Yet another article blaming the unions and health care costs for the fact that domestic car companies are in the shiatter.

This is telling, though (from TFA):"The lack of pricing power by American producers, brought on by poor quality, unimaginative marketing and sales to rental fleets, cost them nearly $1,000 per car."

Buried near the end of the article are the real reasons for the problems: if you make a terrible product, you aren't going to be profitable. If you can't predict inventory and demand well enough to avoid idling a factory, you're really screwed. (If you don't want to pay idle workers, make sure they're not idle.)

I see them still whining over health care costs, too. What have the Big Three done to lower their health care costs? Seems to me all they've done is biatch about it, instead of trying to do something constructive. They're big enough consumers of health care to fix the system if they really wanted to.

TFA also doesn't mention the fact that Toyota builds cars here in the US, and doesn't seem to be having the same trouble.

The problem is at the top, not the factories.

I am a auto enthusiast. I have owned cars from many different countries. One thing that I can tell you, is that Chrysler/Dodge now makes a very quality car.

SInce it is really a German owned company, I feel a little guilty saying that they have the best American cars made.

I own a Magnum RT/AWD. In the 2 years I have had it, only oil changes have been needed to be done.

I came in here to say almost exactly what Evil Otto said, but with a "suck it domestics!" tacked on to the end.

Good job EO.

Big_B: Good job EO.

Thank you.

Evil Otto: The problem is at the top, not the factories.

Not completely, it isn't.

If hospital and doctor bills were a reasonable price, health care coverage would be an affordable perk. Instead, doctors and hospitals make a fortune, and in turn they have to pay huge insurance bills to meet unreasonably high malpractice suit awards, or settle out of court, many times for false or trumped-up nonsense. When was the last time you saw a poor doctor or a hospital go Chapter 11 and get torn down? That's what you get when the lawyers take over and politicians haven't got the guts to hike taxes for a state-based health care system.

But yes, if you make cars no one wants, workers that cost the earth, slashed prices affecting residual values, a stubborn, headstrong union used to getting their way, and gutless management, you're farked. The folks in Britain can tell you all about it.

The way I read the early part of the article says that the Japanese save on labor costs by not taking care of their workers worth a fark.

I was having a similar discussion with one of my coworkers recently. I bought a new car in October, and even though my last car was a Pontiac, American cars weren't even on my list of considerations.

They're expensive and get shiatty gas milage. If they aren't going to offer cars that people want, they're not going to get people to buy their cars.

/got a Toyota Yaris
//best car ever.

ElPresidente: Instead, doctors and hospitals make a fortune, and in turn they have to pay huge insurance bills to meet unreasonably high malpractice suit awards, or settle out of court, many times for false or trumped-up nonsense. When was the last time you saw a poor doctor or a hospital go Chapter 11 and get torn down?

So, why aren't Toyota, Honda, Nissan, BMW, and all the other foreign car companies with domestic (U.S.) manufacturing plants not having the same difficulty as the U.S. automakers? It's the fault of greedy doctors that GM makes lousy, unimaginative, boring, undependable cars?

Manta537: I own a Magnum RT/AWD. In the 2 years I have had it, only oil changes have been needed to be done.

#1: That's all you SHOULD have to do on a new car.

#2: It's still an ugly POS for people with micropenii.

Okay, now that I RTFA, it says Toyota doesn't pay its retired workers' healthcare, though it apparently has few retired workers, and it doesn't delineate whether that is its retirees in Japan, or in the US, or both. Not very informative on that.

Nabb1
It's the fault of greedy doctors that GM makes lousy, unimaginative, boring, undependable cars?

I don't think that's a fair assessment of all of their cars. Before my Toyota I had a Pontiac Sunfire and it took me well over 100,000 miles in 5 years without any major problems. But, it got 26 mpg on a good day. With how much driving I do I needed something a little more economical.

ElPresidente: When was the last time you saw a poor doctor or a hospital go Chapter 11 and get torn down?

Hospitals close all the time due to funding issues. Doctors leave fields all the time because they can't make any money doing it. (HMOs basically say "you'll take this amount of money and you'll like it, and you'll see a patient every 10 minutes and you'll like it.")

That's what you get when the lawyers take over and politicians haven't got the guts to hike taxes for a state-based health care system.

But when you say that, people go "LOL SOCIALIST LOL" and tune everything else out. What you have to realize is that we already HAVE a state-based health care system. Who do you think pays when an uninsured patient comes into the ER after a heart attack? Or a car wreck? It comes out of what's called an "uncompensated care" pool, which comes from the government. What needs to happen is that that system needs to be reformed to be more cost-efficient instead of being completely reactionary.

Then we need to put the CEO of every HMO in the country up against the wall and shoot them. After that, we go to the rest of the organization and say "Cut your costs by half, starting with executive salaries, or this happens to you."

Then, tort reform. It's lunacy that some specialties get charged $130,000+ a year for malpractice insurance.

Didn't Ford's CEO make, like 16 million bucks last year? That sounds like the fault of the unions, allright.

BTW, my 2004 Silverado is a great ride. I plan on putting a few hundred thousand miles on it.

My little Saturn is almost 11 years old with 120K on it. It's doing fine.

That written, once it dies I plan to do two things:

1. Convert it to an EV.

-and-

2. Buy another economy vehicle that suits my needs and budget. I will research quality, MPG, adaptability to different fuels, and safety.

/Drive a modest car, but own the best home you can afford.
//Motorcycles are different :D

Go ahead, tell me why I won't be able to convert the Saturn to an electric vehicle.

Evil Otto: What needs to happen is that that system needs to be reformed to be more cost-efficient instead of being completely reactionary.

Precisely. The US spends more public funds on healthcare than most nations with fully socialized systems- the reason being that our particular system is wildly inefficient. Insurance companies and big drug companies live only to make a profit, not to treat as many people as possible as cheaply as possible.

There are solutions that don't require socialized healthcare, which is also pretty inefficient, albeit in different ways.

/click on profile

Evil Otto: Then, tort reform. It's lunacy that some specialties get charged $130,000+ a year for malpractice insurance.

Tort reform, though, is a red herring. The solution isn't to change our court system so that people can't be awarded what a jury thinks they should, but to change the insurance industry so that they cannot gouge doctors.

Solution: a non-profit malpractice insurance company. One nationwide, or several competing among themselves.

I don't understand why the big automakers and other major manufacturing concerns aren't the first in line lobbying Congress to institute national, single-payer, universal health care. Every country they're competing against - Japan, Korea, the western Europeans - has nationwide healthcare, and that drives the cost of making an automobile down. America is alone among developed nations in not ensuring that all its citizens have access to the medical care they need.

hillbillypharmacist: The solution isn't to change our court system so that people can't be awarded what a jury thinks they should, but to change the insurance industry so that they cannot gouge doctors.

How about we just eliminate the health insurance industry, and the idea that healthcare should be done for profit, entirely? A for-profit corporation's job is to deliver as little to its customers as possible for as much money as they can get customers to pay; how is this not anathema to the idea of medical care?

mistersite: How about we just eliminate the health insurance industry, and the idea that healthcare should be done for profit, entirely? A for-profit corporation's job is to deliver as little to its customers as possible for as much money as they can get customers to pay; how is this not anathema to the idea of medical care?

Exactly. Healthcare is not a free market, and so it shouldn't be treated as such.

My concern is that Americans won't accept a fully socialized system (or, at least, its politicians won't). And there is something good to say for retaining choice and competition. I think there's a third way.

mistersite: How about we just eliminate the health insurance industry, and the idea that healthcare should be done for profit, entirely?

There are a number of non-profit hospitals. Why should all healthcare be nonprofit? Virtually every other line of work is engaged in for profit by those persuing it.

Nabb1: There are a number of non-profit hospitals. Why should all healthcare be nonprofit? Virtually every other line of work is engaged in for profit by those persuing it.

I'm not against healthcare providers making some profit. The problem is that for-profit enterprises, particularly in this day and age, become entities whose entire purpose is to make profit - even (or especially) if that means screwing one's employees or customers. The idea that one should provide a product or service at the least expense, while getting from the customer the greatest amount of money possible, is exactly opposite from the philosophy of healthcare which is to give the patient the services or products he or she needs to live a healthy, long, productive life.

Again, I'm not against profit. I'm against profit being the only concern - or even the first concern - in a health care company. For-profit healthcare corporations' first allegiance is to their stockholders; any healthcare organization's first allegiance should be to their patients.

If I were a shareholder of one of these firms (Ford or GM) - and I am not stupid enough to be one - I would INSIST on their IMMEDIATE liquidation. Both are burning through cash at a rate of billions per year, and it's just money down a rathole. Nobody could possibly believe that these companies have a long run future as independent entities. The management is wasting SHAREHOLDER's money, not their own. It is a crime that they should continue to exist.

Flame away, I don't give a damn because I am about as certain of this as I can be. Read your Schumpeter if you feel tempted to disagree. The bottom line is that the Detroit mentality is so toxic in both the management and union that the situation is hopeless.

Health care is obviously a big issue, and far beyond my capabilities to offer a solution, but maybe this is an area where automakers and unions can get together to force a change in the current system. But I am a little amused that the rental car industry seems to be a bit of a double-whammy. ie they raise demand which forces the retail consumer to pay higher prices,which in turn reduces total sales, yet they buy in large enough quantity to demand lower prices. Also, apparently, we have raised productivity to the point where it becomes a problem. Lot's of little "Doh" moments in the story.

Why should I give a shiat about US auto companies? They're no more American than any other multi-national corporation which does business here and tries to run a loss so they can pay no taxes.

It is kind of sad, but these companies have been walking zombie dead since the seventies.

Who the hell was thinking that?

Make more electric cars, dipshiats.

In recent issue of Consumer Report it gace a list at the end of car models to avoid buying (used). I dont remember the exact count, but I compared major domestics to major foriegns and it was appalling.

Toyota had zero cars on the list.
Nissan had something like 3.
Isuzu had 2 or 3.
Honda had 2 or 3.

Ford had 18+.
Chevrolet had like 24.
Dodge had around 18.
GMC had 16 or more.

I will say it again: Conservatives should seriously consider socialised medicine and gov't sponsored pensions.

The Japanese have an unfair subsidy in that their domestic vehicles are made by people from a socialised system.

In the USA they have sane union contracts (if at all) and no people to support.

If the Big Three did not have to pay for healthcare and pensions, it would be fine. Especially for retirees.

It would benefit the country and save jobs and money PLUS generate taxes if there was a social safety net for these corporate dinosaurs.

But as a concession, I'd insist the unions be broken and all employees brought back as contractors. I'm a contractor and it's not the end of the world. For a contractor you work when you're needed and you don't when you're not.

I don't need some goddamned union to babysit me like a child.

GM is a mess, I won't even go into it. And Ford deserves to go out of business. Why? Look at the line of products Ford of Europe makes. Every single one of them hot ass cars. Do they bring them over? No. They feel the American consumer can't appreciate them and won't buy them. So fark Ford. And I say this with a Mustang Cobra sitting in my garage.

Companies like GM are having a fire sale on their assets in order to cover their losses. It is crazy that GM owned DirecTV, GMAC, Ditech.com, and dozens of other companies that they are selling in order to cover the horrible product, crazy pensions, union issues and layoffs.

"I don't need some goddamned union to babysit me like a child."

You would rather the government babysit you like a child instead?

Bollocks.

Canada has government funded health care and this impacts the auto industry very little.
Toyota and Honda make cars in Canada and the U.S. and they pay the same.

Ford, GM and Chrysler gave up manufacturing to third party mega corps that make parts and then turned themselves into assembly plants. The profit is in manufacture, not assembly.
Japanese auto makers control who makes their parts and that is why they make money. I have watched it happen since the 80's. Now try and find a tool shop that makes parts. You can't. The big three wont even let North American shops quote. It goes to parts maker giants, then gets quoted in South America or Asia.
I say they are doing it on purpose and want to close all North American plants oer the next few years. They will make cars in China and then ship them here.

One example of what we can't buy from Ford.

maereth:
>Nabb1
>It's the fault of greedy doctors that GM makes lousy, >unimaginative, boring, undependable cars?

I don't think that's a fair assessment of all of their cars. Before my Toyota I had a Pontiac Sunfire and it took me well over 100,000 miles in 5 years without any major problems. But, it got 26 mpg on a good day. With how much driving I do I needed something a little more economical.

5 yrs of good operation does not make a car dependable. 20yrs on my accord is dependable. also, i would say that that's a better than average experience. most of my friends in high school had accords, and at least one of them was in the shop every week. unimaginative and boring is a very fair description of gm cars (and ford)

Here's one example of how knotty Detroit's labor problem can be: If an assembly plant with 3,000 workers has no dealer orders, it has two options.

That's not the knotty problem! The knotty problem is why is Detroit making cars nobody wants?!

If they made cars that people wanted, guess what would happen to their labor "problems".

its a good thing though that the big three are embracing the move to increase CAFE standards. they are very wise to recognize that a push towards increased efficiency is inescapable at this point and resistance will only make their products even less desirable.

i mean they could just whine about CAFE instead, complaining that it will cost jobs and close factories. the fact that they arent really says good things about their leadership.

Jesus Christ, I can solve Ford's problems in one sentence, but I still cannot get greenlighted on FARK.

Do you see how trivial Ford's problems are?!

As a consumer I wanted a car good on gas. I chose a VW rather then a Toyota. I did'nt consider an American Car because of quality issues and poor gas milage.

Note: I paid more for the VW then the domestics were quoting.

If American cars were good on gas I would have considered one. They messed up because they put all their eggs in one basket. SUVS!

How much per car ia spent on marketing? That seems to be a lot more that is spent per vehicle than labor and health care.

Evil Otto: TFA also doesn't mention the fact that Toyota builds cars here in the US, and doesn't seem to be having the same trouble.

Toyota factories are non-union. Also, Toyota hasn't been building cars in the US for near as long as GM, Ford and Chrysler--so their legacy costs are also much much lower. So yes, they make a lot more money on each car sold than the domestics do. (That they charge a higher price tag doesn't hurt either)

But yes, it does come back down to product. That, however, is changing. The new Saturn Aura is a great sedan and the Malibu looks to be a winner too. The Lambda crossovers are earning praise across the board (and deservedly so). The Ford Fusion is a midsize sedan that's finally competitive with the Accord and Camry in the fun-to-drive category as well as with fuel economy and price. DCX is...well...erm...OK, they're hosed. But GM at least is trying.

no I really really don't think that. So long Ford, it was nice knowing ya

Haha. ElPresidente.

I see what you did there. Good troll. Well played.

MrBach YOU ARE RIGHT!

quote "I say they are doing it on purpose and want to close all North American plants oer the next few years. They will make cars in China and then ship them here."

Remember what he said people.

This should not have the sad tag because there's nothing sad about it.

American cars suck.

- they are designed with crap parts which are designed to FAIL
- the car companies dont listen to thier customers
- they are inferior in design

I have owned several cars in my lifetime. 6 years ago I owned a brand new ford, it was nothing but problems. i then owned a japanese car, no problems whatsoever, too bad it got wrecked. I'm now driving an american car (01` GM Impala). I got it with only 72k miles and it has been nothing but problems. It seems like every month I have to take the stupid thing to the mechanic because of some problem or other. I swear i'm never buying an American car EVER again.

Holy Fark!

I didn't know there were this many people who were willing to even consider the idea that the insurance companies are the ones screwing up healthcare.

I can understand a doctor, nurse, etc. making a good living off of helping the sick/injured, it's a difficult and intense job.

But every dollar of pay an insurance company exec or shareholder makes comes from screwing it out of a patient or doctor.

Think about it.

/isn't this a threadjack?
//Foreign companies have unions too, if you want to blame the unions make sure you specify that it's the business practices of American Unions, and not over-generalize.

One [option] is to close the plant for a week and not build any cars. Then the company still has to give the idled workers 95 percent of their take-home pay plus all benefits for not working.

That's bullshiat right there. Anyone else here work in an industry where you get paid to stay home and not work? Didn't think so.

Step 1: Learn how to manage a farking supply chain.
Step 2: Make a goddamn product somebody wants, instead of garbage.
Step 3: Fair labor practices, not union-politico bullshiat.
Step 4: Profit!

This applied to Ford and GM. Chrysler under Daimler is doing OK.

This wouldn't be a problem if we had flying cars by now.

American cars are shiat. Sticking to my Infiniti. 6 years and 0 problems.

My Dad bought an 85' Dodge Prospector in 95'. It had a 315 engine and was possibly the toughest vehicle we've ever owned. It had the original engine and transmission and the odometer was approaching 750,000 miles. It still ran like new. But it was old, it was no longer water-proof and it had a lot of external, exhaust and electrical problems. I got rid of it.

I replaced it with the last of the 315 engine line: the 2001 Dodge Ram. So far it's working great and I've got about 70,000 miles on it without any problems. When I do eventually get a new vehicle, it's not going to be a Dodge. I just heard from a guy who bought a 2005 Ram that he had to replace the transmission at 50,000 miles.

They had a quality engine and transmission with the old 315 and they quit making it. Ugh.