"First, a “defect” implies some sort of saftey issue " You mean a botched pain job is not a defect?
BScar,
Yes, I did know my money was going to Japan.
And yes, for my money, I got the best car that drove the way I wanted it to, and offered the type of road feel that I was looking for. Nothing made by the Big 3 offered the driving dynamics of the Mazda RX8.
As soon as I’m in the market for a high powered car that handles like an oil tanker, I’ll choose GM, Dodge, or Ford products.
Right now my gf is in the market for a car to replace her Chrysler Crossfire.
She’s looking at an Italian car, primarily.
Just can’t get what we want from an American Car Company anymore.
And we don’t choose based on politics, either.
If one of them had the vehicle we liked, we would buy it.
BC.
Never got the chance to drive an RX-8, though the Miata was a hoot. Never drove stick before, so I dunno how well the Speed3 would feel. Though I do have that same engine, albeit toned down due to the automatic transmission, in my Cx-7
For the most part, I agree that these auto companies shouldn’t have been bailed out-haven’t we heard the old saying,“If you build it, they will come.” more than once over the years? These bean counters didn’t build what we wanted, we stayed away, the companies were in a downward spiral, & guess what? We, as taxpayers, ended up paying more than if they had only designed & built cars, trucks, & vans that the people wanted & would have been willing to pay for. You can place the blame for the bailout on either President if you choose to, but it really belongs to the schmucks that ran the companies into the ground.
Get Out Of What ?
This Is From A Very Recent Post About A Very Recent Repair From The Owner Of A GM Vehicle (36,000 mile / 36 month warranty), Purchased In 2006 !
"Marnet September 1 Report
UPDATE:
Turns out it was the power steering. I thought it couldn’t be because of how and when I heard the whine. My error.
To quote from the service printout:
“Checked fluid and found to be low. Inspection found fluid leaking from LH side of rack at boot. Replaced power steering gear assembly and reset toe as required. Auth 90A goodwill warranty assistance due to mileage and product durability concern.”
I am profoundly grateful that GM chose to cover this under goodwill warranty. I’m writing a letter to the dealership management lauding the exemplary customer service efforts of the service advisor who made the effort to get the issue covered under warranty despite it being almost two years past warranty expiration (although still far short of normal mileage.)"
Customer experience concerning a 2007 GM Chevrolet Impala - Reprinted by CSA
Eraser, there was a post by Oblivian on August 24.
Most of the “Japanese” vehcles sold in the U.S. are now also designed manufactured in the U.S. And those who want to remain “American” in their choices probably would have chosen Fords or even Chryslers instead.
Besides, GM probably buys as many of its subassemblies from other countrys as Toyota or Honda’s U.S. manufacturing facilities do.
I know we’ve had lengthy discussion on the subject before, but the automobile industry is truely “global”. There’s no longer any “American” or “japanese” cars, only cars whose corporate logos originated in America or Japan.
Mountainbike -
The idea that "Most of the “Japanese” vehcles sold in the U.S. are now also designed manufactured in the U.S. " is laughable. Honda manufactures a majority of the vehicles it sells in the US, as do Subaru an Hyundai. The rest aren’t close.
And as for “design”, they haven’t designed a single engine or transmission in the US. OR a single vehicle platform.
Toyota has about 1200 engineers working on vehicle designs in the US. Ford has the better part of 10,000. Now which one is designing vehicles in the US?
Toyota uses “design” to mean styling, not the engineering and R&D. Styling employs VERY few people.
Toyota employs over 172,000 in america. Honda employs over 25,000 americans, not counting those in dealerships or those producing for them in subcontractor companies.
Years ago what you say was true. It no longer is. Laugh if you like.
Toyota doesn’t employ anywhere NEAR 172,000 in America.
From their own data, they claim 29,089 employees, and that is including the ~2,500 people that they haven’t yet hired in Alabama and Mississippi , where they’re expanding, but also including the ~4,000 workers at NUMMI that have been laid off. Their current total is around 25,000 with a promise to go up to ~27,500
By comparison, Ford has around 70,000
You only get close to 172,000 by claiming indirect employees (ie, suppliers), but then to be honest you’d have to claim those for Ford, GM, and Chrysler, too, and the numbers would be WAY off still, because Ford, GM, and Chrysler average significantly higher domestic content on their vehicles.
http://corporate.ford.com/investors/investor-quarterly-results
http://corporate.ford.com/about-ford/global-operations
http://www.toyota.com/about/our_business/our_numbers/images/USOperationsBrochureFINAL_4-1-11.pdf
Sorry, that’s supplier AND dealer jobs Toyota counts for “indirect” jobs.
Count the same way for Ford and you’re near 500,000
Eraser, I stand by my statement that using tax dollars to support GM
(1) allowed them to avoid the true consequences of their poor management,
(2) saved very few if any jobs in the long run, and
(3) allowed GM the luxury of not having to make drastic changes they should have made…this last point being reflected in the original subject of this thread, GM not standing behind its warrantys.
The size of the market did not change. However now, instead of the marketplace having weeded out an inefficent provider and being made up of only the most efficient providers, the inefficient provider has been artificially kept alive.
Allowing GM to suffer its own fate would have mean that perhaps Ford and Chrysler would have replaced them for the bulk of customers that would have bought GM, making them both stronger. It’s also possible that Ford and others could have bought various product lines and produced them more efficiently. I believe that for every GM car that would not have gotten built, a Ford or a Chrysler, or perhaps a Camry or a Civic WOULD have gotten built…in this country.
I also believe it was an inappropriate use of tax dollars, but that’s another thread.
You’re certainly free to believe that not using tax dollars to bail GM out would have resulted in thousands of lost jobs. But I disagree.
I absolutely agree with your point #1, but couldn’t disagree more with point #2. Ford and Chrysler were in no position to take on the employees, and none of the import brands have shown the willingness to give Americans anywhere near the number of jobs they should, given their dependence on us for sales.
Clearly our perspectives differ on this issue. The automobile industry is a truely global industry. A large component of the market for both GM and Ford is the European market. By the theory you’re espousing, GM and Ford should relocate their jobs such that the proportion of their employee force located in Europe matches that of their sales. I haven’t checked how GM and ford are structured in that regard, but my guess is that such a structure would mean more jobs lost here in the US. I, for one, would hate to seethat happen.
The market and each of its segments should go to those who can best serve it. Only in that manner will GM ever become efficient. Artificial support, money not from the marketplace but from the feds, will not make GM competative in the global marketplace.
I think it’s safe to say that we’lll never agree on this issue. And that’s okay. There are truely different perspectives.
The Detroit 3 do not operate on their own. They have many constituencies to deal with. The UAW has a huge say in what they can and cannot do in the USA (CAW in Canada). They also have to deal with government regulations for safety, worker health, and pollution. And don’t forget the owners or customers. The last 2 don’t control costs, but the others are a very large part of them. I don’t think that we subsidize the unions, but I do think that we should show compassion for the people caught in a problem they didn’t create. The events that caused GM and Chrysler to fail were as much a natural disaster for them as a hurricane. They had nothing to do with the financial meltdown. Ford only avoided it because they sold everything he company owned and had a huge pile of cash. Was that smart planning? Coincidence, more likely. Maybe we should ignore the folks in New England that were subjected to floods recently. They didn’t plan for it, and they could have known that something like this might happen one day. I’d rather give them a hand, but laisse faire doctrine in its purest form would not. And those fires in Texas…
JT, you make a strong argument, but I’d argue that these companies failed because of a lengthy history poor, short sighted management. I cannot blame the UAW. Their job was to get as much as possible from the company, and when times were good the companies simply acquiesced rather than fight for long-term supportable comp and benefits. IMHO the UAW did its job with the long haul in mind, management did not do theirs. Coupled with countless poor product decisions that sacrificed product futures for short term profits, the problem was overdue.
Ford got Alan Mullally. To say that his business strategy paid off due to unforeseeable economic changes is oversimplifying. Ford remains healthy despite these unforeseeable economic problems and because of his strategies. Had the economic downturn never happened, Ford would be even stronger.
The automotive marketplace and industry are now global. In order to compete globally, the Detroit 3 need to be efficient, effective, and have globally competitive product. Providing artificial support for them here at home did not, and I would argue will not, help them become competitive on a global basis. And that is where the real strength and stability is. And that, I believe, is what is in the best long term interest of the employees. Yes, unfortunately some of the workers would have to suffer for poor management decisions, but if the company is insulated from the consequences of those decisions more will suffer later.
Compromising the strength of the business out of compassion for the workers rarely turns out to be any real favor.
As this thread is still ongoing, I thought it would be interesting to mention “government intervention” in a closely-related field to automobiles…notably the fed. gov’t bailout of the major manufacturer of (two-wheeled) transportation.
In the 80’s, Harley-Davidson had just emerged from AMF ownership and was reeling from Japaneese competition. Rather than allow this “inefficient manufacturer” to close shop, the federal government (as run by Ronald Reagan) imposed a 45% tarriff on motorcycles of >700cc displacement, allowing H-D to regain its footing, and return to its position today.
Given the “red state/blue state” split of the GM bailout, I wonder how many critics would be logically consistent and decry “the Gipper’s” intercession in free-market economics?
This one would. I disagree with the policy of the federal government using tax dollars to bail out private corporations, whether those dollars are used to back new loans, used as handouts, or excahned for stock.
I disagreed with the feds backing the Chrysler loans as well. I’m humbled by the job Lee Iacocoa did getting them back on their feet, but I still don’t support using tax dollars to back the loans.
Both Harley and Chrysler management deserve a lot of credit for what they accomplished, as does Alan Mulally for what he’s accomplished at Ford.That still does not justify that use of tax dollars.
" IMHO the UAW did its job with the long haul in mind…"
I agree that the UAW believes they acted with the long haul in mind, they actually were short sighted. Changing work rules to add large numbers of unneeded employees reduced union survivability. Benefits, including astonishing medical coverage, reduce their survivability more. Exceptional wages make their long term existence even less likely. The UAW is pricing itself out of existence, and it will take the auto business down with it. It seems that their management recognized this when they agreed to the two tiered wage system. But now they want to eliminate it. The union management is not stupid, but it is limited by the politics of their actions. Just like the car companies are and have been. I worked in a steel mill. I’ve been there, done that, and this looks like just another unhappy repeat.
And on the subject of bailouts brought up by meajoefan75: smb, do you believe that we should turn our backs on all farmers with weather or climate problems? It seems to be the same to me. If they’d just planned properly, those floods or droughts would be only a temporary inconvenience.
You’re comparing bad management with natural disasters. Your attempts to persuade me with the compassion argument are misguided. The debate isn’t about compassion for farmers. The debate is about economics and the proper role of government and of taxation, the proper use of our tax dollars.
It is not the purpose of taxation to bail out private industries that despite having had every advantage mismanaged their way to bankruptcy. And bailing out such companies allows them to avoid the real changes necessary to compete globally, and the auto industry is clearly a global business.
I stand by my posts. I stand by my principles.
People who believe in these bailouts…DON’T believe in a free market system. In a free market system…companies MUST be allowed to fail. They we don’t let them fail…then we don’t have a free market system.
GM mismanaged their company for YEARS…We give them BILLIONS…We’re sending a message to all large corporations…Mismanage your company any way you want…It’s OK…the tax payers will save you in the end…