The Big Three Automakers?

[Lila64]

I watched Bill Maher tonight. One of his guests was Ashton Kutcher, who had an interesting idea. Let the oil companies bail out the big 3

 

[BVS]

I watched Bill Maher tonight. One of his guests was Ashton Kutcher, who had an interesting idea. Let the oil companies bail out the big 3

Yeah, then we'd never get any true innovation out of them as far as becoming less dependent on oil...

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

It's not just working directly for the auto industry, it's also all the affiliated and auxiliary industries. The ripple effect would be huge. With the economy and unemployment going the way they are, I think there's no choice.

 

[Se7en]

lol.

Someone said, i think $73/hr. $73 x 40 x 52 = $151,840.

Ford CEO Paid $39.1 Million for Four Months
t r u t h o u t | Ford CEO Paid $39.1 Million for Four Months

39,000,000 x 3 = $117,000,000

$117,000,000 / $151,840 = 770 employees.

THOSE GODDAMN GREEDY UNION FUCKS IS TAKING ALL THE MONEY!!!!


Having said all that. Were you serious or being sarcastic? Because the points you make sound sarcastic, but there's a very good chance you're serious. So, I'm just making sure.

there is, in fact, no chance that i was being serious.

 

[UberBeaver]

there is, in fact, no chance that i was being serious.

Ok, man. Thanks for clearing that up. You can never really be sure around here.

Lots of if you know what I mean.

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

It's the brand. Some people buy cars by name. If their Cadillac was now called Buick they wouldn't be as tied to the company anymore.
Most of those companies got bought by bigger ones and the name was kept for the reason of branding.

Something like Cadilac and Buick I can understand because they make different cars...

Tell me why this is necessary:

The Mercury Milan vs The Ford Fusion, both owned by Ford

 

[UberBeaver]

Something like Cadilac and Buick I can understand because they make different cars...

Tell me why this is necessary:

The Mercury Milan vs The Ford Fusion, both owned by Ford

One has a vertical grill, one has a horizontal grill. Duh.

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

lol, good answer!

 

[Vincent Vega]

Something like Cadilac and Buick I can understand because they make different cars...

Tell me why this is necessary:

The Mercury Milan vs The Ford Fusion, both owned by Ford

I just took two more or less random names because I couldn't think of specific examples. But the premise of branding still stands.
But I guess this crisis might put an end to some of those names, as it costs money to maintain those brands which the car companies don't have. So they are very likely to look closely into which brands are still able to generate income, and the rest will have to go.

 

[Bluer White]

Reid Unveils Bill to Aid Auto Makers - WSJ.com

President-elect Barack Obama said he believes aid for the auto industry is needed but that it should be provided as part of a long-term plan -- not simply as a blank check.

"For the auto industry to completely collapse would be a disaster in this kind of environment," Obama said in a "60 Minutes" interview aired Sunday night on CBS. "So my hope is that over the course of the next week, between the White House and Congress, the discussions are shaped around providing assistance but making sure that that assistance is conditioned on labor, management, suppliers, lenders, all of the stakeholders coming together with a plan -- what does a sustainable U.S. auto industry look like?"

I think the President-Elect was spot on last night on 60 Minutes.

Ideally GM would best be re-organized in bankruptcy. But these aren't exactly stable economic times to digest that tsunami. The problem with Senator Reid's bill is that it does sound like another blank check. All I've heard so far is that top executives making over $200K wouldn't be getting their bonuses. Hmmm....how about removing those executives? What about a serious business plan from these guys?

This Reid bill needs to have serious conditions attached to it. The industry needs open heart surgery and we're trying to put a band-aid on it.

 

[the iron horse]

Where in the U.S. Constitution does it say that the Federal Government should bail out (give money) to failing companies?

 

[phillyfan26]

Where in the U.S. Constitution does it say that the Federal Government should bail out (give money) to failing companies?

Do you really need the U.S. Constitution explained to you?

Are you aware that there are many actions taken by the government that are not listed in the Constitution?

 

[BVS]

Where in the U.S. Constitution does it say that the Federal Government should bail out (give money) to failing companies?

Where does it say it can't or shouldn't?

 

[purpleoscar]

Today in Investor's Business Daily stock analysis and business news

 

[diamond]

Where does it say it can't or shouldn't?

Mitt says no to the bailout:

By MITT ROMNEY
Published: November 18, 2008
Boston



IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.

I love cars, American cars. I was born in Detroit, the son of an auto chief executive. In 1954, my dad, George Romney, was tapped to run American Motors when its president suddenly died. The company itself was on life support — banks were threatening to deal it a death blow. The stock collapsed. I watched Dad work to turn the company around — and years later at business school, they were still talking about it. From the lessons of that turnaround, and from my own experiences, I have several prescriptions for Detroit’s automakers.

First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.

That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car. Think what that means: Ford, for example, needs to cut $2,000 worth of features and quality out of its Taurus to compete with Toyota’s Avalon. Of course the Avalon feels like a better product — it has $2,000 more put into it. Considering this disadvantage, Detroit has done a remarkable job of designing and engineering its cars. But if this cost penalty persists, any bailout will only delay the inevitable.

Second, management as is must go. New faces should be recruited from unrelated industries — from companies widely respected for excellence in marketing, innovation, creativity and labor relations.

The new management must work with labor leaders to see that the enmity between labor and management comes to an end. This division is a holdover from the early years of the last century, when unions brought workers job security and better wages and benefits. But as Walter Reuther, the former head of the United Automobile Workers, said to my father, “Getting more and more pay for less and less work is a dead-end street.”

You don’t have to look far for industries with unions that went down that road. Companies in the 21st century cannot perpetuate the destructive labor relations of the 20th. This will mean a new direction for the U.A.W., profit sharing or stock grants to all employees and a change in Big Three management culture.

The need for collaboration will mean accepting sanity in salaries and perks. At American Motors, my dad cut his pay and that of his executive team, he bought stock in the company, and he went out to factories to talk to workers directly. Get rid of the planes, the executive dining rooms — all the symbols that breed resentment among the hundreds of thousands who will also be sacrificing to keep the companies afloat.

Investments must be made for the future. No more focus on quarterly earnings or the kind of short-term stock appreciation that means quick riches for executives with options. Manage with an eye on cash flow, balance sheets and long-term appreciation. Invest in truly competitive products and innovative technologies — especially fuel-saving designs — that may not arrive for years. Starving research and development is like eating the seed corn.

Just as important to the future of American carmakers is the sales force. When sales are down, you don’t want to lose the only people who can get them to grow. So don’t fire the best dealers, and don’t crush them with new financial or performance demands they can’t meet.

It is not wrong to ask for government help, but the automakers should come up with a win-win proposition. I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration. The federal government should also rectify the imbedded tax penalties that favor foreign carmakers.

But don’t ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass — they bet on management and they lost.

The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.

Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, was a candidate for this year’s Republican presidential nomination

 

[BVS]

Why did you quote me, where does it say anything about the constitution in there?

Do you even read people's posts anymore?

 

[toscano]

[B][I][U]Mitt says no to the bailout:[/U][/I][/B][/QUOTE]

Nobody cares what Mitt says.

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

what kind of a name is "Mitt" anyhow? Who names their kid "Mitt"??

 

[yolland]

It's usually a nickname for Mitchell. I think he's named after a family friend who went by Mitt.

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

...could be worse I guess... Trig?

 

[Se7en]

it's a race to the bottom folks. i, for one, can't wait to see who loses wins.

i've got a few ideas for the new the labor agreements: does $10/hr with astronomical health insurance premiums and a shitty 401k sound good to you, mittens? should really get those profit margins back on track. better yet, let's just get rid of the unions (and osha and eeoc while we're at it?) and get back to at will employment. after all, those people have a right to be unemployed. if they don't want to work for shit wages and benefits i say let them starve. but, "what about the thousands of jobs that will be shed during the restructuring?", you might ask. don't worry about it folks. there are plenty of low paying service sector jobs available to be filled since all of the illegals are getting the fuck out of dodge.

 

[financeguy]

it's a race to the bottom folks. i, for one, can't wait to see who loses wins.

i've got a few ideas for the new the labor agreements: does $10/hr with astronomical health insurance premiums and a shitty 401k sound good to you, mittens? should really get those profit margins back on track. better yet, let's just get rid of the unions (and osha and eeoc while we're at it?) and get back to at will employment. after all, those people have a right to be unemployed. if they don't want to work for shit wages and benefits i say let them starve. but, "what about the thousands of jobs that will be shed during the restructuring?", you might ask. don't worry about it folks. there are plenty of low paying service sector jobs available to be filled since all of the illegals are getting the fuck out of dodge.

This bears no relation to what Romney said. But anyway, what's your solution?

 

[Se7en]

This bears no relation to what Romney said. But anyway, what's your solution?

sure it does. he wants new labor agreements. i gave him some suggestions. excellent cost saving suggestions, i might add.

my solution? fire management, obviously.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Mitt is his middle name, his first name is Willard. Mitt is for his father's cousin Milton who played quarterback for the Chicago Bears. Willard is for his father's best friend, as in Marriott as in the hotels.

I think it's fantastic that the big three guys took private jets to DC, way to go

 

[sue4u2]

I think it's fantastic that the big three guys took private jets to DC, way to go

Yeah I went home on my lunch break and caught a little of the questioning on this. I loved it when he (don't know who it was) said "couldn't you just fly first class or Jet pool?" Laughed my ass off.
Then he ask him how much to keep things afloat till March, and the automaker couldn't give him a figure. He said "worse case senario, unlimited". Wish I knew who it was, I only watched a few minutes and had to get back to work.
Jeezus Christ, who wouldn't want an unlimited bail out.

 

[U2Fanatic4ever]

i say let them go bankrupt..

 

[yolland]

And the US car companies have an average wage of something like $73 an hour (including benefits) - a lot higher than Toyota.

The $73 figure is total labor, healthcare and pension benefit costs for 2007 (for all current and retired workers and surviving spouses; the latter two groups together are 3 times the former's size) divided by the total number of hours worked that same year. While their current pension program may be unsustainable, that figure doesn't reflect the actual wages of current workers.

 

[ntalwar]

NPR: GM vs. Toyota: By the Numbers

Average Labor Cost per U.S. Hourly Worker

Source: GM & Toyota
GM:
$73.73

Toyota:
$48

 

[yolland]

.

Detroit Free Press, Nov. 19

Bachus and other lawmakers cited a figure of more than $70 per hour that UAW workers are supposedly paid as an example of cuts that need to be made. Several experts have noted that that figure, compiled before the 2007 contract, includes the cost of pensions and health care benefits for retirees in addition to pay for active workers.

Under the 2007 contract, new hires will be paid $14 a hour with far less generous retirement benefits, changes the companies say will make them competitive with labor costs at foreign-owned U.S. plants.

Conde Nast Portfolio, Nov. 18

Rather, the $70 per hour figure (or $73 an hour, or whatever) is a ridiculous number obtained by adding up GM's total labor, health, and pension costs, and then dividing by the total number of hours worked. In other words, it includes all the healthcare and retirement costs of retired workers.

 

[diamond]

UberBeaver;5609014]Save em? Or let em fail

?QUOTE][/B]

You guys know I was in the car business for 20 plus years- the last 2 managing at a Jeep store right?

You guys realize that for every GM car sold approx 2000.00 goes to the union benefits of retired GM factory workers.

People like Michael Moore advocated this mentality 20 years ago in his movie Roger and Me.

Roger & Me - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You see where the "entitlement mentality" gets ppl in the long run, right?

YouTube - Roger & Me (1989 trailer) a film by Michael Moore

<>