Reply
Mon 21 Nov, 2005 08:08 am
General Motors is lopping off 9 Plants here in North America, and 30,000 jobs. Ford is also trimming off as well, I think it is 4000 jobs or so.
Reasons given, lack of business. I guess that stubbornly pumping out SUV's that suck gas has finally caught up with them. It looks like there really is such a thing as Karma.
There was a legitimate demand for SUV's, just look on the roads....no one forced the public to buy them. Plus there is a lot of profit in SUV's so they are not GM's problem.
Their problem in sales is they can't(won't) build a mundane car such as the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry that people want...and they haven't been willing to do what it takes to match the quality and refinement of those.
The real problem is they have too much retirement debt, they're more of a healthcare company than car comany....thanks to bending to the UAW too many times.
Brand X wrote:The real problem is they have too much retirement debt, they're more of a healthcare company than car comany....thanks to bending to the UAW too many times.
Yea, those damn workers. Don't worry, I hear they want the unions to renegotiate from $27. per hour down to $9. per hour or face further closings. That'll teach the bastards to want a living wage.
Your analysis doesn't change the fact that to survive GM has to take drastic measures, they are not in business to give people jobs....they are in business to make a profit. Here's an example of the battle they have to fight on an uneven playing field.
Excerpt:
Source
GM, Ford and Chrysler only have around 50% of the US auto market share collectively, changes have to be made at all three but GM has the worst debt load.
Ford is ready to make similar cuts. The big companies are not in business to give a **** about American jobs, just the cheapest labor source available. If that means we in America end up the lower half living in mud huts while the rich expand their luxuries, well, that's progress.
No one in America is living in mud huts.
The object of globalization is to bring all the workers of the world to equilibrium. Mud huts are indeed in the near future.
Brand X wrote:Your analysis doesn't change the fact that to survive GM has to take drastic measures, they are not in business to give people jobs....they are in business to make a profit. Here's an example of the battle they have to fight on an uneven playing field.
Excerpt:
Source
GM, Ford and Chrysler only have around 50% of the US auto market share collectively, changes have to be made at all three but GM has the worst debt load.
They can't compete because they aren't making a saleable product. If they were working in the right direction in terms of product, they wouldn't be eating it big time now! In their greed to make the most possible profit with the least possible expense they have fallen into their own trap.
Without trying to reinvent and reengineer their products to meet current needs, they have created they're own problems. That's why Toyota and others are taking marketshare away from them.
au1929 wrote:The object of globalization is to bring all the workers of the world to equilibrium. Mud huts are indeed in the near future.
I have another Topic thats discusses exactly that issue!
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=64331&highlight=
Brand X wrote:I disagree.
You're not paying attention, or you would see it.
au1929 wrote:The object of globalization is to bring all the workers of the world to equilibrium. Mud huts are indeed in the near future.
Except they'll charge us exorbitant rents (no-one will be able to afford to buy one) and they will be called " single-level adobe apartments".
Does tar paper shack count?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace