| Author |
Message |
Bob Bitch'n
Guest
|
 Posted:
Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:46 am Post subject:
Re: GM leaving town |
|
|
You misunderstand me.
I was simply agreeing with Art when he wrote "They were crippled by making
lousy cars for the last 30 years. They would have been helped out if they
had let Clinton come up with a national health plan. They got theirs."
I still think that Art's statement is true. I never said that the Clinton
health care plan was a good one, just that GM's position would have been
helped.
Bob
".dbu." <foolishlefties@Zapem.com> wrote in message
news:foolishlefties-28E085.16320422112005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com...
| Quote: | In article <i3Ggf.4724$pF.101@fed1read04>,
"Bob Bitch'n" <Bob@RobertBitch'n.com> wrote:
It only sounds foolish if you are asleep or not paying attention.
Bob
My day starts at 3 AM. I'm still wide awake. Are you?
The healthcare issue is not one that broke the camels back regarding GM.
It is a loss of sales, a product line which is not in tuned to the
market and too many plants which are running far below 100 percent. It
would help if GM could rid themselves of the labor contracts as one
major airline is in the process of doing. Big labor is a huge burden on
companies. The big labor bosses tell the minions who to vote for and
they dutifully do so with the thought they will get more "bennys".
Democrats pander to big labor for that very reason. Democrats have
found a cozy little place with big labor. There should be an
investigation of the goings on between big labor and the democrat party.
Your healthcare national plan needs far far more scrutiny than hillary
was willing to give. It failed and I am most happy it did.
".dbu." <foolishlefties@Zapem.com> wrote in message
news:foolishlefties-6E49BF.08112022112005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com...
In article <OtFgf.4148$wf.90@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Art" <begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote:
They were crippled by making lousy cars for the last 30 years. They
would
have been helped out if they had let Clinton come up with a national
health
plan. They got theirs.
Another foolish statement by Art.
"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:f1lgf.1647$aA2.387@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Thank you Bob. Here's a snip from your article ... the most
telling:
"GM has been crippled by high labor, pension, health care and
materials
costs as well as by sagging demand for sport utility vehicles, its
longtime cash cows, and by bloated plant capacity. Its market share
has
been eroded by competition from Asian automakers led by Toyota Motor
Corp."
-Philip
"Bob Bitch'n" <Bob@RobertBitch'n.com> wrote in message
news:sZkgf.4213$pF.3186@fed1read04...
More info at:
http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0511/21/0auto-389019.htm
Bob
"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:TKkgf.3667$N45.3331@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- General Motors (GM) Monday said it now
plans
to eliminate 30,000 manufacturing positions from 2005 through 2008
as
part of an effort to reduce its assembly capacity in North
America.
It
expects the staff reduction to come mostly through attrition and
early
retirees. The figure represents an increase of 5,000 jobs from its
previous plan to cut 25,000 positions in the three-year period.
The
company expects to reduce capacity by an additional 1 million
units
by
the end of 2008, bringing its target down to 4.2 million units, a
level
that would represent a 30% decrease from 2002 levels. The Dow
component
expects to record a "significant" restructuring charge in relation
to
this effort. GM lifted its target for structural cost reductions
to
$6
billion by the end of 2006 from a previously indicated level of $5
billion. It also is targeting an additional $1 billion in net
material
cost savings.
--
--
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ray O
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 23, 2005 9:18 am Post subject:
Re: GM leaving town |
|
|
"C. E. White" <cewhite@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:ytTgf.4468$wf.1746@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
| Quote: |
"Ray O" <rokigawa@tristarassociatesDOT.com> wrote in message
news:b3e47$438402ba$180fead6$4682@msgid.meganewsservers.com...
Here is food for thought - Who's going to take care of all those US
Toyota workers when they turn 65?
Toyota.
I like the answer. But why won't Toyota have the same sort of problems as
GM? I know how my company is handling the cost of health care for
retirees- they are screwing the people who are retired. They increase the
co-pay every year and force them into HMOs that make the worst Government
system you can imagine look good.
Ed
|
I am not a market analyst so this is pure speculation on my part, based on
business articles and personal experience meeting with Toyota's upper
management.
AFAIK, the Toyota's only UAW assembly plant is NUMMI and so they are not
saddled with above-market benefits. In other words, the pay and benefits
for the markets where the assembly plants are located are in line with local
conditions and not with a national contract.
Toyota's sales, service, and parts operations in the U.S. are much leaner
than GM, Ford, and Chrysler operations. Many of my former co-workers came
from GM, Ford, & Chrysler and they were all amazed Toyota's offices were
staffed with much fewer people. If that is true, then Toyota has a much
lower overhead and fewer people with retirement liabilities per vehicle sold
than GM & Ford.
I've heard complaints in the past that Toyota's assembly operations are too
automated and that Toyota should hire more people instead of letting robots
do the work. The problem with that argument is that not only do those
people cost more today than a robot because of salaries and benefits, they
continue to cost more even after they are done working because of retirement
benefits.
According to this article
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/BUSINESS/11/04/toyota.results.reut/
Toyota is the world's most valuable car maker at $165 billion. Toyota just
reported that their 3rd quarter 2005 operating profit was down to $3.45
billion, with net profits of $2.59 billion because of heavy investment in
new plants. If you annualize the net profit and round down to $10 billion
net profit. Not only are Toyota's vehicle sales trending upward, so are
their net profits.
IMO, Toyota's biggest long-term advantage over GM and Ford is that Toyota's
sales come from a much broader global market. According to that article,
60% of Toyota's sales come from areas outside of Japan, and as you probably
know, Toyota invests heavily in assembly plants is their major markets.
They have 52 overseas manufacturing plants in 26 different countries and
sell through 160 importers/distributors. I do not know what the percentage
of overseas sales are for GM and Ford, but my impression is that the ratio
of domestic vs. overseas sales is the opposite and so an increase or
downturn in business in their home market has a proportionately bigger
effect on their bottom line. In other words, Toyota has done a better job
of hedging its bets by entering multiple markets.
Toyota does not have the corporate arrogance that GM, Ford, and Chrysler
once had. When the Hyundai Excel and Yugo were introduced and became the
poster boys for poor quality, Toyota still studied their competition and I
heard predictions from upper management that the Korean brands would one day
vie for the same customers as Toyota. Toyota was also aware that their
customer base was aging and that they were in danger of becoming the favored
brand of retired folks like Buick. Toyota introduced the Scion to make sure
they found new customers and were able to compete at the entry level as well
as the upper levels.
Toyota has a business plan that goes out 20 years, and they share their
plans with their employees. Toyota's current sales are well ahead of what
was projected when I left the company in 1993.
I've heard the argument that Japan's automotive market is very protected,
and I agree. On the other hand, GM and Ford did not have left-hand drive
vehicles for the Japanese market. Ironically, Japan's import barriers and
right-hand drive vehicles made GM and Ford cars a status symbol among the
yakuza. Since the yakuza favored GM and Ford, the average mainstream
Japanese citizen wouldn't be caught dead driving one.
--
Ray O
correct the return address punctuation to reply |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
C. E. White
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 23, 2005 9:18 am Post subject:
Re: GM leaving town |
|
|
"Ray O" <rokigawa@tristarassociatesDOT.com> wrote in message
news:b3e47$438402ba$180fead6$4682@msgid.meganewsservers.com...
| Quote: | Here is food for thought - Who's going to take care of all those US
Toyota workers when they turn 65?
Toyota.
|
I like the answer. But why won't Toyota have the same sort of problems as
GM? I know how my company is handling the cost of health care for retirees-
they are screwing the people who are retired. They increase the co-pay every
year and force them into HMOs that make the worst Government system you can
imagine look good.
Ed
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ray O
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 23, 2005 9:18 am Post subject:
Re: GM leaving town |
|
|
"C. E. White" <cewhite@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:%OSgf.4367$N45.3093@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
| Quote: |
"Art" <begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:OtFgf.4148$wf.90@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
They were crippled by making lousy cars for the last 30 years. They
would have been helped out if they had let Clinton come up with a
national health plan. They got theirs.
Actually I think many executives for old line manufacturing companies,
like GM, were all for the government taking over health care exactly
because it would have helped bail them out. The groups against it were the
one who profit from out current national health care system - Hospitals,
HMOs, Insurance Companies, Pharmaceutical Companies, Trial Lawyers. I
still haven't figured out how these groups managed to pull the wool over
"our" eyes. And for any of you who think we don't have a National Help
Care system, you are dreaming. We have a system, almost the worst one that
could be concocted if your goal was delivering decent health care
efficiently and economically. However it serves the interests of the
Insurance and Drug companies nicely.
Here is food for thought - Who's going to take care of all those US Toyota
workers when they turn 65?
Ed
Toyota. |
--
Ray O
correct the return address punctuation to reply |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
C. E. White
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 23, 2005 9:18 am Post subject:
Re: GM leaving town |
|
|
"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:fsHgf.4178$wf.1649@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
| Quote: | If the garbage you just spewed had come to pass, then WE the Taxpayers
would be funding those 'rich' Union medical benefits. A corporate welfare
subsidy by us taxpayers.
|
I know I feel a lot better funding Pharmaceutical Companies, Insurance
Companies, HMO's, Trial Lawyers, etc.
So when the US Toyota workers retire, who'll be finding their medical plans?
Ed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
C. E. White
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 23, 2005 9:18 am Post subject:
Re: GM leaving town |
|
|
"Art" <begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:OtFgf.4148$wf.90@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
| Quote: | They were crippled by making lousy cars for the last 30 years. They would
have been helped out if they had let Clinton come up with a national
health plan. They got theirs.
|
Actually I think many executives for old line manufacturing companies, like
GM, were all for the government taking over health care exactly because it
would have helped bail them out. The groups against it were the one who
profit from out current national health care system - Hospitals, HMOs,
Insurance Companies, Pharmaceutical Companies, Trial Lawyers. I still
haven't figured out how these groups managed to pull the wool over "our"
eyes. And for any of you who think we don't have a National Help Care
system, you are dreaming. We have a system, almost the worst one that could
be concocted if your goal was delivering decent health care efficiently and
economically. However it serves the interests of the Insurance and Drug
companies nicely.
Here is food for thought - Who's going to take care of all those US Toyota
workers when they turn 65?
Ed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moe
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 26, 2005 4:34 pm Post subject:
Re: GM leaving town |
|
|
Philip wrote:
| Quote: | NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- General Motors (GM) Monday said it now plans to
eliminate 30,000 manufacturing positions from 2005 through 2008 as part of
an effort to reduce its assembly capacity in North America. It expects the
staff reduction to come mostly through attrition and early retirees. The
figure represents an increase of 5,000 jobs from its previous plan to cut
25,000 positions in the three-year period. The company expects to reduce
capacity by an additional 1 million units by the end of 2008, bringing its
target down to 4.2 million units, a level that would represent a 30%
decrease from 2002 levels. The Dow component expects to record a
"significant" restructuring charge in relation to this effort. GM lifted its
target for structural cost reductions to $6 billion by the end of 2006 from
a previously indicated level of $5 billion. It also is targeting an
additional $1 billion in net material cost savings.
It's a new world economy. Get used to it. Bolting on bumpers for 65 |
dollars an hour (wages+benifits) won't cut it any more. Working class
Americans are destined to a working class standard of living. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Art
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 27, 2005 1:09 am Post subject:
Re: GM leaving town |
|
|
I agree that the labor heads are cozy with the Democrats but my
understanding is that the typical union members voted for whoever promised a
tax cut and of course that was the Republicans since that is all they know
how to do.
".dbu." <foolishlefties@Zapem.com> wrote in message
news:foolishlefties-28E085.16320422112005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com...
| Quote: | In article <i3Ggf.4724$pF.101@fed1read04>,
"Bob Bitch'n" <Bob@RobertBitch'n.com> wrote:
It only sounds foolish if you are asleep or not paying attention.
Bob
My day starts at 3 AM. I'm still wide awake. Are you?
The healthcare issue is not one that broke the camels back regarding GM.
It is a loss of sales, a product line which is not in tuned to the
market and too many plants which are running far below 100 percent. It
would help if GM could rid themselves of the labor contracts as one
major airline is in the process of doing. Big labor is a huge burden on
companies. The big labor bosses tell the minions who to vote for and
they dutifully do so with the thought they will get more "bennys".
Democrats pander to big labor for that very reason. Democrats have
found a cozy little place with big labor. There should be an
investigation of the goings on between big labor and the democrat party.
Your healthcare national plan needs far far more scrutiny than hillary
was willing to give. It failed and I am most happy it did.
".dbu." <foolishlefties@Zapem.com> wrote in message
news:foolishlefties-6E49BF.08112022112005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com...
In article <OtFgf.4148$wf.90@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Art" <begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote:
They were crippled by making lousy cars for the last 30 years. They
would
have been helped out if they had let Clinton come up with a national
health
plan. They got theirs.
Another foolish statement by Art.
"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:f1lgf.1647$aA2.387@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Thank you Bob. Here's a snip from your article ... the most
telling:
"GM has been crippled by high labor, pension, health care and
materials
costs as well as by sagging demand for sport utility vehicles, its
longtime cash cows, and by bloated plant capacity. Its market share
has
been eroded by competition from Asian automakers led by Toyota Motor
Corp."
-Philip
"Bob Bitch'n" <Bob@RobertBitch'n.com> wrote in message
news:sZkgf.4213$pF.3186@fed1read04...
More info at:
http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0511/21/0auto-389019.htm
Bob
"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:TKkgf.3667$N45.3331@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- General Motors (GM) Monday said it now
plans
to eliminate 30,000 manufacturing positions from 2005 through 2008
as
part of an effort to reduce its assembly capacity in North
America.
It
expects the staff reduction to come mostly through attrition and
early
retirees. The figure represents an increase of 5,000 jobs from its
previous plan to cut 25,000 positions in the three-year period.
The
company expects to reduce capacity by an additional 1 million
units
by
the end of 2008, bringing its target down to 4.2 million units, a
level
that would represent a 30% decrease from 2002 levels. The Dow
component
expects to record a "significant" restructuring charge in relation
to
this effort. GM lifted its target for structural cost reductions
to
$6
billion by the end of 2006 from a previously indicated level of $5
billion. It also is targeting an additional $1 billion in net
material
cost savings.
--
--
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Art
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 27, 2005 1:12 am Post subject:
Re: GM leaving town |
|
|
I don't think the US health care system and get much more expensive or
wasteful for taxpayers than it is right now. No other developed country
spends more and gets less.
"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:fsHgf.4178$wf.1649@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
| Quote: | If the garbage you just spewed had come to pass, then WE the Taxpayers
would be funding those 'rich' Union medical benefits. A corporate welfare
subsidy by us taxpayers.
"Art" <begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:OtFgf.4148$wf.90@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
They were crippled by making lousy cars for the last 30 years. They
would have been helped out if they had let Clinton come up with a
national health plan. They got theirs.
"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:f1lgf.1647$aA2.387@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Thank you Bob. Here's a snip from your article ... the most telling:
"GM has been crippled by high labor, pension, health care and materials
costs as well as by sagging demand for sport utility vehicles, its
longtime cash cows, and by bloated plant capacity. Its market share has
been eroded by competition from Asian automakers led by Toyota Motor
Corp."
-Philip
"Bob Bitch'n" <Bob@RobertBitch'n.com> wrote in message
news:sZkgf.4213$pF.3186@fed1read04...
More info at:
http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0511/21/0auto-389019.htm
Bob
"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:TKkgf.3667$N45.3331@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- General Motors (GM) Monday said it now plans
to eliminate 30,000 manufacturing positions from 2005 through 2008 as
part of an effort to reduce its assembly capacity in North America. It
expects the staff reduction to come mostly through attrition and early
retirees. The figure represents an increase of 5,000 jobs from its
previous plan to cut 25,000 positions in the three-year period. The
company expects to reduce capacity by an additional 1 million units by
the end of 2008, bringing its target down to 4.2 million units, a
level that would represent a 30% decrease from 2002 levels. The Dow
component expects to record a "significant" restructuring charge in
relation to this effort. GM lifted its target for structural cost
reductions to $6 billion by the end of 2006 from a previously
indicated level of $5 billion. It also is targeting an additional $1
billion in net material cost savings.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Art
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 27, 2005 1:18 am Post subject:
Re: GM leaving town |
|
|
Although I am not a fan of my Avalon, it is far superior than any GM product
I've driven for years. A few years ago a quality guru retired from Toyota
and picked up by GM. His major recommendation was that the components in
the cars should be engineered to last 100k miles instead of the warranty
period as GM was currently practicing. I believe that explains 90% of the
problem with GM car reliability right there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Hunter
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:46 am Post subject:
Re: GM leaving town |
|
|
I don't generally respond to such ridiculous posts but I must ask, do you
dream this stuff or do you just make it up? There are literally millions of
GM vehicles on the road, long out of warranty, with hundreds of thousands of
miles on the clock still running fine. When I still owned my fleet service
business we serviced thousands of police cars, with over 200 thousands
miles on the clock, for years after GM stopped building police cars. Grow
up.
mike
"Art" <begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:dy2if.5881$wf.1319@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
| Quote: | Although I am not a fan of my Avalon, it is far superior than any GM
product I've driven for years. A few years ago a quality guru retired
from Toyota and picked up by GM. His major recommendation was that the
components in the cars should be engineered to last 100k miles instead of
the warranty period as GM was currently practicing. I believe that
explains 90% of the problem with GM car reliability right there.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the benevolent dbu
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 27, 2005 5:01 am Post subject:
Re: GM leaving town |
|
|
In article <dy2if.5881$wf.1319@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Art" <begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Although I am not a fan of my Avalon, it is far superior than any GM product
I've driven for years. A few years ago a quality guru retired from Toyota
and picked up by GM. His major recommendation was that the components in
the cars should be engineered to last 100k miles instead of the warranty
period as GM was currently practicing. I believe that explains 90% of the
problem with GM car reliability right there.
|
Union contracts signed years ago is GM's downfall.
-- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
st-bum
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 27, 2005 10:24 pm Post subject:
Re: GM leaving town |
|
|
Medicare will. Toyota doesn't offer their retirees medical coverage,
afaik.
Most companies don't. Why should they? GM offered gold plated
coverage b/c their union insisted on it.
Many companies don't offer pensions anymore either, although they do
match 401K contributions in some manner. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheSnoMan
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 27, 2005 11:04 pm Post subject:
Re: GM leaving town |
|
|
st-bum wrote:
| Quote: | Medicare will. Toyota doesn't offer their retirees medical coverage,
afaik.
Most companies don't. Why should they? GM offered gold plated
coverage b/c their union insisted on it.
Many companies don't offer pensions anymore either, although they do
match 401K contributions in some manner.
|
Health care costs are breaking GM's back with their generous benifits
and add over 1500 dollars to the average price of a car. It is all
reaching critical mass now together with labor costs. Between health
care costs and labor costs, it accounts for over 70% of the cost of
building a vehicle at GM. It cannot go on forever. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
C. E. White
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 27, 2005 11:33 pm Post subject:
Re: GM leaving town |
|
|
"Art" <begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:dy2if.5881$wf.1319@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
| Quote: | Although I am not a fan of my Avalon, it is far superior than any GM
product I've driven for years. A few years ago a quality guru retired
from Toyota and picked up by GM. His major recommendation was that the
components in the cars should be engineered to last 100k miles instead of
the warranty period as GM was currently practicing. I believe that
explains 90% of the problem with GM car reliability right there.
|
Art,
You don't really believe this do you? GM does not design cars to just last
the warranty period. I don't know exactly what periods GM uses when
designing components, but I do know they routinely run prototypes past
250,000 miles during development. I suspect, but do not know, GM uses longer
design life periods than the Japanese manufacturers. Toyotas in particular
seem to disintegrate after about 10 years.
Ed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in