|
Here's another reminder....when a gap forms between the haves and the havenots....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12th_Street_riot |
Originally Posted by BengeBoy
(Post 7961251)
For that matter, if they're going to use taxpayer money to support the companies, do the taxpayers get a say in what kind of cars are made. Do we need cars that produce over 200 horsepower or go 0 to 60 in less than 8.0 seconds? Do we need sunroofs? Should people with bad driving records be able to take out an 84-month car loan for a high performance sports car, or should they be forced to buy cheaper, used, beater cars until they clean up their records? Is the engineering talent at GM really focused on an energy efficient car of the future or how to squeeze yet another cup holder into the next generation of minivans?
I think if it's a slippery slope - if the industry wants public money to stay alive because having them alive is a public good than the taxpayers should force them only to build "good cars," and then sit back and watch while we figure out no one can agree what "good" is. How about this. Realize that the big three have been competing for the past 40 years with car companies that are nurtured and protected by their governments in their own markets. Realize that we have even built a two-tiered structure in our own country for manufacturing by sustaining old rules in the states where the big three are strong while other states where the transplants set up are right-to-work and much more lax on work rules. Maybe it's a testament to the big three to have survived so long with one hand tied behind their back. In the end, seems to me that the market makes better decisions on what kind of companies should survive than governments do. |
Originally Posted by DoB
(Post 7961856)
Maybe it's a testament to the big three to have survived so long with one hand tied behind their back.
|
Originally Posted by BengeBoy
(Post 7961251)
The fact that as a taxpayer I may end up funding the bail-out of auto companies who have been struggling with cost, quality, marketing, and labor relations issues for my entire adult life (I'm over 50) is very troubling to me.
Most of the media coverage and PR by the auto industry in my opinion confuses the issues of employment levels with the survival of the companies. If the corporations survive, that still doesn't mean we'll be able to save all the job of the hourly workers in plants and at suppliers. Production needs to continue falling until production meets near-term demand; that will mean more jobs disappear. So a lot of the "domino" effect of problems of the auto industry are going to occur anyway (at least until the economy improves). I hope we aren't going to bail out the car companies so that they can keep producing cars no one needs right now. Nor do I see why we should help support so many domestic car dealerships when clear the car companies could efficiently distribute cars with many fewer dealerships than they have today. For that matter, if they're going to use taxpayer money to support the companies, do the taxpayers get a say in what kind of cars are made. Do we need cars that produce over 200 horsepower or go 0 to 60 in less than 8.0 seconds? Do we need sunroofs? Should people with bad driving records be able to take out an 84-month car loan for a high performance sports car, or should they be forced to buy cheaper, used, beater cars until they clean up their records? Is the engineering talent at GM really focused on an energy efficient car of the future or how to squeeze yet another cup holder into the next generation of minivans? I think if it's a slippery slope - if the industry wants public money to stay alive because having them alive is a public good than the taxpayers should force them only to build "good cars," and then sit back and watch while we figure out no one can agree what "good" is. In the end, seems to me that the market makes better decisions on what kind of companies should survive than governments do. If we're going to use taxpayer money to bail out the housing industry do taxpayers get a say in what kind of houses are built? Do we need houses with central air conditioning? Do we need cable? Do we really need houses of more than 1200 square feet? Are the architects really focused on energy efficient houses or on how to squeeze yet another electric appliance in the next generation of particle board and celotex McHouse? The fact is we can demand they build a certain type of vehicle (and Ford's quality is at the top of the industry, BTW, so that tired argument doesn't fly), but that isn't going to help. In fact, one argument goes that we have effectively regulated what the 3 produce. The toxic combination of CAFE and cheap fuel has long made it such that it is more profitable to build high-markup trucks and "give-away" cars than to build efficient cars. As someone who has a 401k, I've tacitly played along with this, however much I might disapprove. I want my retirement fund to make money. The other manufacturers have, in their home market, somewhat more expensive fuel. This favors the small car, although it allows production of things like a Ferrari, an NSX, or an Aston Martin. The same company that brings us the Smart also brings the Unimog and various V-12 powered monsters. In the pipeline from Ford, due in the next 12 months, is a B class that should average over 40mpg combined and a hybrid Fusion that's alleged to get 39mpg city. Chevy is bringing the Cruze here soon - late '09, early '10, I think - which should be similar, plus the 2010 or 2011 Volt for which they are negotiating with the EPA for a 100mpg rating. The top two contenders for European Car of the Year were from GM and Ford. One will be here in a year or two, evidently to be sold as a Buick, the other the previously mentioned B class Ford. It really helps further the discussion if we can speak in specifics about which things are or aren't in the pipeline rather than issue generalities. |
Originally Posted by Metricoclock
(Post 7958793)
Classic comment from some one completely uninformed and knows nothing about.
Oh, and by the way? "The auto industry" != the Big Three, and Michigan is not the first or only US state to have an industry vanish on it. Ignore that if you like, though, since I'm "completely uninformed". |
Originally Posted by DoB
(Post 7961856)
The american taxpayer has been dictating the cars to build all along. This may not jive with your personal aesthetic, but the reason the car companies all built huge trucks and fast sports cars through the past fifteen years was because these are the vehicles people wanted to buy. Those buyers were these same 'taxpayers' that you now think wanted something else.
|
Originally Posted by Roody
(Post 7953502)
...Don't forgot that they already agreed to cut the starting pay of many new hires IN HALF, so they clearly are willing to make sacrifices for their company. Let's see if the boards of directors care enough to make some sacrifices of their own....
The largest costs are not the wages, but the benefits...full healthcare (so I've heard), generous pensions, are far more damaging to the companies cost structure than straight wages because they are variable in terms of what's needed to fund the obligations, and the need to increase funding is in an opposite cycle to the success of the car companies. The real sacrifices that need to be made are the sacred cows. I don't let the execs off here either. They are failing to deal with the true risks to the company, and paying themselves a boatload of money for the privledge. Nice deal if you can have it I guess. At any rate, I am not a fan of bailing out the big 3. There is way too much value in what the companies have for all the jobs to vanish, but as a taxpayer, I see no need to make an investment in a comapany that I don't see as having a viable business model. If I thought they did have a solid buisness model, I would already be invested in their future. |
It's true that the big three were building cars that people wanted. But most people realized that market was going to go away in time. The big three's mistake was in assuming they'd have plenty of time to change later.
They now have two problems: the market changed FAST and it takes probably 6 to 8 years to get a car from drawing board to the showroom. The other is that they are not known for building small, fuel efficient vehicles. If you're looking for a 45 MPG car, you don't generally start out by going to the GM dealer. If they had any sense (people have been saying this for 20 years) they would have continued to build those big cars that many people were buying, but pumped some of that money into researching and designing smaller cars. There has always been a market for small cars, they just weren't interested in it, even though everyone realized that someday the small car market would be the only way a big company could survive. They just never planned more than about 2 years ahead. |
There are a lot of blue collar auto workers where I live. Our neighbor was absolutely scandalized a few years ago when they suggested that she might have to pay for some part of her full-ride health insurance (it was like $50/month), and perhaps have a deductible.
She and her spouse and their families and friends have been auto workers for so long that I had a hard time convincing her that what they were asking them to downgrade to was still way the hell better than most other people got. They just take full blown, free health insurance for granted. |
Originally Posted by ItsJustMe
(Post 7963850)
There are a lot of blue collar auto workers where I live. Our neighbor was absolutely scandalized a few years ago when they suggested that she might have to pay for some part of her full-ride health insurance (it was like $50/month), and perhaps have a deductible.
She and her spouse and their families and friends have been auto workers for so long that I had a hard time convincing her that what they were asking them to downgrade to was still way the hell better than most other people got. They just take full blown, free health insurance for granted. You want to talk about a political mistake? The Big Three joined the lobbying against 'Hillarycare' in 1994. They actively campaigned to not have literally hundreds of billions of dollars in long term obligations taken off their hands. I would say that Chrysler is doomed. They cause the least ripples when they fail, they have the least favorable product line going forward and the political opposition to bailing out private equity firm billionaires will be huge. Let Chrysler fail. Ford is easy. They can almost make it without help if the recession ends by summer. Stand by with short term loans and guarantees and see Ford through. GM is the middle tough call. The will not see spring without cash. The also can survive on the other side if they are seen through this current downswing. That is what we are talking about really, loans to see them across the recession until they can remake themselves into what they always knew they would eventually need to be. |
Originally Posted by ItsJustMe
(Post 7963794)
It's true that the big three were building cars that people wanted.
Ever try smoking? The first few cigarettes are darn hard to take... yet millions do it and think it quite the thing... I wonder how they get started in the first place? It is quite amazing what a steady stream of ads and peer pressure can do. |
Originally Posted by genec
(Post 7965999)
Were they building cars people wanted, or cars that billions in ad campaigns had convinced people to think they wanted?
Ever try smoking? The first few cigarettes are darn hard to take... yet millions do it and think it quite the thing... I wonder how they get started in the first place? It is quite amazing what a steady stream of ads and peer pressure can do. If you have a typical family with 3 or 4 kids, busy weekends with projects and sports and stuff and gas costs $1.50 then an SUV or Pickup looks perfectly logical. It's ridiculous to think that millions of americans bought cars that they hate because they got talked into by a slick sales pitch. Really. And then they kept buying those same SUVs and trucks over and over even though SUVs and trucks contain no addictive chemicals and form no habits. Here is a better analogy based on a real situation. They just busted a guy in my city for stealing electricity. He had wired a second box into the house thay bypassed the meter. His normal box billed him a regular $80/month but he was really using $800 worth per month. Who needs $800 a month in electricity? Someone who does not pay for it. Who drives a huge vehicle just because it is convenient to have the hauling space and it is comfortable to have the room? Someone who is shielded from the cost of driving it by low fuel prices. The type of thinking you wrote about is behind the misguided CAFE standards. This tells automakers to build fuel efficient cars and trucks even if that is not what people want. The different mileage targets are actually what moved people from cars to trucks and SUVs. As the CAFE standards shrunk their cars, americans simply started buying trucks with higher CAFE limits instead. What congress should have done if they were serious about improving fuel economy was dramatically increase fuel taxes. This is the European route to fuel efficiency and it is noticeably more effective as it aligns buyer goals with the governments. |
Originally Posted by DoB
(Post 7966094)
There is a difference between rebellious 15 year olds and adults that need to haul their families.
If you have a typical family with 3 or 4 kids, busy weekends with projects and sports and stuff and gas costs $1.50 then an SUV or Pickup looks perfectly logical. There is no set of needs -- none -- for which there is not a better solution than an SUV. That includes hauling "3 or 4 kids" (which, by the way, is not a "typical family" anymore...but I digress). A wagon beats an SUV for that job any day. So yes, people did get sold a line of crap. It's their fault they bought it, because -- just as with cigarettes -- there was and is plenty of information out there telling you that this is the wrong choice. But how many people ever avail themselves of that information? Some of us do, but most people don't. |
Originally Posted by z415
(Post 7954484)
Don't be so sure of that. I am at UF, a public institution, thus the prof's salaries are public record. Google "UF salaries". Note that is a 471 page pdf file. My prof makes $83K for 9 months of work. Now, I do not know how much UAW workers make, but keep in mind that is for 9 months of work and is last years payroll. The range of all professors I have had, from available records and my memories, range from $140K to 62K, most for 9 months of work and tenured. The biggest number in the pdf file is 400K for 9 months and the smallest is 4K for a recent grad student - probably a stipend. This also neglects any other jobs they have such as medical professors that also have a medical practice (said 400K person is one of these).
|
I don't expect a mass exodus away from cars. However, when gas prices got outrageous in the summer, I personally decided to live car-free to the greatest extent possible. It's my small contribution to the green movement, and it's a protest against the price-gouging of the oil producers. Besides, it just feels good to ride everywhere.
Now that it's getting cold in N. California (yeah, go ahead and laugh!), it's putting me to the test, but I haven't faltered yet. I recently even mounted fenders on both my commute/utility bikes. |
Originally Posted by Yan
(Post 7967437)
I meant "professions pursued by people with higher education", not "university professors". You must have thought I misspelled "professor" as "professions". I did not.
Now on the same topic, how can you be sure that a number of UAW workers aren't college grads? If what you had in mind is that college grads should get paid more, then I agree. But as a union, you really can't get around that if a number of them are college grads. As an economics student, my stance on unions is that either unions should be for all or for none. It is easier to get to none from the few that we have, but it is hard to go backwards. |
Originally Posted by sunburst
(Post 7968133)
I don't expect a mass exodus away from cars. However, when gas prices got outrageous in the summer, I personally decided to live car-free to the greatest extent possible. It's my small contribution to the green movement, and it's a protest against the price-gouging of the oil producers. Besides, it just feels good to ride everywhere.
Now that it's getting cold in N. California (yeah, go ahead and laugh!), it's putting me to the test, but I haven't faltered yet. I recently even mounted fenders on both my commute/utility bikes. As far as I recall, Light Sweet NYMEX Crude dropped below $44 today. Some are translating that to near or under $1 a gallon in some places. People will start driving again, thinking personal economics more than principle and that is sad, but understandable (for some). Now if the CEOs of the Big 3 continually drive or charter instead of flying in private planes until they retire or are given the boot, then I congratulate them. And congrats to you for taking to cold. It's freezing down here :P EDIT: just checked, it is now rising past $44/barrel. |
Originally Posted by nahh
(Post 7952670)
I would make this a poll, but I feel their is simply too many possible stances on the issue. I see the impending unemployment of thousands of workers as a huge issue. So how do you, as bike commuters, feel about this issue? Discuss openly, and respectfully. |
Originally Posted by lil brown bat
(Post 7966654)
...if you don't bother to think it through.
There is no set of needs -- none -- for which there is not a better solution than an SUV. That includes hauling "3 or 4 kids" (which, by the way, is not a "typical family" anymore...but I digress). A wagon beats an SUV for that job any day. So yes, people did get sold a line of crap. It's their fault they bought it, because -- just as with cigarettes -- there was and is plenty of information out there telling you that this is the wrong choice. But how many people ever avail themselves of that information? Some of us do, but most people don't. Mimivans are a lot more practicable than SUVs, but the are not really more efficient than SUVs in operation. They are still 5000+ pound vehicles. In any case, this is all a digression. It doesn't matter how automotive executives travel, what cars they built before or if they get paid a dollar a year now. The question is, do we want to allow the expertise and tens of thousands of engineering, finance and research jobs to go overseas or not? Do we want to remain at all competent in this industry or just let it become another thing we buy from overseas along with steelmaking, computer making, oil etc? |
Originally Posted by DoB
(Post 7968329)
The SUV is the modern station wagon.
|
Originally Posted by lil brown bat
(Post 7968538)
No, the modern station wagon is the modern station wagon. Guess how I know that? I own one.
Also, Ford is very well known for building excellent small cars. Just not in the US. Same with GM/Opel. They do not need to go from drawing board to showroom, they already have decent cars. The current Focus is one of the best small cars around in terms of both efficiency and safety. Their problem is a cost structure, not their cars. Also, I dispute that millions of jobs will be impacted by a big three bankruptcy. Many of those jobs are related post-sale, and those will not be impacted until the millions of GM & Ford cars are off the road. Given the value that still remains in intellectual property and manufacturing capability, you won't see millions of jobs lost. At least, not in my opinion. At any rate, I'm trying to figure out why this thread is in the commuting forum. :wtf: |
I live in the Dayton, OH area. We have a GM Truck plant (Trailblazers and clones) here that is closing down two days before Christmas. I bike commute daily through a neighborhood that I believe is populated mostly GM workers. As the third and seconds shifts were shut down earlier this year, I began to see working-age folks sitting on lawn chairs in their driveways. They would often wave as I rode by.
Lately, I'm sensing some tension, and one guy actually flipped me the bird last week. I was a bit baffled. It was like he was saying "Screw you buddy for riding a bike. You should buy a truck so I can keep my job." My area will definitely feel the impact. Dayton OH has the most GM employees anywhere outside Detroit. In the short term, U.S. auto plant closures will hurt, a lot. I think in the long term, it'll be viewed as a market share correction that should have naturally occurred a long time ago if not for the billions of dollars U.S. auto makers spent marketing vehicles that were not good for America. I doubt we'll see any difference in the number of bike commuters around here. People who drive pickups and SUVs don't view bikes as a viable transportation. The only people riding bikes around here are hardcore commuters and drunks who lost their drivers licenses. |
[QUOTE=DogBoy;7968745]The SUV/minivan is the modern equivalent to what the station wagon used to be...ie, 7-8 passenger cars with three rows of seats. I have a modern station wagon too...a jetta sportwagen, but I can only get 5 passengers in it. The benefit is in additional cargo space.[/quotes]
Hey, let's move the goalposts some more! A few posts back it was a "typical family" with "3-4 kids" (which is no longer typical, but let's not go there). Now, apparently, it's "7-8 passengers". When I solve that problem, will it suddenly become "a football team plus cheerleaders"? Here is a 1959 Ford Country Squire station wagon, supposedly a "9-passenger" vehicle. Damfino where you'd fit them all. What I do know is that the modern SUV, far from seating "7-8 passengers", seats four or five including the driver. My wagon will do that with ease -- and the SUV doesn't have any "additional cargo space". Trust me, I see plenty of SUVs, I work at a ski area. My wagon has much more hauling capacity than the typical SUV.
Originally Posted by DogBoy
(Post 7968745)
Also, Ford is very well known for building excellent small cars. Just not in the US. Same with GM/Opel. They do not need to go from drawing board to showroom, they already have decent cars. The current Focus is one of the best small cars around in terms of both efficiency and safety. Their problem is a cost structure, not their cars.
Originally Posted by DogBoy
(Post 7968745)
Also, I dispute that millions of jobs will be impacted by a big three bankruptcy. Many of those jobs are related post-sale, and those will not be impacted until the millions of GM & Ford cars are off the road. Given the value that still remains in intellectual property and manufacturing capability, you won't see millions of jobs lost. At least, not in my opinion.
|
Originally Posted by lil brown bat
(Post 7968974)
Hey, let's move the goalposts some more! A few posts back it was a "typical family" with "3-4 kids" (which is no longer typical, but let's not go there). Now, apparently, it's "7-8 passengers". When I solve that problem, will it suddenly become "a football team plus cheerleaders"?
Originally Posted by lil brown bat
(Post 7968974)
Meh. My dad's last American car was a Ford, and it was a lemon. It's possible they made astonishing progress since that suck-ass Tempo, but if you've been burned, why would you bother risking it again?
Originally Posted by lil brown bat
(Post 7968974)
Maybe not, but you don't get bailout money by saying, "The sky isn't falling."
|
Originally Posted by DogBoy
(Post 7969039)
I had a 1983 Ford Tempo as my first car. It went 370,000 miles with very few things ever going wrong beyond normal wear items.
|
Unfortunately, most people's impressions of cars and the autoworkers were formed in childhood, and haven't changed since. Two specifics are the beliefs that US cars are low quality and that unions are strong defenders of lazy overpaid workers. These beliefs are at the level of superstition or mythology. No appeal to reality is likely to change them.
|
Close Roody, but my opinion of Ford is based on horrible experience with a Taurus. I loved the Fairlane, but after the Taurus would never buy a Ford again. {not to mention their current pendance for ugly face forward designs}
On the original issue, this mess has been a long time coming and I don't know the solution but obvious contributing factors are 1. business decisions made based on what's good in 3 months rather than what's good in 3 years 2. overproduction of product 3. lack of an energy policy that taxes motor vehicles based on vehicle weight 4. lack of an energy independence policy 5. lack of willingness of exec's to work in companies interest instead of just their own 6. lack of a cost structure {taxes, health care,etc} in US with rest of world 7. tax policy that encourages companies to generate profits overseas 8. willingness to consider bailout, but not willingness to consider share in profits if bailout works 9. lack of a health care plan for all employees/citizens 10. lack of a retirement plan for all employees/citizens. {soc sec was designed to be supplemental and not the sole source} that's enough food for thought. Perhaps the core of the problem is congresss is mostly lawyers and other professions are not represented. |
p&r
|
Originally Posted by HiYoSilver
(Post 7970499)
Close Roody, but my opinion of Ford is based on horrible experience with a Taurus. I loved the Fairlane, but after the Taurus would never buy a Ford again. {not to mention their current pendance for ugly face forward designs}
On the original issue, this mess has been a long time coming and I don't know the solution but obvious contributing factors are 1. business decisions made based on what's good in 3 months rather than what's good in 3 years 2. overproduction of product 3. lack of an energy policy that taxes motor vehicles based on vehicle weight 4. lack of an energy independence policy 5. lack of willingness of exec's to work in companies interest instead of just their own 6. lack of a cost structure {taxes, health care,etc} in US with rest of world 7. tax policy that encourages companies to generate profits overseas 8. willingness to consider bailout, but not willingness to consider share in profits if bailout works 9. lack of a health care plan for all employees/citizens 10. lack of a retirement plan for all employees/citizens. {soc sec was designed to be supplemental and not the sole source} that's enough food for thought. Perhaps the core of the problem is congresss is mostly lawyers and other professions are not represented. 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10 are all national issues. As far as health care, UAW has an outstanding health care package as well as a unemployment package for their union workers... of course those costs are passed onto the auto makers and eventually the consumers, thus we all pay for the benefits that autoworkers get that are often covered in other nations by their national policies. Of course that the automakers took advantage of all of this and touted massive SUVs which we as a nation bought into hook line and sinker is also part of our national problem as well as how much of consumerism is sold to America. Just look at bikes sold in LBSs for an example... how many different styles of slightly different road bike do we really need... |
Originally Posted by DoB
(Post 7961856)
The american taxpayer has been dictating the cars to build all along. This may not jive with your personal aesthetic, but the reason the car companies all built huge trucks and fast sports cars through the past fifteen years was because these are the vehicles people wanted to buy. Those buyers were these same 'taxpayers' that you now think wanted something else.
However, with the car companies reaching for a bailout, it would turn the same consumers in their role as taxpayers, who are required by law to pay taxes that our elected officials would direct to the car companies. So the road the industry is following is this: - auto companies (for whatever reason) cannot compete in free market - they are arguing that it is a public good for the government to save them - government aid means it is the taxpayer who must supply the required funds - so now taxpayer (though elected officials or bureacrats) should now be able to dictate what they make. That means, we - the taxpayers - now get to exert direct influence on what the car companies make. They tried capitalism, that didn't work for them, so now if they want to try socialism they can build the People's Car. I am trying to point out if the car companies really want to be part-owned or financed by the taxpayers it will end up in political/government control of every decision they make, and we'll all end up driving Trabants. They will then fail even more miserably and we will have just delayed letting the market do what it's being doing to them anyway. Further, "bailing out the car companies" doesn't *really* save production line / blue collar jobs because right now the economy *just doesn't need* as many cars as it did a year ago or even 3 months ago. More car factories are going to close; more suppliers are going to go out of business, and more dealerships are going to close no matter what. If we really want to bailout the car companies *without screwing them up forever* the government should just give consumers vouchers for discounts on new cars and let consumers sort out whom they want to live or die. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:57 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.