wonder only the rich need a tax cut. Otherwise they - Rick Wagoner - would see their taxes increase too quickly.
When Lee Iacocca saved Chrysler, he was paid $1. Well documented, the higher an executive is paid, then the worse his company performance.
tw sounds like he's talking about an ex-wife. :haha:
I'd consider a bailout IF they fired the top 10% of their management. Consider! The entitlement mentality of these guys is sickening. SO much so that they actually thought the hearings last week were a mere formality - just show up and get free money. :headshake
I wish they would do that with the financial companies. They are still going to pay off their execs millions. Wish I could get rewarded for failure like that.
Even if they fired the top 10%, I'd still be pissed they walked away filthy rich, after screwing the company and country. :mad:
Gotta start somewhere....
Oh and maybe we could investigate the shit outta them...except that would infringe on rights and stuff
I have trouble telling the difference between role reversal and vacillation:
85% of all problems are directly traceable to the top 10% of managers?
:lol:
:cool: If the role fits....
If the role doesn't fit...use vaseline. :eek:
:cool: If the role fits....
If the roll.... wait what?
They went to Washington in luxery jets begging with hat in hand. They had no plans to save the company. Zero. Their only plan was, "Give us the money and the company will be fixed." as an MBA would do. Same problem that Ross Perot complained about twenty years ago.
Rick Wagoner said long before going to Washington that GM had no restructuring plans. When he went to Washington, he still had no restructuring plans. GM (last I heard) is still planning to introduce a 400 Hp Camaro this January. The company is still that stupid.
A responsible GM would already have plans to terminate two divisions. To eliminate about half of their SUV models. To have 20,000 Volts on the market next year. Oh. As demonstrated in the PBS TV show recently, the Volt broke down when it was to be demonstrated to PBS reporters.
Nissan Infinity took only 4 years and $0.8 billion to design a car that Nissan had never designed before. Why so quickly? Because engineers - not accountants - did the design. At the same time, GM took nine years and $8billion to design a car built previously - Saturn.
GM still does not have a functional Volt to show to reporters ... and no plans to restructure. More than 85% of these problems are directly traceable to that top management.
From the Wall Street Journal of 26 Nov 2008:
American International Group Inc., the struggling insurance giant that needed a $150 billion government bailout, put new restrictions on its executives' compensation, including a $1 base salary for its chief executive and elimination of bonuses in 2008 and raises through 2009 for its top seven officers.
The company also said there will be no raises through 2009 for the 50 next-highest executives.
This should not be news. This should be routine and always required.
From Bloomberg News of 27 Nov 2008
GM Said to Study Shedding Saturn, Saab, Pontiac to Win U.S. Aid
General Motors Corp., working to cut costs to win $12 billion in government loans, is studying whether to shed its Saturn, Saab and Pontiac brands in addition to Hummer, people familiar with the matter said.
Selling or dropping brands would save money and reduce overlap as the biggest U.S. automaker struggles to avoid running out of operating cash by year’s end, said the people, who didn’t want to be identified because no decision has been made. GM’s other U.S. brands are Chevrolet, GMC, Buick and Cadillac.
A GM that wants to survive should be terminating half its SUVs and either the Corvette (that does not earn a profit) or a rediculous new 400 Hp Camaro. Also eliminate most V-8 powered products. Benchmarks for what a responsible Rick Wagoner will declare next week if he has any balls and any interest in saving GM.
I seriously doubt Wagoner will do even half this. It would require him to make hard decisions. He has a long history of simply throwing money at problems.
U.S. operations should be restructured to a maximum of four brands with a 17 percent to 18 percent U.S. market share from the current 8 brands and 22 percent market share, a Deutsche Bank AG analyst wrote in a report yesterday.
So "those in the know" agree with us here on the cellar. Aren't we just the schmart ones.
Yea, but it hasn't stopped the Dems from wanting to give them more of our money.
... how can you say that with a straight face, merc?
It is very easy. Really...
Critics of a federal aid package for GM, Ford and Chrysler spotlighted the exchange to attack the money-losing companies as undeserving of a bailout. GM, the biggest U.S. automaker, has said it may run out of operating cash by year’s end without government loans.
GM also has seven planes in its own fleet. All were grounded yesterday, said a spokesman, Tom Wilkinson. Two are for sale and two are in the process of being listed for sale, while Detroit-based GM plans to keep three, he said.
Good, its about time! Why do they need 7 jets anyway? WTF?
Why do they need three?
Why do they need any? How often do their execs fly somewhere that isn't serviced by regular airlines? I haven't actually checked, but I'm pretty sure Detroit airport has plenty of flights going all over.
It is very easy. Really...
Of course. Lying comes naturally to some.
They need you in Detroit.
Why do they need three?
Why do they need any?
As posted previously, GM corporate policy says commercial flights are too dangerous for their executives. Top corporate executives are not permitted to fly commercially.
WHAT?????????? I missed that post.
Did they say that with a straight face?
I am torn between laughter, disgust, pointing out that commercial flights are (statistically) safer than private flights, and telling them not to be such precious namby-pambies. Someone needs a good slap.
Of course. Lying comes naturally to some.
They need you in Detroit.
So I can help eliminate them?
Public hates you taking your corporate jet? Don't let them have that information:
GM Asks U.S. FAA to Bar Public Tracking of Leased Corporate Jet
Nov. 27 (Bloomberg) -- General Motors Corp., criticized by U.S. lawmakers for its use of corporate jets, asked aviation regulators to block the public’s ability to track a plane it uses.
"We availed ourselves of the option as others do to have the aircraft removed" from a Federal Aviation Administration tracking service, a GM spokesman, Greg Martin, said yesterday in an interview. He declined to discuss why GM made the request.
Flight data show that the leased Gulfstream Aerospace G-IV jet flew Nov. 18 from Detroit to Washington, where Chief Executive Officer Richard Wagoner Jr. spoke to a Senate committee that day and a House panel the next day on behalf of a $25 billion auto-industry rescue plan.
Fuckers gotta die.
WHAT?????????? I missed that post.
Did they say that with a straight face?
I am torn between laughter, disgust, pointing out that commercial flights are (statistically) safer than private flights, and telling them not to be such precious namby-pambies. Someone needs a good slap.
Yeh - that was brought up as their excuse after they were exposed for all taking the corporate jets to the hearings.
Public hates you taking your corporate jet? Don't let them have that information:
GM Asks U.S. FAA to Bar Public Tracking of Leased Corporate Jet
Fuckers gotta die.
Line 'em up! DO NOT BAIL THESE GUYS OUT! Take them all to court and share their millions with those whom they screwed used and abused. Perhaps a little poetic justice might help.
the whole thing stinks.. no one was tried to 'bail out' bennigans when they closed and 20+thousand food service workers got canned.. fuck 'em they should have seen this coming years ago. Isn't that what they pay the high-muckity-mucks multimillion dollar salaries for? geez.. I saw this coming..and when the last little news blurb about them not wanting to produce smaller more efficient cars in favor of the more expensive and higher profit trucks and suvs'... I don't know.. I've never bought a new car and if I can help it I never will. here's my little idea. offer a deal to one of the 'big 3' and the first one to jump lives.. the others can fend for themselves.. the deal is that the company has to sell all of their vehicles at a 1% profit margin(to repay the debt over god knows how many years), be subject to intense accountability where a non-profit company (ideally a german or japanese efficiency/quality control company)will scrutinize every little damn dime.. as well as hold employees accountable for their actions (the thing in the industry in which I work.. if you can't do the job.. and do it well... BLAM! you're canned so fast it'll make your head spin. then again I have stayed away from the corporate segments because they encourage (thru inaction) laziness, incompetence and a profound lack of..of.. just caring about your job..pride in your work? ) and produce cars people actually want and can afford.. the new volkswagen if you will.. anywhoo.. that's ,my little bit..
We have seen a number of large dealarships start to close their doors. I think this only the beginning.
Auto Dealerships Teeter as Big Three Decline
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/business/30dealer.htmlI think there are too many of them too. The strong shall survive the weak and poorly run will disappear. Natural selection - simple as that.
Consumer Reports noted a need to eliminate dealers long ago - maybe in early 1990s. I don’t remember the numbers – maybe 20,000 dealers reduced to 7,000. Also expected to eliminate so many dealers were direct car sales via the internet and publication of dealer prices from the manufacturer. Consumer Reports routinely advocated buying a car at manufacturer's cost plus a few hundred because dealers (should) bring so little value to a sale.
Indeed, those who have prospered most in the auto industry were dealers. Ironically, GM would punish troublesome executives (ie those who advocated better quality) with an early retirement and an opportunity to quit the company by owning a dealership.
This was interesting. From Boortz.
HAVE YOU SEEN THIS VIDEO?
By Neal Boortz @ November 26, 2008 8:21 AM Permalink | Comments (44) | TrackBacks (0)
We got dozens of emails yesterday to Nealz Nuze saying that I must see this video about a Ford plant. Okay you are probably thinking "big deal, Boortz." But if you watch the video it explains how Ford has created a new, innovative manufacturing plant that streamlines production and makes operations much more efficient. They can make 5 different types of vehicles at this plant. It does this by allowing Ford suppliers to be integrated into the assembly line process. So the suppliers making the seats, the dashboards, the fuel systems ... they have assembly lines right inside the Ford factory. Makes sense, rather than relying on shipments of parts. No waiting. No shipment costs or delays.
Oh but there is one thing I forgot to tell you. This Ford plant is in Brazil.
Yep. And do you know why it is in Brazil? Unions. The UAW is opposed to this type of innovative manufacturing. They are opposed to innovation that would actually help their employer because they stand the risk of losing jobs. And if they lose jobs, they lose power.
I'm sure another reason, although it doesn't say it in the video, is tax rates. But that's a whole other issue.
http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/2008/11/have-you-seen-this-video.htmlWhat I get from that video is the parts are not made there, but shipped in and assembled into sub-assemblies, by these vendors. There is no reason why Ford couldn't use the exact same plant, and have Ford employees do the sub-assemblies. The innovation is in the design of the vehicles that allow that assembly system, and the design of the facilities that make it possible.
Oh, and the biggest innovation is someone running the show that doesn't have their head up their ass.
The ultimate pattern ... is that today's metal-bashers will disappear. In their place will be vehicle brand owners (or VB0s). They will do only the core tasks of designing, engineering and marketing vehicles. Everything else, including even final assembly, may be done by the parts suppliers.
… Already Magna, a Canadian company with innovative manufacturing techniques for body parts, is taking over more contract assembly from Detroit. Significantly, the car factory that DaimlerChrysler is selling in Austria is being bought by a Magna subsidiary (Magna Steyr), which will continue to make Chrysler Voyager minivans there under contract. Magna Steyr also has contracts to assemble niche cars for Mercedes, BMW and Saab.
Before anything goes that far in volume car making, the assemblers have to redefine their relationship with their suppliers. They need to become more co-operative and less adversarial before design and engineering processes can be re-assigned. This re-drawing of the boundary between the car company and its suppliers is least advanced in America. In Japan and in Europe it is already working quite well.
The task for American manufacturers is to bring their relations with suppliers into line with Japan's. Ten years ago, the big three manufacturers in Detroit turned aggressively on their suppliers as they sought to recover from heavy losses. The charge was led by Jose Ignacio Lopez, head of purchasing at GM, ... the traditional Detroit way of dealing with suppliers is “to beat them over the head”.
Head-bashing, however, was not enough to rescue the American industry, although the failure was disguised by the unexpected boom in profitable minivans and sport utility vehicles (SUVs). ... The resulting over-capacity encouraged firms to sell extra cars at marginal prices in order to bring in cash. ... The reality is that American manufacturers have been losing money on cars, while they have been coining it on SUVs.
The handsome profits and shareholder returns achieved at points in the 1990s were, to some extent, illusory. When operating profits are measured in relation to the size and cost of capital, the suggestion is that Detroit has for some time been consuming rather more wealth than it has been creating. Mr Ferron maintains that the business model of the traditional American car manufacturer was broken as its return on capital plunged from around 20% in its heyday.
Throughout the 1990s boom, the car makers of Detroit never managed to raise their return on capital above 3%.
By ignoring even spread sheets, Detroit management made low tech, high profit SUVs without innovating. Assembly techniques described by Boortz in
TheMercenary's post happen when 'car guys' design and build cars. Boortz simply demonstrates another innovation long stifled by MBA trained management who viewed everyone as an enemy.
Cars were assembled from many individual parts all attached to one frame, one part at a time. Drop an engine into that frame somewhere during assembly. Even the very first Hondas did it differently. For example, engine, front suspension, steering, and drive train were assembled elsewhere, merged into a sub assembly, and then pushed up from underneath the car in one integrated assembly - that even eliminated wheel alignment. (By this point, everyone should understand why an engineer designed car never needs wheel alignment.) Even dashboards were designed and installed as a complete assembly rather than assembled part by part inside vehicle frames. When GM did this (only because everyone else was already doing it), well, the world had long moved on to other innovative assembly processes. Therefore GM, et al had what (according to The Economist in 2002)? Only 3% ROI.
Described above was
how suppliers delivered parts directly to the assembly line. Twenty years later, GM addressed the same problem using part delivery robots - throwing money at a problem rather than fixing the problem. About the same time, car companies without bean counter management had now advanced to whole subassemblies delivered 'just in time'. That Boortz video simply describes it; what was well known even six years ago even in The Economist on 21 Feb 2002. It’s not about outside suppliers. It’s about integrating whole assemblies long before the final assembly plant. Performing assembly work in parallel; not in series. And it's about working as a team with suppliers; not beating them up and down.
What was GM’s solution? Well the Chevy sold in Thailand is actually made by someone else in Korea. GM management solved the manufacturing problem by having someone else to do all innovating. But that is really all that a MBA manager understands. Paying bills and selling something.
Rather than innovate, GM used grossly overpriced SUVs to mask 1968 technology engines and obsolete manufacturing methods. GM's problems are very old, known, and ignored. Boortz video manufacturing methods were international standards - innovation kept out of America by business school manager using cost controls.
What was necessary to make that innovation possible? W E Deming taught this stuff to Japan in the 1950s. Only MBA management beats on employees and suppliers like they were the enemy. The solution is not about having outsiders assemble cars or blaming the unions. It's about having suppliers provide what is necessary on the assembly line as even exampled here on
18 November.
Who asked a silly question of why tw hates MBAs? Common knowledge makes that contempt obvious. Boortz video only demonstrates that MBAs (like George Jr) stifle solutions for 20 years. Boortz video does not say it. But the Boortz video again demonstrates that Americans are finally doing today what was innovative 20 years ago. A boss who stifles innovation must then blame unions, unfair competition, legacy costs, government, environmental laws, greedy suppliers, fuel economy standards, tax structures, the education system ... everything but the few grossly overpaid executives who are 99% responsible for those problems. Boortz video demonstrates what can happen once suppliers are trusted – no longer the greedy enemy.
tw = letter bomber = Theodore John Kaczynski.
I have a Manefesto. Hear me Roar!
...everything but the few grossly overpaid executives who are 99% responsible for those problems.
Wha wha whaaatttt???? When did the percentage change??? I did NOT get that memo.
Now wait just a damn minute. It is a well know fact that 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. Google it if you don't believe me.
I thought it was only 76%...
When did the percentage change???
85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. And when management says there is plenty of blame to go around, then 99% of problems are directly traceable to that manager. Any decent manager knows who is responsible. The most irresponsible (or ignorant - same thing) managers want to blame others or just call it an accident.
Meanwhile,
post #188 demonstrates how much one need know to understand how anti-innovative GM has been. Whereas the Boortz video shows a ‘new’ production method, The Economist Feb 2002 articles says those manufacturing techniques were standard in both Europe and Japan even many years earlier. What the Boortz commentary forget to mention: just another example of how much innovation has so long been stifled by MBAs – or why patriotic Americans who believe in free markets have been buying foreign cars. In my inventory are so many more examples of why GM has been making so many crappy products for 30 years. Facts that get lost where fools promote ‘buy American’ or recommended GM products.
TheMercenary’s Boortz video simply forgets to mention that the innovative manufacturing techniques were being used 10 and 20 years earlier where top management are car guys. It demonstrates why GM cannot fix itself until Rick Wagoner is removed. In his case, 99% of all problems are directly traceable to … a man who did more to destroy America than Saddam Hussein.
In all seriousness, what to you get out of your endless diatribes against gm?
We need a poll to see how many people actually read post #188. I for one am curious. Are there cliff notes available?
I for one am curious. Are there cliff notes available?
That was the Cliff note. A very easy read. Actual story is much longer, more involved, and even more damning.
Post 188 - a short quote from a 14 page 2002 article in The Economist - tells the story that TheMercenary's Boortz video forgot to include. Long before 2002, Japanese and European auto makers had already been doing what is hyped as revolutionary in that Boortz video. Revolutionary? Hardly. Just another example of American MBAs finally permitting what was world standard 10 and 20 years ago.
That is an example of lessons taught even by W E Deming in the 1950s. Deming taught why production was so inefficient and what is necessary to be productive. He even cited a Quality Control inspector as a symptom of no quality.
Post 188 is simply another example of a philosophy that is so difficult for MBAs to comprehend.
How many foolishly entered this discusson believing that popular myths that blamed the unions? GM is exactly what happens when MBAs - people without dirt under their fingernails - become corporate leaders. The auto industry repeatedly demonstrated what is necessary to make an auto company productive. Very first task every time - replaced bean counters with car guys. Only then can innovation begin.
You missed the sarcasm there, again. I wasn't saying that I disagreed with you entirely, but I do think that you are oversimplifying the issue to just one thing/group/problem. I think this is a multifaceted issue with many problems/causes. It just doesn't have that simple an answer.
We need a poll to see how many people actually read post #188. I for one am curious. Are there cliff notes available?
:lol2:
You missed the sarcasm there, again. I wasn't saying that I disagreed with you entirely, but I do think that you are oversimplifying the issue to just one thing/group/problem. I think this is a multifaceted issue with many problems/causes. It just doesn't have that simple an answer.
Nope, it's YOUR fault... it's all YOUR fault. :haha:
Nope, it's YOUR fault... it's all YOUR fault. :haha:
He must be top level management.:D
Nope, it's YOUR fault... it's all YOUR fault. :haha:
...as usual.
From the NY Times of 5 Dec 2008:
At G.M., Innovation Sacrificed to Profits
General Motors did not apologize for anything in its first trip to Congress more than two weeks ago to plead for a federal rescue. The company’s only problem, it insisted, was the current financial crisis.
“What exposes us to failure now is not our product lineup, or our business plan, or our long-term strategy,” Rick Wagoner, G.M.’s chief executive, said in his testimony.
Just another in a list of maybe 100 posted examples of why GM's greatest enemy is Rick Wagoner and his cadre of MBAs. He lies to himself - as well as to Congress.
Time and again over the last 30 years, G.M. has spent billions of dollars on innovative ideas like its Saturn small-car company in the 1980s and the EV1 electric vehicle in the 1990s, only to then deprive those projects of further financing because money was needed elsewhere or because they were not delivering enough profit.
That will not change until a car guy replaces Wagoner.
The failure is frustrating to those who remember the high value placed on innovation by legendary company leaders like Alfred P. Sloan Jr. and Charles E. Wilson, who felt G.M. could sell cars to the masses by demonstrating it was out in front.
“Until the 1960s, innovation was part of G.M.’s DNA,” said John Casesa, a veteran industry analyst with the Casesa Shapiro Group. “Now, it’s a matter of trying to play catch-up.”
One such area is hybrid technology, an area where G.M. might be leading if it had encouraged the engineers who led its hybrid development as long ago as the 1970s, and continued building on expertise it gained with the EV1.
While Toyota has sold more than 600,000 Prius hybrids in the United States since 2000, General Motors will not start selling its Volt plug-in hybrid until 2010, when it hopes to sell 10,000 of them in the first year.
How widespread is denial? Another was so brainwashed by GM rhetoric as to tell me the Volt is not a hybrid; it is a plug-in car. How widespread is this "I love George Jr" disease?
Only now, in its second plea to Congress, did [GM] acknowledge what just about every industry analyst has said for years: that G.M. has too many brands, now that its market share has fallen by nearly two-thirds from its peak in 1960 to just 22 percent today.
G.M. said last week that it would focus on just four core brands — Chevrolet, Buick, GMC and Cadillac — and sell or play down Saturn, Pontiac, Saab and Hummer.
The goal, it said in its new plan, is “to focus available resources and growth strategies on the company’s profitable operations.”
Duh. Too little too late. It needs to eliminate those other divisions - not just 'play them down'. GM employee jobs are that much at risk.
Restructuring was not even considered two weeks ago when Rick Wagoner told Congress that GM only needed a few tens of $billions and everything would be fine. How many times need this be posted before it even becomes obvious to George Jr and the brain of Terri Schiavo.
Mr. Casesa said that pattern stemmed from the fact that so many of the company’s top executives had a background in finance, not in engineering and designing cars and trucks.
Duh. Anyone with enough sense to not be a wacko extremist would have known that.
If a newspaper publishes an article this honest, then GM would have taken revenge as GM did to
the LA Times in April 2005. Now it is safe to be honest. Rick Wagoner has done more to destroy America than Saddam Hussein. That too is not even debatable.
G.M.’s failure to press forward with its own hybrids was a deep disappointment to Robert C. Stempel, the former chief executive who gave the go-ahead to the EV1 program during his brief tenure in the early 1990s.
“I’m furious,” Mr. Stempel said in a 2003 interview. “G.M. had the technology. The lead was there. I know it.”
Just excerpts from that article. Bottom line - Rick Wagoner will not even admit GM has a problem.
The only problem, he says, is the economy! Yes, one must can be as dumb as George Jr to be GM's CEO.
Don't blame Bush - he is refusing to use the money already earmarked for the financial industry. Look at and blame some of the democrats who want to bail these idiots out. Pre-structure a bankruptcy and renegotiate with the unions. Get these three more in line with that which some other auto companies are doing and move on. I really do not see any other alternative.
Oh, and fire 85% of the management!
Don't blame Bush - he is refusing to use the money already earmarked for the financial industry.
Obviously George Jr is not blamed. George Jr and Terri Schiavo are simply benchmarks for the intelligence in GM corporate management and business school graduates.
Don't fool yourself. George Jr is doing nothing. He is not withholding aid. George Jr is demonstrating the same decision making powers of Teri Schiavo. Even with an MBA degree, he is smart enough to know he has zero economics knowledge - even of the economics taught in high school.
John Snow recently made that obvious in a backhanded praise of an economist. Snow said this economist was the only one who ever tried to explain something to the president by using an equation. y=mx+b or something like that. John Snow was a George Jr Sec of the Treasury. Who needs enemies when one has friends?
Numerous Secretary of the Treasury have noted how economically dumb George Jr is. NY Times demonstrates that Rick Wagoner is just as dumb. Rick Wagoner says GM's problems are only due to the economy. He says GM's products and structure are just fine. Denial we have not seen since some fools in the Cellar voted for George Jr.
Rick Wagoner is also an MBA - just like George Jr - which says so much about his intelligence and why Rick Wagoner has done more to destroy America than Saddam Hussein. Read the Michelle Maynard article in the NY Times. Only Ayn Rand's 'anti-free market' corporate bosses were this dumb. It's really hard to believe people that dumb exist and remains so much in denial in a real world. Being as dumb as George Jr; they do exist.
George Jr.....George Jr......George Jr.....George Jr.....George Jr ....George Jr.....George Jr....George Jr.....Saddam Hussein....George Jr....
Obsess much?
Snow said this economist was the only one who ever tried to explain something to the president by using an equation. y=mx+b or something like that.
The classic Keynesian figuring.
C+I+G+X-M=Y
Consumption + Investment + Government Spending + Exports - Imports = Gross Domestic Product
Keynes figured that if C and I are down you should increase G to smooth out the bad times. It doesn't really fly if you increase G all the time and run deficits though.
ok tw, lets try this then - aside from your mistaken belief that you are the only one reading The Economist and simply regurgitating what they say. What are your plans going forward? What ideas, thoughts and/or opinions do you have in an effort to rectify that which is wrong? Instead of your typical George jr mental midget big dic, GM bean counters.... ad nauseum... What else have you got?
Looks like they might get $15 bill, enough to float them till Obama is up to bat and then see what he does from there.
ok tw, ... What are your plans going forward?
Since you claim to read before you reply, then you know solutions were posted repeatedly. Please. Show us that you do more than post wisecracks. Show us that you actually comprehended what you replied to. Since solutions were posted repeatedly, and since classicman claims to understand what he reads, then classicman can repeat those previous solutions.
Anyone can read The Economist and numerous other publications. Not all readers bother to grasp facts. Many readers simply seek facts that agree with their political agenda – ignore everything else. classicman - this is where you demonstrate which kind of reader you are. Those solutions have been posted repeatedly. Your question was answered previously if you read for knowledge. Show us that you read to understand; not read to simply reinforce a political agenda. You can answer your own question IF you comprehended what contradicts political bias.
C+I+G+X-M=Y
Consumption + Investment + Government Spending + Exports - Imports = Gross Domestic Product.
Equation reportedly presented to George Jr had only four vectors. The joke was that everyone knew to not confuse George Jr with facts and numbers.
George Jr is doing exactly what he does with any crisis. "A second plane has just struck the World Trade Center. America is under attack." So he sat for 15 minutes in a child's chair waiting for someone to tell him what to do. Seven years later, and still some don't get it. Even his own people subtly joke about how dumb George Jr really is. Some voters still don't get it.
Since you claim to read before you reply, then you know solutions were posted repeatedly. Please. Show us that you do more than post wisecracks. Show us that you actually comprehended what you replied to. Since solutions were posted repeatedly, and since classicman claims to understand what he reads, then classicman can repeat those previous solutions.
Anyone can read The Economist and numerous other publications. Not all readers bother to grasp facts. Many readers simply seek facts that agree with their political agenda – ignore everything else. classicman - this is where you demonstrate which kind of reader you are. Those solutions have been posted repeatedly. Your question was answered previously if you read for knowledge. Show us that you read to understand; not read to simply reinforce a political agenda. You can answer your own question IF you comprehended what contradicts political bias.
Classic, I do declare that he clearly states above that he has no answer. :rolleyes:
Huh. Radar loves. Something, anyway.
Conspiracy theory. I do not take such junk food for thought. But people whose pots couldn't exactly be called entirely intact -- they do.
It's not a conspiracy theory. It's a fact. The man who invented the battery was in the documentary "Who killed the electric car" and he openly admitted he sold the battery technology to GM, and later GM sold it to oil interests.
Show us that you do more than post wisecracks. Since solutions were posted repeatedly~snip~
Nope - I have not seen one post of yours present ANY original thought or solution. Simple regurgitations of that which was previously published in The Economist do NOT count. Try again.
Anyone can read The Economist and numerous other publications.
Many readers simply seek facts that agree with their political agenda – ignore everything else.
Those solutions have been posted repeatedly. tw, Show us that you read to understand; not read to simply reinforce a political agenda. You can answer your own question IF you comprehended what contradicts political bias.
True, anyone can read The Economist as tw has repeatedly posted to a point beyond redundancy. PLEASE POST original solutions and/or suggestions without quoting The Economist - just once. No mental midgets or 85% of top management allowed. Criticism will not work either. Since tw has such a high opinion of him/herself, this should be easy and should take no more than two paragraphs. No political agenda, nor biases allowed. Now please try again. Oh and answering a question by directing another poster to answer if for you doesn't count either. That would amount to simply attacking another poster which we all know tw would never do. :headshake
So did we get to any conclusion on the matter?
well the government hasn't either.
I dunno -I'm eagerly awaiting tw's response. He has had a lot of insight in other areas, I imagine he will on this one too.
I dunno -I'm eagerly awaiting tw's response. He has had a lot of insight in other areas, I imagine he will on this one too.
When you list the many 'already posted' suggestions, then you have finally read what was posted and a useful conversation can occur. Obviously, you want to argue in the tradition and style of Rush Limbaugh. The topic is "Saving the US Auto Industry" - not entertaining cheap shots. Read what was posted since the question obviously was answered long ago.
Why do you again ignore what was posted? Why do you routinely post with no useful facts? Why do you never demonstrate knowledge?
From MarketWatch of 7 Dec 2008 in "Lawmakers close to deal on Big Three
Dodd says GM chief should resign, Shelby threatens filibuste"
Meanwhile, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, voiced support for a rescue by added that GM Chief Executive Rick Wagoner should step down.
Were lawmakers so dumb as to not see this obvious problem? Well, Mulally may actually be good for Ford. Ford does not need the money. Ford, after eliminating the bean counter Jaques Nasser, finally designed some 70 Horsepower per liter engines - albeit 20 years too late. But finally, car guys were allowed to design something.
Both Nardelli and Wagoner have a history of running companies destructively. Nardelli did bad things to Home Depot and was paid $200million to go away. Wagoner created record losses in GM North America and was therefore rewarded with the top executive position. Highest auto profit margins are in North America - and Wagoner still created record losses.
Well, maybe the powers that be have been silent so that the number one problems make themselves obvious. Maybe waiting for the Board of Directors to finally eliminate the obvious problem. One could not be more dumb by blaming GM's entire problem on economic conditions. Wagoner said GM has a good products and productive factories. Hardly. Wagoner said GM's only problem is the economy. Ostrich mentality. Wagoner has no restructuring plans because Wagoner is an MBA - is that much divorced from reality. So maybe Congress is letting Wagoner and Nardelli simply hang themselves?
Unfortunately, the longer these problems exist without any solution planning, the more imperiled are the jobs of all Americans - especially auto workers. Neither GM nor Chrysler have any serious plans to fix themselves. In both cases, their #1 problem still remains in denial.
So what do dumb executives do? They again discuss a merger as if the myth - economies of scale - will solve everything. Another myth taugh in to business school graduates.
Nope - I have not seen one post of yours present ANY original thought or solution. Simple regurgitations of that which was previously published in The Economist do NOT count. Try again.
Criticism will not work either ...and should take no more than two paragraphs. No political agenda, nor biases allowed. Oh and ... directing another poster to answer if for you doesn't count either. That would amount to simply attacking another poster which we all know tw would never do. :headshake
When you list the many 'already posted' suggestions, then you have finally read what was posted and a useful conversation can occur. Obviously, you want to argue in the tradition and style of Rush Limbaugh. The topic is "Saving the US Auto Industry" - not entertaining cheap shots. Read what was posted since the question obviously was answered long ago.
Why do you again ignore what was posted? Why do you routinely post with no useful facts? Why do you never demonstrate knowledge?
Hmmm?
Well, maybe the powers that be have been silent so that the number one problems make themselves obvious. Maybe waiting for the Board of Directors to finally eliminate the obvious problem. One could not be more dumb by blaming GM's entire problem on economic conditions.
GM's Board of Directors did it again - today reaffirmed support for the man who drive GM North America into record losses and now is driving all of GM into massive losses. Denial is that widespread in GM.
Meanwhile, those who will oversee auto company restructuring are defined by some Democratic leaders as
one or more officers from the executive branch with appropriate expertise in such areas as economic stabilization, financial aid to commerce and industry, financial restructuring, energy efficiency and environmental protection.
IOW they also want another bean counter; not a car guy.
Well, the US government is becoming more socialist every month. Having become owners of AIG and other financial companies, now government will owns auto companies. At what point do we let free market forced fix companies by eliminating the #1 problem - top management? GM is going to restructure when its CEO says the problem is not inside GM?
How much does a mirror cost? Apparently $15billion cannot buy one.
GM's vice chairman remains just as myopic; in denial. Lutz said
My sense of frustration is that all of this is hopelessly out of date. Much of what I read and hear is reflective of the criticism that would have been legitimate of General Motors in the 1980s, but not today.
GM still does not even have a (real) hybrid or 70 horsepower per liter engines in all cars. Innovations that were suppose to be implemented in the 1990s and 1980s.
How do you feel about the car czar position? I hear they are looking for someone.
I'll second tw for car czar.
From here.
But that was before the shady story of Cerberus, the uber-connected private equity firm that owns Chrysler, reared its three ugly heads over the weekend.
snip
Turns out that Cerberus CEO John Snow, who spent three-and-a-half lackluster, and some might say lap-doggish, years as President Bush's second Treasury secretary, is leading a who's who of crony capitalists in a lobbying campaign for a taxpayer bailout to "salvage Cerberus' investment in Chrysler."
snip
Of course, Cerberus is sparing no expense to spare their investors any exposure. Together with Chrysler, it has spent $7 million to hire such high-rent lobbyists as Dan Quayle (who runs one of Cerberus' international units), former Sen. John Breaux (D-La.) and former Bush legislative liaison David Hobbs. Their goal: $7 billion from the auto industry bailout package Congress is working on now and another $8.5 billion in loans from the Energy Department that have already been authorized.
snip
I am not a finance expert, but what makes this episode so outrageous is that even a casual observer can see what a taxpayer ripoff Cerberus appears to be getting away with--but Congress and the Bush administration somehow cannot or will not. Why are they unable tell the obvious difference between General Motors (nyse: GM - news - people ) and Chrysler? GM is broke, can't get a loan and is actually facing an emergency. Via Cerberus, on the other hand, Chrysler has access to loads of capital, and the only thing collapsing is its credibility.
Ain't it grand? I suspect much more of this bail-out piñata is going to keep the rich kids rich. :mad:
Ain't it grand? I suspect much more of this bail-out piñata is going to keep the rich kids rich.
There are many other examples. Simply follow the employment trails that lead through Goldman Sachs. Many more questionable relationships are associated with the monies.
We would be much smarter to give that money to Cisco, General Mills, Honda, Johnson & Johnson, and other companies who are productive - advance mankind - meet the definition of patriotic American. The great societies don't try to protect jobs in defective companies such as USX (US Steel). Great societies create new jobs where innovation is alive and rampant.
Ain't it grand? I suspect much more of this bail-out piñata is going to keep the rich kids rich. :mad:
That's the plan. Saving banks did little else. We just had to be convinced that we live in a special new economy.
It looks like the gascar bailout is not happening for now. The GOP Senate doesn't want to subsidise unions, but the candy machine will probably be broken by the new Congress.
I vote for Jay Leno.
I vote for Click and Clack, The Tappet Brothers.
http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/2008/12/why-am-i-not-surprised.html
Did you know that your Senators and your Congressmen are getting a $5,000 raise on January 1st?
That must be for all of the great work that they have done spending your tax dollars and putting your grandchildren on the hook for trillions and trillions of dollars.
.. how many of you out there who own your own business are giving $5,000 cost of living adjustments to your employees right now? How many of you have worked for years without a raise that won't even keep up with inflation? Or a raise at all?
Congress is getting one....all thanks to your tax dollars.
We'll just call that their morality bonus. I'm sure they deserve it.
And pretty much every one of them could make more in private practice.
In the short term or what they'll make over the next 25 years?
And pretty much every one of them could make more in private practice.
I am not sure of the point, but don't you think a raise at this point is in bad taste considering the current state of affairs?
I'm just saying I don't think they are overpaid. $169,300 a year is not a lot for someone in that type of position.
Edit: It's a 2.95 % raise. Even I got a bigger raise than that this year.
Edit again: And consider that every one of them has two residences to maintain. One in DC and one in their home jurisdiction.
I'm just saying I don't think they are overpaid. $169,300 a year is not a lot for someone in that type of position.
Agreed. But I do think they need to consider that they serve at the will of the people, for the people. They can reap their bennies upon exit from the Congress where they gain their popularity and can become rich later, after service. I would suggest that all levels of government, including retirement, and the military, forgo any cost of living increases or raises until things smooth out in a few years. JMHO
Very few of those guys are there for the annual salary, I think. The perks package might be attractive though. ;)
How many terms do they have to serve before they qualify for retirement?
How's that medical plan?
How about travel fees?
OooohOoooh, and speaking fees after they're ousted?
Book advances?
Lobbiest jobs?
And those are just some of their legal sources of income.
"That type of position"? What is comparable, Al Capone? No wait, he worked full time.
I'm just saying I don't think they are overpaid. $169,300 a year is not a lot for someone in that type of position.
Edit: It's a 2.95 % raise. Even I got a bigger raise than that this year.
But there are an awful lot of voters who took massive payCUTS this year. Eh, I don't really blame anyone for taking more money, it just seems like a pretty dumb move when the clamoring is about poor american, unemployment, and a soaring deficit. Yet more good PR work from the men and women in DC.
Very few of those guys are there for the annual salary, I think. The perks package might be attractive though. ;)
How many terms do they have to serve before they qualify for retirement?
How's that medical plan?
How about travel fees?
OooohOoooh, and speaking fees after they're ousted?
Book advances?
Lobbiest jobs?
And those are just some of their legal sources of income.
Yes, there are lots of perks. But those perks don't pay the bills until after they leave congress. They make about the same as a junior level lawyer at a big firm, but have to maintain two residences.
I've got a much bigger problem with CEO salaries that are hundreds or thousands of time greater than the national average than I have with these guys who make three or four times the national average.
Agreed. But I do think they need to consider that they serve at the will of the people, for the people. They can reap their bennies upon exit from the Congress where they gain their popularity and can become rich later, after service. I would suggest that all levels of government, including retirement, and the military, forgo any cost of living increases or raises until things smooth out in a few years. JMHO
I will go along with that once a worker on a GM assembly line agrees to give up some of their 70 bucks an hour as a small sacrifice for saving their own jobs and livelihood. That's approximately 145 grand a year some of them make for the responsibility of putting a nut on a bolt. And in the grand scheme, aren't the wages of lower and higher level workers at GM, the subsequent failed business model, the domino effect of all the related businesses failing a huge part of our financial crisis in the first place?
Public service perhaps shouldn't make a billion dollars an hour, but the wages shouldn't be so low as to preclude anyone from ever even considering it as a viable employment option. As it is, the responsibilities they have are not really in line with what high level executives are paid. Small sacrifice for the greater good.
Exactly what selfish GM should do. Given the choice of sacrificing a bit (and still making a wage most of us will never ever see, even those of us in professional positions) or just letting the whole thing fall apart resulting in much worse economic conditions, the choice seems to be "fuck it...let it fall apart. I won't give up NUTTIN'."
I find this attitude puke-worthy.
FWIW - I'm looking at a decrease in income of about 30% for '09. My salary hasn't been increased in 4 years although that is not abnormal in sales. If I want a raise, I have to sell more.
Yes, there are lots of perks. But those perks don't pay the bills until after they leave congress. They make about the same as a junior level lawyer at a big firm, but have to maintain two residences.
I'd like to see who is paying for that 2nd residence too and all the travel time between them.
I've got a much bigger problem with CEO salaries that are hundreds or thousands of time greater than the national average than I have with these guys who make three or four times the national average.
That doesn't let these guys off the hook though. Granted the CEO's are making way too much as well, but for congress to take a raise while asking others to tighten up and sacrifice "for he good of all" is sickening.
I vehemently disagree. See previous post.
We have the same thing going on at the state level, in PA. The state congressmen that didn't want to accept the raise were told they had to take it by law. A couple stated they would give it to charity.
I'd like to see who is paying for that 2nd residence too and all the travel time between them.
They pay for the 2nd residence, and the taxpayer pays for the travel.
They[COLOR="Red"] 're supposed to [/COLOR]pay for the 2nd residence, and the taxpayer pays for the travel.
Fixed that for ya. :haha:
That doesn't let these guys off the hook though. Granted the CEO's are making way too much as well, but for congress to take a raise while asking others to tighten up and sacrifice "for he good of all" is sickening.
Considering the job they have done so far I must agree. They shouldn't get another damm dime.
Considering the job they have done so far I must agree. They shouldn't get another damm dime.
We just had an election. That was the chance to keep them from getting another damn dime. If they were asked to serve another term by the people, they deserve to be paid for their work.
Absolutely. They deserve to be paid for their work. Not paid more. Not when the rest of the country is bleeding.
I will go along with that once a worker on a GM assembly line agrees to give up some of their 70 bucks an hour as a small sacrifice for saving their own jobs and livelihood. That's approximately 145 grand a year some of them make for the responsibility of putting a nut on a bolt. And in the grand scheme, aren't the wages of lower and higher level workers at GM, the subsequent failed business model, the domino effect of all the related businesses failing a huge part of our financial crisis in the first place?
Public service perhaps shouldn't make a billion dollars an hour, but the wages shouldn't be so low as to preclude anyone from ever even considering it as a viable employment option. As it is, the responsibilities they have are not really in line with what high level executives are paid. Small sacrifice for the greater good.
Exactly what selfish GM should do. Given the choice of sacrificing a bit (and still making a wage most of us will never ever see, even those of us in professional positions) or just letting the whole thing fall apart resulting in much worse economic conditions, the choice seems to be "fuck it...let it fall apart. I won't give up NUTTIN'."
I find this attitude puke-worthy.
You are seriously misinformed here Shawnee. The average hourly wage for an Autoworker is more like $28/hr and it only encompasses about 10% of the companies total expenses. Starting pay is actually $12 -13/hr, which is a result of the latest concessions given to the companies from the union.
The $70/hr is a total package the companies put together to represent hourly wage, overtime (which there has been little to none in the last year), vacation and health benefits, and pension and health benefits for retirees...which by the way is the main drain. The Jap companies do not have the same problem because they haven't been in business here for decades and so do not have the same retirees to deal with.
Blaming the union autoworkers for this downfall is just wrong and is really the result of the anti-union campaign that the companies have been working on and spending millions on for years now.
My husband has been a union auto worker for 12 years. We are not living high off the hog and nowhere near it. Also, he had to have neck surgery due to two herniated disks that immobilized his right arm. This injury was more than likely caused by the job...the stress of repetition is pretty hard on the body. Our doctor said that he sees most of this back and neck injuries from the autoworkers. Tell me Shawnee, is $60,000 a year worth it to you if it means your are going to suffer pain and disability for the rest of your retirement years as a result?
I make a lot less for mental pain that results in mental disability. ;)
Seriously, homeless guy totally did not get that because I wasn't physically working hard, my previous job was not stressful or difficult. Also, believe me, physical labor is not unknown to me. I crawled through strawberry fields for a quarter a quart, and have worked since I was 13. That includes all kinds of jobs, including one where I was testing some rf filters with a load that, if I bumped against a wire, I would have been cooked like a hotdog in a microwave. Eh...and I was educated to do that. Eh, and I made 12 bucks an hour.
I will admit the 70/hour figure was manipulated...and I am hard pressed to find an article which either states that they really only make a buck fiddy an hour or that they make 70. Here is an article outlining the deception, with some pretty good argument comments.
http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/market-movers/2008/11/18/the-return-of-the-70-per-hour-meme?tid=true
The health care for these workers is, as you illustrated, very expensive because of repetitive injuries. This does not make their job more important than a school teacher, imho. All jobs have risks, whether physical or mental or the fear of some nut coming in with a firearm.
And I also do not believe that small sacrifices would bring GM employees to poverty level; the news I heard this morning was that they were being asked to think about wages more along the lines of Honda and Toyota. They flatly refused. Again...let the industry die instead? Honda workers around here are doing quite well, and will tell you that. Unions have served their purpose; they do not work in today's economy.
And nothing negates in my mind retired workers bragging about how easy they had it back in the day. I'm sorry, it's the way I see it from personal accounts.
I've taken pay cuts to benefit my employers before. It meant my cow orker in the next office and the guy down the hall could keep working, too.
Im unsure of why the union is stonewalling any wage changes at this moment, but I think its something they are going to lose in the long run anyway. But I also don't know the whole story on that situation either...it was only just mentioned in the news.
Union workers have been making concessions for years now, its not like they are resistant to sacrificing. You do have to understand, though, they are coming from a really high stand point when the auto industry was raking in billion and billions, and they were just sharing in that wealth.
I understand the bitterness that the average Joe has toward the auto industry, but I have my own too. There is a side of me that wants the industry to massively fail as a result of the people who are intent on not saving it, just to see the misery that WILL come to them as a result of what happens to this country when it does. Thats my shortcoming and its a result of dealing with short-sighted people. I'm sorry if that sound like a dig at you, its not really, I value your insight Shawnee.
And I also do not believe that small sacrifices would bring GM employees to poverty level; the news I heard this morning was that they were being asked to think about wages more along the lines of Honda and Toyota.
So what is the objective? To save the auto industry? To make that industry productive? How many times must I post these numbers? Where is the cost in a car? Why does GM lose maybe $700 or $1000 on every car? Labor amounts to a tiny part of that cost and does not account for GMs grossly expensive products.
Where are almost all those losses found? Did 70 horsepower per liter not make the problem obvious when posted in the Cellar how many years ago? Seven?
GM cars cost more to build than any other car because even the engines need two extra pistons in every car. Whereas a patriotic car has maybe 25 or 30 man hours to build the entire car, GM cars take 40 and more.
So we blame the employees - or do we go after the only reason for those numbers? Employees did not choose to use pathetic 52 and 62 hp/liter engines. Employees did not choose to stifle that innovation for 35 years. Employees did not spend massive capital funds to install robots to deliver parts to the assembly lines. Employees did not stifle innovation until finally required by government regulation. Employees did not choose to violate basic principles of quality taught by Deming to Toyota et al 40 years ago. Who did all that? Who are these people you are not blaming in every post - if addressing GM's only problem?
Attacking unions is a symptom that you have completely ignored the numbers. Attacking the unions means you have ignored my every Cellar post about GM for the past 20 some years. Unions did not create these significant GM problems.
We had a discussion previously about wheel alignment. Was it not yet obvious, just from that discussion, why GM was failing? Why do any GM cars require annual wheel alignment? Did unions also create that failure? Of course not. That is why GM loses maybe $700 or $1000 on every car. But then, for as long as UT has known me, I have been accurately critical of GM (and amazed anyone was buying their crap).
I thought the purpose was to make GM profitable. A post would attack GMs real problems and not cite the mythical salary numbers. GM is a company where cars are so poorly designed – where assembly plants are so poorly designed – that its auto products must be sold at a loss. GM even bought a rental car company just to create sales - their products have so long been that bad. 25% of GMs sales were only to employee families. A fact that The Economist long ago called socialism. A fact that also is not traceable to unions – and directly traceable to top management. So why do you blame unions? I thought the objective was to fix GM – to make it profitable?
I dunno...huh, what?
t-dub...a person could actually agree with you and you'd pull one of your confusing posts. Eh...I'm bored and moving on. You can enlighten me (i.e. regurgitate some talking head's ideas) some other time.
And Pico...thanks for the conversation. I certainly hope for the best for you and yours. I also care about what happens to the numbers upon numbers of folks who will be affected. I often go all the way to one side before thinking and sliding over a bit. :) You're good people.
"That type of position"? What is comparable, Al Capone? No wait, he worked full time.
Nicely played.
I'll be getting the 0% cost of living adjustment, so we can maintain full staffing. [COLOR="White"]excepting that person who was escorted out...[/COLOR]
Hey Bruce, where's the link that you sent? Subject. Stinks. About the folks who own Chrysler. Found it.
http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/09/chrysler-cerberus-bailout-oped-cx_dg_1210gerstein.htmlInnovation.
"Conservatively," Goodwin muses, scratching his chin, "it'll get 60 miles to the gallon. With 2,000 foot-pounds of torque. You'll be able to smoke the tires. And it's going to be superefficient."
He laughs. "Think about it: a 5,000-pound vehicle that gets 60 miles to the gallon and does zero to 60 in five seconds!"
snip
Goodwin's work proves that a counterattack is possible, and maybe easier than many of us imagined. If the dream is a big, badass ride that's also clean, well, he's there already. As he points out, his conversions consist almost entirely of taking stock GM parts and snapping them together in clever new ways. "They could do all this stuff if they wanted to," he tells me, slapping on a visor and hunching over an arc welder. "The technology has been there forever. They make 90% of the components I use." He doesn't have an engineering degree; he didn't even go to high school: "I've just been messing around and seeing what I can do."
He may be a genius, he may be crazy, but he sure is fun.;)
I heard a GM "commercial" on NPR yesterday. They said something about Chevy Volt being ready to go... except a little thing called batteries. :rolleyes:
Innovation.He may be a genius, he may be crazy, but he sure is fun.;)
If Congress really wants to play at being industrialists they should break up GM and give Goodwin the keys to Chevy Inc.
Along the way, Goodwin also adopted two views common among Americans, but typically thought to be in conflict: a love of big cars and a concern about the environment. He is an avid, if somewhat nonideological, environmentalist. He believes global warming is a serious problem, that reliance on foreign oil is a mistake, and that butt-kicking fuel economy is just good for business. But Goodwin is also guiltlessly addicted to enormous, brawling rides, precisely the sort known to suck down Saudi gasoline. (I spied one lonely small sports car in the corner of his garage, but he confessed he has no plans to work on it right now.) When he picked me up from my hotel, he drove a four-door 2008 Cadillac Escalade XL that should have had its own tugboat. He parallel parked it in one try. He's a John Wayne muther-fucker. Get off your ass Detroit.
I heard a GM "commercial" on NPR yesterday. They said something about Chevy Volt being ready to go... except a little thing called batteries. :rolleyes:
Yea, ready to go in 2011.
Some more info on the Volt
GM Says Chevrolet Volt Won't 'Pay the Rent'
General Motors is pouring money into the Chevrolet Volt but concedes it won't make money on the range-extended electric vehicle anytime soon.
Newly installed CEO Fritz Henderson argues that pioneering projects like the Volt typically lose money until the technology catches on. It is simply the cost of doing business.
"On some products, the costs, particularly in advanced technologies, are high," he said in a lengthy interview with Automotive News (free subscription required). "The Volt is a case study. And that means it doesn't necessarily pay the rent. It actually consumes rent when it's launched."
In other words, General Motors is going to lose its shirt until the Volt establishes itself in the marketplace. Former vice chairman Bob Lutz said as much a year ago. But it is a price that must be paid, and GM should be commended for remaining committed to the Volt.
The Obama Administration doesn't understand that.
"You don't get to skip Gen 1," Henderson said. "You've got to do Gen 1 and 2 to get to Gen 3. And what we want to do is make sure we launch the car well, that we get the maximum learning from it, that it's successful in the market so that when we get to Gen 2, we've got the most cost out of it we can."
President Obama's auto task force doesn't see it that way. It says the Volt is too little, too late and too expensive to save the beleaguered automaker, and it recently chastised GM for pumping so much money into the Volt instead of developing more fuel-efficient gasoline cars.
That's short-sighted. GM is developing more fuel-efficient vehicles. It offers 18 models that deliver 30 mpg or more. That's more than any other automaker. It also offers eight hybrid models. This isn't an either-or equation — GM needs to develop more fuel efficient cars alongside the Volt, and it's stupid to expect the Volt to be a money-maker out of the gate.
"It is unreasonable to expect the Volt and any similar new technology to be immediately profitable when other technologies that started with a price premium, such as the Toyota Prius, became wild successes," said Chelsea Sexton, an advisory board member of Plug-In America. "Even the first DVD player cost many times more than it does today."
The feds aren't convinced. General Motors has sought $10.3 billion in Department of Energy loans to develop new fuel-efficient vehicles, including the Volt. But GM says it won't get the money until the Obama administration is satisfied the company is financially viable.
DETROIT – General Motors Corp. is planning to temporarily close most of its U.S. factories for up to nine weeks this summer because of slumping sales and growing inventories of unsold vehicles, two people briefed on the plan said Wednesday.
The exact dates of the closures are not known.
GM spokesman Chris Lee would not comment
Thousands of workers could be laid off but would still get most of their pay because their United Auto Workers union contract requires the company to make up much of the difference between state unemployment benefits and their wages.
The automaker's sales were down 49 percent in the first quarter compared with the same period last year
Can't we just get this over with? Isn't it the best (of the worst) case scenario to just DO IT ALREADY?
:( i quake at the prospect of what that will do to the parts industry.
But but but..... How come the workers are allowed to be paid on top of unemployment benefit. if the company is still paying them anything they're not damn well unemployed. beest had a week unemployed last year, but his company owed him a day of paid vaction, so they paid him for one day and it was deducted from his unemployment. Why isn't what GM pays their wotkers deducted from theirs? Surely Union contracts cannot override State laws?
/angry layperson
i quake at the prospect of what that will do to the parts industry.
Good part companies will simply make more parts for productive companies that actually let engineers do designing. Those who cannot meet fundamental quality concepts (that are required by the better auto companies) will die. A victim of their inability to adapt to quality defined even by Deming in Japan in the 1950s.
Some must die. They ran to manufacturers who buy parts only on price. Whose autos demonstrate what happens by ignoring Deming, innovation, and other reasons why GM and Chrysler must now enter bankruptcy.
Jobs must be lost, in part, because bean counters played money game rather than surrender the company to innovators. 1991 - GM was four hours away from bankruptcy. Instead GM played money games such as shorting pension funds, then inventing a myth about legacy costs to hide their mismanagement.
Since too many Americans continued to buy their myths and crap, now the damage must be deeper and more painful. Time to save these jobs was back in the 1990 when it was obvious what was needed. Just another example of why good Americans buy using the free market - ignore anti-American myths such as "buy American".
Time to save those jobs was when Clinton tried to do it by giving them hundreds of $millions to design hybrids. Clinton administration knew what was necessary to save jobs. The solution was subverted by the George Jr administration and Congress that stopped demanding innovation from automakers.
Time to pay. Fundamental economics demands that it be painful.
Of course, GM today all but said they will go bankrupt on 1 June. Chrysler has little hope of averting bankruptcy. Now that GM no longer had Wagoner, GM is slowly admitting how bad their company and products really are. GM also will shutdown factories for up to 9 weeks this summer. At least GM will not make the mistake of manufacturing more bad vehicles as Chrysler did in 1978.
Parts companies will go under - many of them, because the borrow and spend game is O-V-E-R. Time for us all to live within our means. We all better get used to it and fast. Spending money one does not have does not work.
The false demand has vanished and the fictional wealth that was being spent is gone.
Supply will shrink to that of the real demand. The strong shall survive and the weaker companies will perish.
Simple irrefutable facts.
:( i quake at the prospect of what that will do to the parts industry.
But but but..... How come the workers are allowed to be paid on top of unemployment benefit. if the company is still paying them anything they're not damn well unemployed. beest had a week unemployed last year, but his company owed him a day of paid vaction, so they paid him for one day and it was deducted from his unemployment. Why isn't what GM pays their wotkers deducted from theirs? Surely Union contracts cannot override State laws?
/angry layperson
yea, that doesn't seem right.
I never understood why a company would have to borrow money to pay workers or bills. If you grow so fast that you can't make your bills with your profits, maybe you need to scale back.
And the only reason why GM might make more fuel efficient cars than anyone else, is because they make so many damn differnet kinds of cars. They also probably the most ineffecient cars.
What kills me is from the 70s, after the big fuel shortage, until 1983 the fuel efficiency doubled. After that it stood still. In addition, the weight of cars increased about 1000 pounds and horsepower doubled as well, which added to inefficiency. Less than 1% of the energy in the tank actually moves the car. From 1985 until 2007 mileage standards remained unchanged but big truck and SUV sales almost doubled. Because these vehicles have lower standards than cars,
average fuel economy today is actually a bit less than it was 20 years ago, despite hard-won gains in engine efficiency.
I got all this information last night when I watched NOVA, Car of the Future. You can check it here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/car/
They had previews of all kinds of future cars plus ones that are available now, like the Tesla. But the Tesla is expensive, it is comparable to other high end sports cars. It is fully electric though. It goes 250 miles on a single charge. And it is 85% efficient, as opposed to the 20% or less efficient combustion engine. Tesla is working on a more affordable family style car, but it will still be in a higher price range than a lot of people can afford, like a Lexus or BMW or Mercedes or something.
Maybe Congress should be giving money to people like that, to help bring down the prices so more people can afford them.
http://www.teslamotors.com/And the only reason why GM might make more fuel efficient cars than anyone else, is because they make so many damn differnet kinds of cars.
Where are these numbers that GM makes more fuel efficient cars than anyone else? I ran those numbers. I don't see it. I see that GM's "19 models above 30 MPG" is a myth. How many models does GM have? I count 40. Only 12 are above 20 MPG. Of those, all but one are less than 26 MPG.
Mercedes that has nothing but big cars has same fuel efficiency numbers even though GM has many small cars. This becomes obvious once we add other numbers. Mercedes cars routinely do 70 horsepower per liter or higher. GM still has cars that remain evn in the 50s. That fundamental world standard says who implies who needs bankruptcy to eliminate MBA management.
Why is GM hurting? GM cars are so poor - so designed by business school graduates - that many models still require two extra pistons just to equal a standard performance engine. So they blame the unions. What is the background of a chief engineer? Industrial arts. Somebody who better understands fashion.
Why did fuel economy increase in the 1970s? Less pollution (what myth purveyors spin as pollution control equipment) means a car burns more fuel for energy and less fuel wasted as pollution. In short, government regulation required automakers use electronic ignition, fuel injection, and other innovations that had existed decades and generations previously. Once we stopped demanding reduced pollution, then gas mileage stopped increasing.
Yes, it remains a lie: decreased pollution means decreased gas mileage. Propaganda that lives on when one forgets to ask embarrassing questions and demand the numbers. Same myths claim GM has high mileage cars. World standard is just under 21 MPG. GM's number is just over 18 MPG because GM's products were designed in accounting departments.
So many high mileage cars from GM is a GM claim. Therefore it is probably a lie. I did the numbers. Reality. GM's mileage numbers are only higher than Chrysler - another crappy auto company - that averages 17 MPG.
To claim profits, GM shorted their pension funds. Then lied by spinning it unfair legacy costs. (BTW, the Fox News propagandist also said same.) If (more likely, when) bankruptcy occurs, GM's obligations to pensioners would disappear. This means more $billions from the government (PBGC). But that only covers part of the $billions that GM shorted to claim profits and justify massive bonuses to their executives. Why does GM owe so much? Instead of addressing reasons for bankruptcy in 1991, bean counters (including Rick Wagoner) shorted the pension funds. When those employees were working, GM simply forgot to fund the pension fund. When those employees retired, GM still had not funded the pension fund.
This problem was obvious to everyone (who wanted to know) for the past 15 years. Some of us helped GM harm America. Some continued to buy the "Heart attack of America". Shame on anyone who bought a GM product in the past 15 years - helped GM continue their many scams.
To cover some debts, GM sold off Hughes Electronics. All profits from that sale (some tens of $billions) went into the pension funds. But that still was not enough because GM lies (creative accounting) was that massive. How large? From the Washington Post of 24 Apr 2009:
Retired Auto Workers Face Big Hit
If the GM pension plans are terminated, they would be at least $20 billion underfunded, according to the government's Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. The federal agency would insure about $4 billion of that gap, leaving the GM pension plans with $100 billion in obligations and only $84 billion in assets.
Likewise, if the Chrysler pension plans are terminated, they would be at least $9 billion underfunded, according to the agency, which would insure about $2 billion of that. This would leave the Chrysler pension plans with $28 billion in obligations and only $20 billion of assets, according to the pension agency. ...
In addition to cuts in their pensions, the retirees also face potential reductions in their health benefits. GM owes $20 billion to its union retiree health fund, and Chrysler owes $10 billion to its fund.
Enron accounting has been alive and well. So extremists responded by subverting government oversight including the SEC - encouraged more Enron accounting.
For years, this Rick Wagoner promoted 'legacy costs' myth was so obvious that all should have known it. Nobody can deny the reality of a damning number that said GM was in trouble: 70 horsepower per liter engine.
More corporate welfare as government gets stuck with another $billions bill. How long ago had this event become obvious?
American protecting its turf
Enron accounting was alive and well and encouraged by deregulation. Time to start paying - and then Cellar extremists will again blame Obama.
Remember years ago when the LA Times defined how bad GM really was? So GM attacked the LA Times to bankrupt it. Of course. What's good for GM is good for America - no matter how much it harms America. That was the GM mantra even 30 years ago - for those who remember the 1970s. It never changed.
Good news though. America has many patriotic companies from Japan and Europe making cars here.
Shame on anyone who bought a GM product in the past 15 years - helped GM continue their many scams.
And you were doing so well, on a roll, up to this point. [SIZE="1"]sigh[/SIZE]:rolleyes:
They not only underfunded the pension plans a lot of what they did fund was invested in GM stock.
Where are these numbers that GM makes more fuel efficient cars than anyone else? I ran those numbers. I don't see it. I see that GM's...
I was just replying to someone else tw. I don't actually believe that either.
They not only underfunded the pension plans a lot of what they did fund was invested in GM stock.
I forgot about that one. Yes, they did that too. But I never knew how much.
Will never forget sitting in a GM lobby alongside a president of one of their part suppliers. He said sarcastically, "They will show me how I can cut my costs." GM's solution to 30 years of bad designs. Blame suppliers, unions, Japanese ...
They also played money games. Waiting 120 days to pay us. And still some believed their lies about 19 models exceeding 30 MPG. After all, they said it on TV.
Anyone who bough a GM car simply endorsed lying and creative accounting.
or they needed a car and didn't really give a damn about who lied or how they kept their books.
or they needed a car and didn't really give a damn about who lied or how they kept their books.
Sounds like an extremist.
Meanwhile, Pontiac is now officially on the block. A reality that was obvious even in early December last year:
Wagoner blames it all on the Economy!
Enron accounting is alive and well. How may $millions was Rick Wagoner's severance pay for doing to GM what Nardelli did to Home Depot, Fiorina did to HP, Akers did to IBM, Spindler and Sculley did to Apple, ...
Are you really so foolish to believe that more than a relative handful of consumers care about the financial strength or the management of the company that made the product they want? Not caring doesn't make someone an extremist but seeing everyone other than yourself as an extremist might qualify you as insane. They want what they want and that pretty much is the end of the story. Personally I wouldn't want a GM product but I see a lot of them on the road so someone must want them.
I really love my Chevy truck, but I just found out today I can get a new Azure convertible for only $15,000 down and $4250 for 84 months. ;)
Before you sign on that be sure to check Bentley's financials. They might be anti-American! Or... anti-Brit, or anti-Europe, or whatever!
Before you sign on that be sure to check Bentley's financials.
What does Bentley have to do with buying GM products to destroy American jobs?
I don't want to kill anyone. So after running 300 stop signs, I killed someone. But I did not want to? Is that your reasoning?
You buy a GM product to destroy America. You buy better products - the free market - to advance America and mankind.
In 1979, enough Americans got so patriotic as to stop buying Chrysler products. That saved Chrysler. In 1981, enough were patriotic as to stop buying Ford products. That saved Ford Motor. For more of the past 30 years, no innovation appeared in any GM product unless required by government regulation. Some so want that to continue as to let GM propaganda pervert that reality.
It was called the "Heart Attack of America" for good and indisputable reasons - some posted earlier (ie blame unions for two extra pistons in every vehicle). Real shame is why so many Americans must now lose their jobs. A problem that could have been averted decades ago if so many Americans had stopped buying obviously inferior products.
The worst of these Americans still foolishly promote "Buy American". A perfect example of propaganda that encourages the destruction of more Americans jobs.
You can say they don't want to destroy American jobs - just like I can say I do not want to kill anyone.
One bought GM products to destroy American jobs.
Are you really so foolish to believe that more than a relative handful of consumers care about the financial strength or the management of the company that made the product they want?
MBA school propaganda again. Long before financials say anything, the product has long been crap. Only bean counters would confuse what was posted with business school myths about 'consumers caring about the financial strength'.
Read Consumer Reports to see what the financials would be reporting four and ten years later. Read what Mary Ann Keller was writing in the Wall Street Journal so accurately that GM banned her from interviewing any GM employees. Read what the LA Times made obvious years ago - so GM took revenge. Or read the so many reports from Michelle Maynard.
Or see obvious numbers such as 70 horsepower per liter - a problem defined by GMs power train executive Heimbuch in 1990. "the payoff is being able to make the engine, transmission, and structure smaller to improve the car's efficiency". Instead, GM put even bigger engines with same low performance, pollution, and low gas mileage in even larger vehicles so that the same obsolete technology continued to be sold. Then bought Congressman to stop government from requiring innovation. This has been especially obvious the last eight years when everyone knows a president routinely stifled innovation.
While GM was still making 48 and 52 Hp/liter engines, Honda was testing the 100 hp/liter engine. We documented here some four(?) years ago that GMs were still doing only 52 Hp/liter.
Anyone could see how crappy GM product were ten and twenty years ago. You would foolishly discuss financials? Only a fool would promote such myths as if "Buy American" was good.
When the financials finally reflected reality, that company should have been confronting bankruptcy. How curious. GM was only four hours away from bankruptcy in 1991. Their products were that bad that long ago. Did GM make anything better since then? Obviously not. So GM then shorted the pension funds. And some Americans said that also was good - and bought more crap. "Good", they said. "Screw the workers."
Are you so foolish as to believe a product today is measured by the financials today? Only corrupt bean-counter types make that conclusion. GM's financials today are about how bad their products were four and ten years ago when so many Americans were saying “keep making crap”. Today’s GM (and Chrysler) products are even worse.
They encouraged GM management to play more money games so that every month, more GM employees must lose their jobs four and ten years later. Large parts of America so hated America as to still buy Chevys - with 1968 technology engines – and call themselves patriots. And then be so much more hateful as to blame the unions.
It really is simple. Forget the financials that report problems four and ten years later. Why would anyone buy an inferior product? The financial don't yet report how bad that product currently is. The real patriot instead believes in the free market - buy the best. Responsible analysis, news, and technical numbers have long demonstrated why a fool or one who hated America would buy a GM product. Financials only confirm what was obvious years ago.
You're letting the bullshit seep in again, tw. And you were doing so well. [SIZE="1"]sigh[/SIZE] :(
We vote for who runs the economy in what we buy. Rick Wagoner - who never once ran a successful operation but was made GM's CEO anyway - remained there because so many Americans voted for him to stay. They bought GM crap saying, "Keep making this crap." Finally Obama had to do what neither the customers, stockholders, or BoDs would. But somehow that reality is bullshit?
Then why didn't you buy the best car made?
Then why didn't you buy the best car made?
There is no "best car made". But there are cars made by people who innovate - also called patriotic Americans. Opposed to products designed by bean counters that routinely stifle innovation. Buy a GM car to stifle innovation - then blame everyone else. Say, "GM has stifled innovation for 30 years, makes crappy cars, and I love to contribute to the destruction of American jobs. I will buy more crap from people who even lie about their gasoline mileage." Drive one to realize how bad GM management has been - even so evil as to blame the unions.
GM management would not innovate until required by Federal regulations. There are good products. Then there are GM products that obviously destroy American jobs. Can only be sold using the "Buy American" myth. A myth that can only exist when one does not believe in the free market. One need only drive GM cars or view Consumer Reports to realize why a GM product means the destruction of American jobs and subverts principles that make free markets so productive.
So many have so hated America (bought a GM product four and ten years ago) that jobs must now be lost AND parts of America must be sold to foreigner to pay for the resulting debts.
There are plenty of good cars. Why did anyone then buy a GM product? Like it or not, realize it or not; job losses today are due to those who so hated Americans as to buy GM products.
How to put Americans back to work. Buy Honda or Toyota. Then American part suppliers can learn to and make more and better parts - become profitable again. Just another example of why free markets work; why "Buy American" does not.
Oh, so Nissan, the Koreans and Europeans are out.
The problem of GM's mismanagement has been well documented, especially of late. But what you're telling me is to buy a car that will be patriotic, that you approve of, rather than one that suits my wants and needs, like most people do.
Don't think that's going to set well with most people. Neither is calling them wackos, wingnuts or unpatriotic for doing so. Nope, you lose.
But what you're telling me is to buy a car that will be patriotic, that you approve of, rather than one that suits my wants and needs, like most people do.
I'm not telling you to do anything. But if you were patriotic, then you knew any 1990 or 2000 GM car was clearly destroying American jobs just by how it drives, its grossly oversized and noisy engine, excessive price and repair costs, its low gas mileage, its management repeatedly running to government to stop any requirements for innovation, ....
It's not proven as of late that GM management was bad. Anyone with respect for America knew that decades ago. It was that obvious that long ago. But then all one need do is drive a Pontiac or see so many neighbors with problems to know that buying a GM car even in the 1990s would only destroy American jobs. Again, simple principles of free market economics.
I am not telling you to do anything. Basic knowledge said you were only undermining America by purchasing the obviously inferior products. Good Americans believe in the free market. Ignorant Americans are told what to do by their 'communist' handlers: "Buy American" only because we say so. Subvert innovation and destroy American jobs. It was your choice - not mine.
Meanwhile, you invented this Nissan, Europeans, and Koreans are out. I did not say that. You did. But again. Your choice. Do you believe in the free market or do what communists and bad management want you to do - "Blindly buy American" only because they tell you to.
The patriot always bought the best. Therefore voted to advance America. Those are people who make American great.
OK, I need a pickup and I want a convertible. Make your recommendation for a convertible pickup.
OK, I need a pickup and I want a convertible. Make your recommendation for a convertible pickup.
You could have done the research. What were response sources recommending by using facts and numbers? And what year?
Good part companies will simply make more parts for productive companies that actually let engineers do designing. Those who cannot meet fundamental quality concepts (that are required by the better auto companies) will die.
right.
You have no idea about this business, do you?
Most parts companies make parts for all manufacturers. Not just the select few who meet your "good" criteria. they do their job and they do it well, but they haven't been paid for a while. By good and bad auto companies alike. Because when the bad ones don't pay, the good ones say "well why should we pay either?" And once the debtors go into chapter 11, they're protected.
You could have done the research. What were response sources recommending by using facts and numbers? And what year?
I did the research. There was only one, Chevy. I bought it and I love it. Maybe I should put magnetic flags all over it so my neighbors think I'm patriotic, ya think? :rolleyes:
Most parts companies make parts for all manufacturers. Not just the select few who meet your "good" criteria.
Those manufacturers manufactures will (in the future) be making more of better parts for better cars. If Chrysler disappears, the manufacturers make more those other parts for other companies.
Meanwhile, yes, many part companies must disappear. The time to avoid this problem was four, ten, and twenty years ago. Those who foolishly could only sell to GM (who did not go through a process of earning the right to sell to Toyota, et al) probably will go under. But time to have worried about this was many years ago when the problem was obvious.
My sympathies to a part company president who sat next to me and said, "GM will show me how to cut my costs." But then, his own statement should have (and hopefully) told him to start making parts for better companies.
We have all suffered because, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." So we voted the idiots back in office rather than fix the problem. Bankruptcies today could only have been averted back then - fundamental economics. Now many companies must go under.
I did the research. There was only one, Chevy. I bought it and I love it.
Worst of the worst 1999 to 2008 includes Chevy Colorado, Chevy S-10, and Chevy Blazer. Used cars to avoid for obvious reasons: 04-07 Chevy Colorado, numerous 99-08 Silverados, most all Suburbans, and 99-04 S-10s.
Among the various used trucks that remains reliable and recommend are the Ford F-150, F-250, and some Rangers. Of course, the world knows where better pickups are found - Toyota. Chevy trucks are so poor as to all but not be exportable.
Meanwhile reliablity of Chevy trucks show numerous below average and well below average ratings especially for their suspensions, body integrity and drive train.
Meanwhile consistently well above average are Fords with brakes being the only weakness. Or even much better are all Toyota trucks with virtually nothing below average.
Kind of obvious why GM cannot make money and why GM started dumping warranty costs back on the dealers again. Research does not say anything particular good about Chevy trucks.
Oh. And those Chevy pickups have such poor performance as to only average 14 and 16 MPG. Hell, even 6 liter Ford V-8s in the 1960s did better than that. Those numbers contradict your feelings. Which should we believe?
Those numbers also explain why buying a Chevy pickup years ago means more workers must lose their jobs today.
Good for you Bruce - As one of the MILLIONS of satisfied & loyal customers of American car manufacturers, I am sure that every hard working individuals who was involved in the process thanks you.
I wouldn't buy an American POS car if they paid me to. Unless it was a Tesla, but I don't believe they make them in America. At least when you buy Toyotas they are being made here, by American workers.
Excerpts from the NY Times of 27 Apr 2009:
G.M.’s Latest Plan Envisions a Much Smaller Automaker
G.M. said it would have to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection unless 90 percent of the vast bondholder group accepted the terms by June 1. ...
If bondholders approve the debt-for-equity exchange, they would own about 10 percent of G.M., making them a minority shareholder in a company controlled by the Treasury and the U.A.W.’s retiree trust. ...
Representative Thaddeus McCotter ... is urging the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, to disclose which G.M. bondholders have default swaps from the American International Group, the insurance company that was bailed out by the government.
As if these stories don't get complex enough. A new twist. Rather than agree to a swap of bonds for common stock, many bondholders with Credit Default Swaps from AIG can do better if GM goes bankrupt.
Those numbers contradict your feelings. Which should we believe?
And which ones were convertibles?
Picture this, GM sold off piece by piece and busted into half a dozen small innovative car companies building the cars people want and need. Let it fail.
This alternative seems to be the most viable. Weren't they smaller car companies to begin with who were then acquired and put into the huge megacorp that is now GM?
Bust it up and let the strong survive.
This alternative seems to be the most viable. ... Bust it up and let the strong survive.
GM intentionally restructured itself to make any breakup as difficult as possible. For example, all engineering was removed from the divisions. Many assembly plants were reconstituted into General Motors Assembly Division so that a breakup would be most difficult. It was done at the highest levels of GM management. Statements from many now retired GM executives.
How does one sell off Pontiac when their cars are made on the same assembly lines as Buicks and Chevys? Just one example.
Meanwhile a breakup does nothing to solve the problem. For example, too many platforms. VW does all models with only 3 platforms. Last I saw, GM had at least 13 platforms - I suspect that number is higher. GM even makes three different intermediate sized cars that don't share even one part. That is one problem.
Any solution (ie breakup) must solve these problems. Problems include too many platforms, built in factories that still are not flex type, using obsolete technologies (as some technologies were obsolete even 20 years ago), without management that comes from where the work gets done, and too many layers of management, in an industry that already has enough other companies that make superior products.
A breakup would not solve even one of those problems. GM wants to sell Hummer, Saturn, Pontiac, and Saab. Only Saab might sell. Nobody can make money on the other three. To sell them, GM would have to include guarantees (just like Mercedes did to sell Chrysler to Cerebus). GM would not provide guarantees to operations that would inevitably fail.
Best money comes from breaking down the factories and selling off the machines. GM is worth more in disassembled pieces than the entire company combined because it product designs are that inferior. For example, Telsa might be in the market for sections of a GM assembly line - to assemble their product in CA. It was one thing DeLorean desperately needed and could not get - used standard technology assembly line equipment.
Time to save Pontiac, Saturn, et al was back in 1991 when the spread sheets said GM was this bad. Instead, bean counters played money games for almost 20 years (and did not fix the problems). So economics takes revenge. Those divisions are worth only the equipment on factory floors. Since America must sell off things to pay of massive debts, that used equipment is best sold overseas.
Same occured in the mid and late 1970s.
How does one sell off Pontiac when their cars are made on the same assembly lines as Buicks and Chevys? Just one example.
You're behind the times, dub.
General Motors will
phase out the Pontiac brand in 2010, said Fritz Henderson.
You're behind the times, dub.
General Motors will in 2010, said Fritz Henderson.
Actually I posted that last Friday (four days ago). And that latest post says the same thing.
GM has two options. Sell Pontiac or sell off its pieces. Obviously, nobody will buy Pontiac (for reasons provided). So GM must 'phase out' Pontiac as defined previously. That means selling off factories only for their machines.
Meanwhile, view the numbers for that G8. The V-6 is a 70 Hp per liter engine. The V-8s are still paltry less thans. So Pontiac finally has a car doing same or less than what was world standard in the 1990s. Meanwhile, new many products from patriotic companies are now doing 80 hp per liter standard. But again, the numbers say why Pontiac must go. Their newest product is still over 10 years behind the competition.
Packaging factories or plants along with certain auto lines is another viable option that has been explored.
Pontiac should have never been "saved" it should have been taken out back and shot back in the 80's. GM has been producing multiples of the same car with a different name on it for years, decades. So has Ford and Chrysler. Why is there a Mercury brand? Same answer - they should have stopped producing these same cars with different names decades ago. It was a failed business plan. People just aren't as stupid as that anymore and the availability of and better designed/longer lasting foreign cars compounded the problem. Playing off the American spirit only lasted so long and that time has come and gone.
Pontiac should have never been "saved" it should have been taken out back and shot back in the 80's. GM has been producing multiples of the same car with a different name on it for years, decades. So has Ford and Chrysler. Why is there a Mercury brand? Same answer - they should have stopped producing these same cars with different names decades ago. It was a failed business plan.
The business plan works for VW. Passat, Jetta, Bug, TT, and other VWs are the same platform.
Problem was that GM's solutions did not come from car guys. That is when all GM designs were removed from the Divisions (where division presidents protected their innovators from corporate accountants) and moved into three GM super engineering groups. BOC (Buick, Oldsmobile, Cadillac) and CPC (Chevy Pontiac, GMC), and GM Coach and Bus.
Once the finance sheets report bad products, well, a company must go into emergency rescue as Chrysler did in 1979 (Iacocca and the K car) and Ford did in 1981 (Peterson and the Taurus).
GM did not do that when four hours from bankruptcy in 1991. Instead they shorted the pension funds and did other bean counter miracles.
Clinton realized this problem. So they offered Detroit a whole new paradigm. Government would pay for a new revolutionary design. So the government gave the auto companies hundreds of $millions to design Hybrids - Prodigy, Precept and ESX3.
And then a new administration stopped any requirements that the automakers innovation. With George Jr's arrival, all new propulsion designs and development were terminated. Even the 70 horsepower per liter engine remains quashed because no government regulation required it.
Pontiac, et al could have been saved. But that meant product people had to take charge. Instead, government in 2000 even encourages more bean counter games. That is when the demise of GM and Chrysler were inevitable.
Curiously, Ford had William Clay Ford - a car guy. Ford is viable because William Clay and Jaques Nasser are rumored to have had even two fist fights. Nasser was a bean counter all his life - starting in Australia. When William Clay replaced him in 2001, Ford started a desperate effort to save itself. As a result, Ford is viable. In serious trouble. But Ford can survive because they corrected the problem only at the very last minute - in 2001.
The business plan works for VW. Passat, Jetta, Bug, TT, and other VWs are the same platform. Blah blah blah
There need not be so many makes - not models all those you mentioned are VW vehicles. Chrysler & Dodge - same thing. Ford & Mercury - same thing.... Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, Saturn... They all make the same shoddily built cars with different names.
Its all a smokescreen to capture market share when virtually none of them could stand on their own against the better engineered, better built & longer lasting competitors vehicles.
There need not be so many makes - not models all those you mentioned are VW vehicles.
I never much understood why one would buy a Sable when the same car is sold in a Ford dealer as a Taurus. Maybe because Ford could franchise a second dealer in the same region - create competition.
TT selling under the Audi name is a VW product. You would not know it because VW does it correctly. Those listed models (and others) are the same one platform. VW could do it right - car guys making decisions. Roger Smith of GM could not even drive a car. He had no idea that the Chevy Vega and Cadillac Cimmeron looked like the same car. It did not say that on spread sheets.
How difficult was it to make any innovation decision in GM? I got in the elevator. The sign spelled "Empolyee" - the word spelled correctly. My union escort told me why all signs had been changes in only two day. Roger Smith had resigned two days ago. He spelled it "employe". So all signs were changed everywhere in GM with incorrect spelling. Then two days after he resigned, all signs were changed back to the correct spelling.
Smith made same cars in different divisions look alike. As long as they sold under different name plates, they would have different reputations. Same people designed GM products and even stifled the 70 hp per liter engine.
It took you all that just to agree with me - LOL You really are a funny guy no matter what they say.... and they say plenty.
It took you all that just to agree with me - LOL
Oh. So you really knew the TT was a VW product; but posted contrary anyway?
There is a difference between us. I don't know something without a long list of supporting facts. Soundbytes are sufficient reasoning for you.
Meanwhile, marketing of the same car under two different nameplates is curious. Curious are those who think one is superior to the other. Using feelings to *know* works on many people. I never could understand why so many want to be taken. Why would anyone know without first learning facts and numbers? And yet so many routinely do that even when facts are obvious and easily obtained. Ie Saddam's WMDs - a perfect example.
If I said this in a soundbyte, the same conclusion would only be a lie. Always necessary is supporting reasoning. Otherwise the entire post is wasted bandwidth or an article for Daily News readers.
Moving on to more facts. GM (a company worth less than $1billion) has been given $15billion in government assistance. Rick Wagoner said nine month ago that GM was losing money but did not need assistance. Now GM says they want government assistance raised to $27billion.
Enron accounting is alive and well.
From the Wall Street Journal of 30 Apr 2009:
Chrysler Chapter 11 Is Imminent
Talks between the Treasury Department and lenders aimed at keeping Chrysler LLC out of bankruptcy broke down Wednesday, making it all but certain the car maker will file for Chapter 11 protection Thursday, according to people familiar with the discussions.
Administration officials, who have been braced for a Chrysler bankruptcy filing for weeks, say all the pieces are in place to get the company through the court quickly, perhaps in a matter of weeks.
The administration had successfully strongarmed 70% of Chrysler's debtors to swap debt for cash. But the so many other smaller debtors (ie hedge funds) were refusing. The deal was also reported to provide Cerebus Capital with nothing. Other rumors said that Nardelli would be replaced probably by the CEO of Fiat. After all that, apparently Chrysler will instead file for bankruptcy on Thursday.
I suspect investors who had seen this coming and invested in Ford will prosper tomorrow. However, these things can often result in strange collateral damage. Thursday will be interesting.
You guys have just cancelled the importation of Aussie built Holden utes (to you, the Pontiac, some kind of pickup). The factory was already on 75% time, which they are cutting further, probably to 50%.
Fair enough call, sales were down 85% on this time last year.
Yup, times are tough all over.
You guys have just cancelled the importation of Aussie built Holden utes
Appreciate how important these changes are. For example, with contempt for free markets, George Jr said Chrysler was too big to fail; did anything necessary to protect cancer in America. Well, Obama has finally started fixing America by shaking Wall Street to the core. Telling Wall Street that if they continue to support economic perversion, then bankruptcy is one punishment.
Selling off America is necessary to pay for George Jr economic stimulus plans. Fiat will get Chrysler for peanuts. Cerebus Capital (Nardelli and friends) will be wiped out. Daimler will pay $1billion to Chrysler's pension funds. And America will sell off the remains to Fiat.
What will Fiat bring to save Chrysler? How did the French save Nissan? Same example used by Carlos Ghosen of Renault to save Nissan will probably be used by Sergio Marchionne to save Chrysler. How Marchionne first did the same thing in Fiat:
The single most important thing was to dismantle the organisation structure in Fiat. We tore it apart in 60 days, removing large numbers of leaders who had been there a long time and who represented an operating style that lay outside any proper understanding of market dynamics.
In short, he remove the reason for 85% of Fiat's problems.
Same concept were implemented by Iacocca in Chrysler and Petersen in Ford. Ford reduced 48 layers of management until only 5 remained. Same problem exists in Chrysler. Obama was shocked to learn that Chrysler had 10 times more management just in public communications compared to Fiat. A problem routinely found when management comes from business schools. Where image is more important than the product. So much management means a company in denial, innovation cannot happen, and unions get blamed. All symptoms in both Chrysler and GM.
Ghosen had to eliminate the same 'blame the employees' attitude - stop massive corporate infighting - before Nissan could be rescued. But management changes alone will not solve Chrysler. The bottom line: Chrysler products, like their factories, still suck.
Fiat under Marchionne had previously worked with GM to develop a new engine technology called (if I remember) multiple air porting. GM management suddenly backed out claiming the technology was too complex. But GM engineers privately said they were both shocked and impressed at the technical knowledge in Fiat. End result was that GM had to pay Fiat $2billion to end their alliance (yes GM's Wagoner was that stupid).
Rumors suggest that Fiat will soon introduce this revolutionary engine this year. Fiat would market these innovations through their newly acquired dealer network - which is Chrysler’s biggest asset. If this new engine technology is as innovative as the CVCC was to Honda (a Ford innovation stifled by Henry Ford for almost 20 years) or if as innovative as the 70 Hp per liter engine was to most all foreign automakers (a GM innovation stifled for 17 years), then Chrysler may be saved. A solution that addresses the product and that eliminates a reason for 85% of Chrysler's problems.
Of course, most Chrysler manufacturing is in Canada.
Marchionne has residual problems. He is still working on many Fiat problems. For example, like GM, Fiat had 19 platforms. That ridiculous number will only be down to six in 2012. Fiat still has many internal problems. Can Marchionne also implement massive management changes in both American and Canada?
Rescuing Chrysler will be a legendary solution that, of course, requires management that understands how the work gets done.
GM needs solutions just as radical. No import vehicle was going to save GM. Would a Ute save Pontiac? Of course not. Wagoner had to also be removed because solutions this radical are not possible under current GM management. The need for change this radical has been obvious even a decade ago – when the reader ignored propaganda and goes for the facts with a Great White attitude.
Clinton tried to save them in the 1990s when the problems were glaringly obvious. But an extremist agenda was to eliminate anything that represented or was started by Clinton. All this could have been averted. Will government mandated change be severe enough - or too little too late?
Yes, most people have little grasp of what is required to save these auto companies. Instead some even waste time with silly nonsense even about too much government in business. So many people remain in denial how bad both GM and Chrysler really are - financially, management wise, and products.
Appreciate how important these changes are. For example, with contempt for free markets, George Jr said Chrysler was too big to fail; did anything necessary to protect cancer in America. Well, Obama has finally started fixing America by shaking Wall Street to the core. Telling Wall Street that if they continue to support economic perversion, then bankruptcy is one punishment...
Too bad he isn't using the same kind of tactics with Wall Street and the banks. *heavy sigh*
Does anyone know if there are any crinimal investigations going on into the people/institutions that caused the economic collapse?
Considering more than half of them are our elected leaders I seriously doubt it.
DETROIT (AP) -- Chrysler LLC plans to fire up to 800 of its 3,200 dealers on Thursday, a lawyer seeking to represent the dealers said on a conference call.
The lawyer, Stephen Lerner, who heads the bankruptcy and restructuring practice of the law firm Squire Sanders, told dealers on the Tuesday call that the automaker plans to reject at least 800 franchise agreements, according to a dealer who listened to the call.
Chrysler will file a list of dealers it wants to retain with the U.S. bankruptcy court, said the dealer, who asked not to be identified because the call was confidential.
A Chrysler spokeswoman said Tuesday that the automaker is working to reduce the number of dealerships along with other restructuring actions. Spokeswoman Kathy Graham said the 800 number was just speculation.
Too little way too late.
Update
NEW YORK – General Motors on Friday told about 1,100 of its dealers — one in five — that they would be dropped by late next year, adding to the economic pain radiating from the beleaguered Detroit automakers to cities and towns across the country.
Including Chrysler's decision a day earlier to eliminate a quarter of its own, about 1,900 dealerships — many pillars of their communities and heavy advertisers for local media — learned in a matter of 48 hours that they would be forced either to sell fewer brands or close altogether.
The GM dealerships will be eliminated when their contracts end late next year.
"We're 98 years old. We're two years from a hundred, and I don't want to go out at 99 years," said Alan Bigelow, whose family runs a Cleveland-area Chevrolet dealer that learned it was on GM's hit list.
While GM doesn't own the dealers, the company says its network is too big, causing dealers to compete with each other and giving shoppers too much leverage to talk down prices and hurt future sales.
Several hundred of the GM dealers knew already they were headed for closure, but most of them learned for the first time Friday. An industry group says the GM and Chrysler cuts combined could wipe out 100,000 jobs.
Both GM and Chrysler are scrambling to reorganize and stay alive in a severe recession that has pummeled car and truck sales for U.S. automakers, which had already been losing market share to foreign companies for decades.
Chrysler LLC is already in bankruptcy protection, and industry analysts say General Motors Corp. is making its cuts now in preparation for a bankruptcy filing June 1. The company says it would prefer to restructure out of court.
GM declined to reveal which dealers will be eliminated. Many dealers vowed to fight, first through a 30-day company appeal process, then possibly in court.
GM's dealers are protected by state franchise laws, and the company concedes it would be easier to cut them if it were operating under federal bankruptcy protection. GM says it's trying to restructure outside of bankruptcy because of the stigma of Chapter 11.
Chrysler dealers have fewer options because the company has already filed for bankruptcy protection, and federal bankruptcy judges generally trump state law. And Chrysler said on Thursday that its cuts were final.
GM outlined a plan to cut about 40 percent of its 6,000-dealer network by the end of 2010 in hopes of getting the company back on its feet. Besides the 1,110 dealership cuts, the company will shed about 500 dealerships that market the Saturn, Hummer and Saab brands, which GM plans to phase out or sell.
Ya know, Detroit's pretty happy about the latest shit... in the scheme of things... we sorta figure at least the rest of the states will finally realize we weren't kidding when we said it was a problem for the whole country, not just Michigan..... we're sick of being told 'you made your beds, now lie in them" -those of us who are non auto union are were screwed because someone else made our beds with second hand sheets and we got stuck with them. But our sheets were laundered with yours, so welcome to the fucked club.
yea monster, I hear you. I didn't really want to bail the banks out, but I did want to do something to help the autoworkers, even though I think the car companies have been badly mismanaged for a very long time. but, there are too many jobs involved, or were. I'm sorry if it is affecting you.
...we sorta figure at least the rest of the states will finally realize we weren't kidding when we said it was a problem for the whole country, not just Michigan.....
That's not true, there are automobile plants and suppliers all over the country and they're all affected by this shit. Everyone with half a brain knew the pain would be spread out.
That's not true, there are automobile plants and suppliers all over the country and they're all affected by this shit. Everyone with half a brain knew the pain would be spread out.
Truth. A town 10 minutes north of me is home to a Chrysler stamping plant that's scheduled to shut down by end of 2010. 1,200 workers will lose their jobs.
we're sick of being told 'you made your beds, now lie in them"
Do you now appreciate the ferocity of my criticisms? Who kept saying, "Make even more of this crap. Keep stifling innovations that existed even in 1975."
Why is Ford not in the same trouble? Ford started fixing itself almost ten years ago - only just got started. It says how long and bad things must be for GM and Chrysler.
For well over 30 years, GM stifled every innovation except when Federal regulations required it. Americans who bought GM and Chrysler products anytime in the 1990s have themselves to blame for today's problems. "Buy American" voted them (ie Rick Wagoner, Bob Nardelli) to run the American economy. Now we must all pay because they enriched the wealthy - even blamed the unions for shorting the pension funds.
GM forgot to put $20billion into their pension funds and $10billion into their health care funds. Guess who now pays for it. All through the 2000s, shorting pension funds was acceptable to that administration - as long as GM reported profits. Only profits mattered - as any stock broker or Wall Street banker always said. So we pay for their lies. Appreciate why my accusations have been so accurately ferocious for so long – alongside “Saddam had WMDs” and business school concept about profits (screw the product). Of course we all pay today because we believed lies from wacko extremists and business school spin many years ago.
When do we start paying for "Mission Accomplished"? Time to be smart was many years and decades ago.
Truth. A town 10 minutes north of me is home to a Chrysler stamping plant that's scheduled to shut down by end of 2010. 1,200 workers will lose their jobs.
They will have to get in the back of the line. This is going to worse before it gets better.
That's not true, there are automobile plants and suppliers all over the country and they're all affected by this shit. Everyone with half a brain knew the pain would be spread out.
Then a lot of people in my town dont have half a brain. Just the people I work with for instance. They have no sympathy for the UAW workers and seem to relish their pain. They totally fail to realize that its the transmission plants in this town
and those union workers that support their retail jobs.
An interesting account of GM history
Who's to Blame for GM's Bankruptcy?
Just about everyone—from management and the UAW to government, consumers, the competition, and the media
First of all, management. For most of its existence, GM was not really a centrally unified company in the modern sense. Founder Billy Durant smashed together different companies—Chevrolet, Pontiac, Buick, Cadillac—and allowed them to compete with each other with only the thinnest level of oversight. Alfred P. Sloan, who took over the company in the 1920s, imposed a measure of discipline on these rival fiefdoms by creating more financial controls and a more rational positioning of each brand, with Chevrolet being the car for the masses and Cadillac being the car of the elite. But the company was still very decentralized.
Following World War II, this lumbering GM dominated the American automotive landscape, reaching 50.7% of the market in 1962. It didn't matter if GM was late to market with a feature or a design because "we had such enormous power that we could always steamroller everybody else," recalls Bob Lutz, the just retired product development chief who first joined GM in 1963.
Not Ready for Toyota
Then there was labor, and management's decision over the decades to grant the United Auto Workers higher wages, medical benefits, and pensions with each contract negotiation. This helped to elevate the standard of living for many blue-collar Americans, but health-care costs would emerge as a major burden on GM, as would a confrontational standoff between management and labor.
Then there was overseas competition. GM simply was not ready to respond to Toyota Motor (TM) and other Japanese manufacturers when they began to gain serious ground in the early 1980s. Toyota, in particular, had developed a lean manufacturing system that was completely different from the mass-assembly-line techniques GM was still using, many decades after Henry Ford perfected them. GM's fractured structure meant that each division had its own manufacturing processes, its own parts, its own engineering, and its own stamping plants.
Hungry for jobs, U.S. states began to encourage Japanese manufacturers to locate plants, or so-called transplants, in their states. The Big Three figured that would saddle the Japanese with the same labor costs and the same labor problems they had. But they were wrong. The Japanese located in mostly southern and border states that were solidly anti-union. They hired younger, less expensive workers, and they created an entirely new relationship between management and labor. This led to an entirely new auto industry. The net effect was to rachet up the competitive pressures on Detroit, not ease them.
The Bush Administration gave a Band-Aid to GM and Chrysler in the form of a bridge loan to get them through to the early days of the Obama Administration. But then came the final surprise. Industry observers widely assumed that Obama, a Democrat from Chicago, understood the manufacturing base of the Midwest and would help it. The fact that the UAW had helped deliver five states in the Midwest to Obama deepened that assumption.
But Obama turned to other members of his political alliance for answers. From New York, he brought in investment banker Steve Rattner, a major fundraiser, to head the government's automotive task force. Rattner arrived on the job with the assumption that Chapter 11 bankruptcy was the right course for GM, and promptly sacked Wagoner when he demonstrated signs of resistance. Wagoner's heir apparent, Fritz Henderson, was elevated into the CEO position. Meanwhile, Obama tilted toward the California environmentalists by pushing through new fuel-efficiency standards, which would add another layer of cost to production.
It's a good read and displays the "Too big to fail" mentality that was ingrained in them long ago in another world.
David Brooks in the NYT echoes tw's concerns that GM's problems are fundamentally cultural and terribly ingrained. He says that gov't ownership of GM won't solve GM's biggest problem at all.
On Jan. 21, 1988, a General Motors executive named Elmer Johnson wrote a brave and prophetic memo. Its main point was contained in this sentence: “We have vastly underestimated how deeply ingrained are the organizational and cultural rigidities that hamper our ability to execute.”
On Jan. 26, 2009, Rob Kleinbaum, a former G.M. employee and consultant, wrote his own memo. Kleinbaum’s argument was eerily similar: “It is apparent that unless G.M.’s culture is fundamentally changed, especially in North America, its true heart, G.M. will likely be back at the public trough again and again.”
...
G.M. will not become more like successful car companies. It will become less like them. The federal merger will not accelerate the company’s viability. It will impede it. We’ve seen this before, albeit in different context: An overconfident government throws itself into a dysfunctional culture it doesn’t really understand. The result is quagmire. The costs escalate. There is no exit strategy.
$50B is throwing bad money at a broken corporate culture. The only way to save GM is to kill GM.
$50B is throwing bad money at a broken corporate culture. The only way to save GM is to kill GM.
Yup - and throwing $50B at a company that is worth just a fraction of that is insane. We already tried that, repeatedly. Seems like the mentality in Washington needs some adjustment too.
I've had one GM vehicle in my life. It was given to me by my grandfather when he got too old to drive. A Buick Century sedan. I got it when it was 8 years old and had only 70K miles on it. The molding on the driver's door started peeling back and getting in the way of the door operation, so I epoxied it back down. The light in the glove compartment would stay on when the compartment door was closed, draining the battery over a day or two. So I removed the bulb. The electrical connections located underneath the glove compartment were loose, and if the passenger accidentally kicked that panel, the car would die immediately. Wiggling the wires around and pushing the connections together would let it start up again. At about 85K miles, it needed a new engine because several seals were leaking, and I actually got it rebuilt for some reason. Then about 10K miles later, the transmission went. I actually got that fixed too. It was then that I started shopping for a new car.
I can say that the Buick was very comfortable on long road trips. You could easily sit in that car all day on the road and not be in pain when you climbed out. Other than that, it was a piece of garbage. I will never buy another GM vehicle (my Geo Prizm is technically a GM, but that doesn't count.)
GM incentive package to shed workers
It seemingly has become an annual (or semiannual) event, but area autoworkers are being given another chance to leave the troubled industry.
The latest incentive package from General Motors Corp. came as part of the concessions the United Auto Workers union accepted last week in the company’s ongoing restructuring.
GM is offering $20,000 cash and a $25,000 car voucher to production workers who decide to retire with their benefits.
For skilled-trades workers, the cash portion of the retirement package is $45,000 with the same car voucher.
For those not eligible to retire, GM also is offering more cash to walk away and sever all ties with the company, along with the $25,000 car voucher.
Employees with less than 10 years could get $45,000. Those with at least 10 years but less than 20 are being offered $80,000. For those with 20 years or more, it’s $115,000.
Those with 28 or 29 years at GM are being offered a bridge to retirement, with the company providing a monthly gross wage of $2,850 or $2,900 until qualifying for retirement.
Seems like a sweet deal if you can get it.
For those not eligible to retire, GM also is offering more cash to walk away and sever all ties with the company, along with the $25,000 car voucher.
I guess that means giving up vested pension rights?
Yeh, I think you are correct, but that is also for people who have not been there very long. Otherwise they would fall into one of the other categories - no?
Pension is vested after 5 years, I think that's the law now. So anyone with over 5 years (after all the layoffs that's probably everyone) would be giving up something, but reducing GM's future obligations. For a guy 35 or 40 years from retirement that $45k right now would be tempting.
Yeah, in some places you can buy I house for that, I hear.
Chinese Hummers? Is that like Chinese whispers?
Yup - and throwing $50B at a company that is worth just a fraction of that is insane. We already tried that, repeatedly. Seems like the mentality in Washington needs some adjustment too.
Yet everyone continues to give the Dems and Obama a pass on this failed plan. They should have let them go down earlier.
They should have let them go down earlier.
I agree. $50 Billlion could have gone a long way for the employees and ancillary companies - the suppliers and all. Of course the previous administration was quoted as being short sighted and acting out of haste... This seems an eerily similar decision.
Of course we all know that "deficits don't matter, Reagan proved that" This is dwarfing anything Reagan could have ever possibly dreamed of creating.
However, like Reagan, Obama has come into power at a time when the country has a multitude of challenges which offer his administration a great opportunity to excel.
