Who's at fault for US automakers failure?

Who's to blame for automaker woes?

  • Massively overpaid executives

    Votes: 20 34.5%
  • Unions

    Votes: 42 72.4%
  • US Gov't for not providing universal health care, thus putting Detroit at a disadvantage

    Votes: 5 8.6%
  • Auto companies, for not designing vehicles people want

    Votes: 27 46.6%
  • U.S. consumers, for not faithfully buying American

    Votes: 10 17.2%
  • The blame lies, at least in part, elsewhere (please explain)

    Votes: 3 5.2%

  • Total voters
    58
Status
Not open for further replies.

NightRyder

1978 Y88 T/A 6.6 4 spd 1978-2020 RIP
Supporting Founder
Sep 9, 2003
3,545
8
NW Oregon
Isn't it likely they were the norm because their automakers weren't pushing outsized tanks that gulped gas as if it were water?

How are the unions responsible for the U.S. automakers' ignoring the unmistakable message of the 1970s oil embargo: that the world was inevitably changing?

The legacy overhead from the unions in large part dictated what the US automakers could sell at a profit. Pickups and SUV's were still profitable but small cars were money losers. The companies went where the money, and a large part of the demand was.

NightRyder
 

durl

SatelliteGuys Family
May 31, 2006
64
0
Isn't it likely they were the norm because their automakers weren't pushing outsized tanks that gulped gas as if it were water?

How are the unions responsible for the U.S. automakers' ignoring the unmistakable message of the 1970s oil embargo: that the world was inevitably changing?

I believe there are several factors to consider.

Americans want large cars. After WWII, we became a very mobile society; traveling long distances to see more of the country. Route 66 and the creation of the interstate system aided our travels. Putting your family of 4 in a small car wasn't ideal so you bought a station wagon. Gas was cheap so you could buy a huge car with lots of power. It's what the consumer wanted. US automakers would create small cars as the times warranted but, given the choice (and when gas is cheap) Americans buy bigger cars. Not because they're forced to do so, but because it's what they want. History bears that out.

A major factor is that smaller cars are less profitable. Compared to larger vehicles, you have to sell a lot more small cars to make a profit. Profit on a small car can be several hundred dollars compared to several thousand for a big vehicle. Sales of small cars like the Toyota Yaris and Honda Fit are increasing but those models are manufactured overseas and imported to the US because their volumes are simply too small to make a profit if made in the US.

Part of profitability are exchange rates. A weak dollar means that a subcompact from Europe could cost as much as a mid-size vehicle. That's one reason why we don't see the subcompacts from Mercedes and Audi here in the US. A company isn't going to push sales of a vehicle when they lose money on each one.

I don't have a full explanation of why Europeans and Asians enjoy small cars. I'm sure the current reason is extremely high fuel prices, but the factors that prompted Americans to like bigger vehicles were not mimicked overseas.

Regarding unions, my opinion was that unions bear the brunt of responsibility of the condition of US automakers in general and GM in particular. In 2005, GM spent over $5 BILLION in health care benefits. I'm using data from several years ago, but at a time when the average family was paying roughly 20% of their overall health care costs, UAW members were paying nothing. Not even a co-pay. In 2007, health care costs per vehicle at Toyota were $300. At GM, that figure was $1600.

Just prior to the recent bankruptcy announcement, GM had 513,000 employees but was paying benefits to almost 1.1 MILLION former and current employees. That's not counting dependents; in 2006 at GM, there were almost 4 retirees and dependents for every active worker.

My assertion is that a company simply can't maintain that high level of fixed cost attributed to non-productive people for very long.
 

navychop

Member of the Month - July 2014!
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
Jul 20, 2005
60,012
27,284
Northern VA
If they don't cut those former employees loose from the medical plans, can they EVER turn a profit? Will such a (lack of) action result in inevitable dissolution?
 

Ronnie-

Member of the Year
Staff member
HERE TO HELP YOU!
Aug 28, 2007
31,775
12,269
mississippi
I vote unions as well, with small amounts of blame sprinkled to some other (but not all) options.
 

NightRyder

1978 Y88 T/A 6.6 4 spd 1978-2020 RIP
Supporting Founder
Sep 9, 2003
3,545
8
NW Oregon
If they don't cut those former employees loose from the medical plans, can they EVER turn a profit? Will such a (lack of) action result in inevitable dissolution?

That's been one of the arguments in favor of chapter 11 all along, so the company can be released from or substantially renegotiate contracts. It remains to be seen if this government will allow sufficient compromises with the UAW to insure long term survival of GM.

NightRyder
 

pro96

You Member, Member ?
Supporting Founder
Jul 18, 2005
6,464
15
OC
It's YUGO fault for selling a brand new car back in 1985 for $3999.99
 

Attachments

  • Go_Yugo.jpg
    Go_Yugo.jpg
    880.9 KB · Views: 84

vurbano

On Double Secret Probation
Supporting Founder
Apr 1, 2004
23,815
104
Newport News, VA
I think the automakers do make cars we want but they are priced too high because of the unions or GM loses money with each one sold because of the unions. What Obama is going to give us now is a bunch of batteries on wheels that no one wants.
 
Last edited:

Bulldog

SatelliteGuys Pro
Jan 22, 2004
546
0
Missing from the listing is "Lack of Quality"

Yep! "Lack of Quality"

It all started when Japan had better quality built vehicles being imported for far less cost.

American made vehicle’s reliability was very poor, and that is what stated the trend.

American buyers got tired of paying more money and getting lousy built vehicles.

When American auto companies finally caught on to the quality concept, :rolleyes: it was too late! :( It has been going downhill ever since!

An old GM slogan was: “What’s good for GM is good for America”

Now it’s: Thank you America, we’ll pay you back when we get our act together”
 

navychop

Member of the Month - July 2014!
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
Jul 20, 2005
60,012
27,284
Northern VA
Actually, I'd LOVE a plug-in electric car. If it could go 45 miles at 45 mph, it would be immediately useful in town. Then they could work on building up the speed and distance.

And, I doubt very seriously that GM or Chrysler will ever pay back anything significant.
 

Awohar

SatelliteGuys Pro
Jan 6, 2009
491
0
Australia
Actually, I'd LOVE a plug-in electric car. If it could go 45 miles at 45 mph, it would be immediately useful in town. Then they could work on building up the speed and distance.

And, I doubt very seriously that GM or Chrysler will ever pay back anything significant.

Speed is do-able. check out the Tesla Roadster. as for distance, they can do embedded charge capacitors in the roadbed that are only active when a car with the right type of transponder passes over it. Transponder can be controlled access via a smart card that is recharged with credit at the power company. heck, even make the smart card rechargeable at your local gas company or have prepaid ones.
 

Paul Wozniak

SatelliteGuys Master
Oct 26, 2005
13,193
5
Hamtramck,MI
There is no one single answer to this complex problem. Those of you who said just "union" most certainly have a myopic view of the problem.
 

navychop

Member of the Month - July 2014!
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
Jul 20, 2005
60,012
27,284
Northern VA
Speed is do-able. check out the Tesla Roadster. as for distance, they can do embedded charge capacitors in the roadbed that are only active when a car with the right type of transponder passes over it. Transponder can be controlled access via a smart card that is recharged with credit at the power company. heck, even make the smart card rechargeable at your local gas company or have prepaid ones.

I should have included "at an affordable price." Six figures ain't.

I don't see us making the investment to embed any sort of charging device in roadways.

But I really do think electric cars, probably battery/ultra capacitor based, but maybe fuel cell based, are the future. The infernal combustion engine just has too many negatives.
 

SamCdbs

SatelliteGuys Pro
Lifetime Supporter
May 7, 2008
2,745
1,085
The question assumes two things that simply are not true.

First, the lack of a scheme of rationed medicine does no put "Detroit" at a disadvantage, but at an advantage. And GM is just as broke in Canada (and for that matter its largest market, communist China) as it is in the USA. GM was a worldwide company making cars in 35 countries, with vastly different laws on that and many other subjects.

Second, in a Market the customer is always right, and thus can never be at fault, and in any event a Toyota made in Kentucky with and engine and transmission made in West Virginia is just as "American" as any Rust Belt Three vehicle. More than most.

In any event the fault lies with three entities.

The governments made three mistakes.

First, it generally passed extreme environmental laws that made the manufacture of ANYTHING in North America more expensive. It placed domestic manufactures at a disadvantage with, particularly Asian but even European, manufactures, in terms of cost.

Second, it passed particular laws, again often about environmental extremism, that made the "new" model inferior in the respects that most customers wanted, to their "old" car. There were plenty of eras in the 70-mid 90s where one really did not "trade up", because the new model was over-burdened with devices no one wanted. Further, intelectual capital that could have been used to improve the product was wasted on preventing non-existant things like global warming.

Third, it created a labor environment discussed below.

The unions are at fault, because they simply valued their labor over that of their fellow laborers in other industries. They thought, incorrectly, that they could demand more and more at the customer would simply pay more and more, while all the while the same issues discussed above were pushing other industries off-shore. Further, the unions, by protecting the dead weight and the laggards into a situation where quality declined, thought, again incorectly, that the customer would accept this in the face of superior products from "foreign" sources. They tried to sell the customer garbage at a high price. The customer balked.

Lastly, management simply did not do its job. Its job is to insure that the product is of a high quality and at a reasonable price. It refused to stand up to the unions. If signed deal after deal for more and more pay and benefits and to make workers less and less responsible for their poor workmanship. And it watched well runs companies run rings around them.
 

satjay

SatelliteGuys Master
Pub Member / Supporter
Jun 30, 2005
12,703
879
Michigan
There is no one single answer to this complex problem. Those of you who said just "union" most certainly have a myopic view of the problem.

I agree, blame can be spred across, for every story you may here about the "lazy" union worker. I am going to venture that the Execs took some advantages that they saw in there postions as well
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)