GM posts $4.3 billion loss in July-December period

[Bill in Utah]

Originally Posted By: KrisZ
I just read in the mechanical section that Honda Fit requires valve adjustments every 30k and it's a 2.7 hours job

, but I'm sure it will be considered as "superior Japanese engineering" by rszappa1

There is no REQUIREMENT from Honda (just a mechanic who makes money making that statement to our member) that Fits need their Valves adjusted that often. IF they DID NEED the valves adjusted that often, we would have heard that loud and clear many times over through out the web.

Hundreds of thousands of Fits out there and I promise (I know of a few of them) do not get or need the valves adjusted any where close to that. Try 3-4 times that mileage.



Bill

 

[LS2JSTS]

Agreed, any job here is a good thing.

I just feel those who constantly bring up that their car is assembled in the USA. While at the same time bringing up Mexican built domestics as if that tells the whole story. Should also understand that they really dont employ that many people here.
In relation to the market share they enjoy in America, they employ very few people here. The transplants employ here for their own good, no other purpose, there is no altruistic motive at work here. In the end all they have done is throw us a bone, with very little meat on it at that.


Yet I agree with you about the bigger picture. People will buy them, and that is their right/choice, so at least we get "something" out of it.

 

[javacontour]

Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
Agreed, any job here is a good thing.

I just feel those who constantly bring up that their car is assembled in the USA. While at the same time bringing up Mexican built domestics as if that tells the whole story. Should also understand that they really dont employ that many people here.
In relation to the market share they enjoy in America, they employ very few people here. The transplants employ here for their own good, no other purpose, there is no altruistic motive at work here. In the end all they have done is throw us a bone, with very little meat on it at that.


Yet I agree with you about the bigger picture. People will buy them, and that is their right/choice, so at least we get "something" out of it.


But then the jobs are manufacturing jobs, aren't they? So what if they don't have as many as Ford, GM or Chrysler. Which is ADDING manufacturing jobs to the US and which is cutting it's US manufacturing workforce?

That's easy to answer, the "domestic" car makers are cutting more and more US manufacturing jobs, while the so-called imports are adding US manufacturing jobs.

So while looking at the number employed is one data point, it's not the only one. Which direct is that number going is just as an important data point.

Buying a Chevy Aveo, for example, doesn't keep US engineers employed, it doesn't keep US factory workers employed, etc. Yet there are those who say it's better for the US economy than buying a new Hyundai Sonata, which I believe is largely both designed and built here.

Many "import" car makers are opening design studios here. So the complaints about design work being done overseas are starting to ring untrue, as more and more of the work of not just building, but also designing the cars is being done in the US.

So it's a valid come-back to those who argue buying a Mexican built Fusion does more to support the domestic workforce than buying a Honda built in OH, or a Toyota built in KY or IN, or a Hyundai built in Alabama.

As I've said before, if the domestic automakers think it's good for business to buy complete cars from Korea, slap their badge on them, and sell them as a domestic, or to buy complete engines from China, or Germany, or Mexico, or to buy complete transmissions from France, you get the idea, then how can anyone argue about where the car is made?

As long as the domestic car makers choose to buy their parts or complete cars from overseas, complaining about someone buying a car that has a Toyota or other import badge instead of a GM, Ford or Chrysler badge makes no sense.

If it's good enough for GM to buy from China or Korea, then why not just give the end buyer the same pass when they choose to buy a "foreign" car.

That's why folks bring up the idea of the Mexican Fusion, because it points out the hypocrisy of the "Buy American" crowd. They give their car maker a pass because of where the HQ building is located, but criticize consumers who buy from a company with an HQ outside the US.

So if it's OK for their favorite carmaker to build cars outside the US for sale here, why is it not OK for car makers to actually build cars here for sale in the US?

Frankly, I think building the car here adds more jobs than designing it here. There are only so many engineers and test lab techs. There may be a few hundred of those on a team to build a car. There are thousands who actually build the car, run the plants, etc.

If the plant is here, then the folks who build the cars work in the plant. The folks who manage the plant work in the plant, and pay taxes, etc.

If the plant is in Mexico, then other than someone who may visit from time to time from the US, the workers who build the cars live in Mexico. The managers who manage the plant live in Mexico, the folks who work on the docks accepting deliveries of parts live in Mexico, and so on.

So if anyone thinks that it's better for Dodge to close the RAM plant in St Louis and produce the trucks in Mexico than it is for Nissan to build cars in TN, I'd like to hear how Dodge is doing more to help the US economy compared to Nissan or any other similar scenario.

 

[LS2JSTS]

Where will your argument be when Aveo production comes here to the States?

As far as the Fusion goes it still has almost the same domestic content as a typical Civic, it is slightly lower but even being built in Mexico it has a 55% domestic content.

You state that the transplants are adding more jobs here in the states than the domestics are, do you have ANY data at all to back that guess up?

Like wise with your "Frankly, I think" comment, do you have any data at all to back up your claim that assembly requires and adds more jobs than engineering, market planning and all other associated elements. Or is that just another hunch as well.

The number of people employed vs the total market share enjoyed by a particular company is the best way to measure end benefits. Or you could just continue with guesses and hunches.

Remember that while Dodge may be moving Ram production from St Louis, they are adding jobs at new engine plants in Trenton and other places as well. But as usual, most around here seem to only see one side of that equation.


I'll ask you or anyone else here who cares to try and answer. What would you have the domestics do? Should they build every car they sell here in the States? Should the Japanese companies build every car they sell here as well?

 

[LS2JSTS]

Originally Posted By: javacontour




So if it's OK for their favorite carmaker to build cars outside the US for sale here, why is it not OK for car makers to actually build cars here for sale in the US?




Where did I ever say that it wasn't.

The point is that they dont employ anywhere near the number of people that would be representative of their market share here.

If you just ignore the fact that Toyota has over 20% of our car market, yet employs only 7% of the total automotive workforce, there is no point in continueing this conversation. It is relevant when considering the number of cars they sell here vs the number they employ here.

How many plants does Nissan have here in the States?

 

[javacontour]

Of course I'd like to see them all built here. But I know that's not realistic.

I believe, but would have to verify to 100% sure, that domestic contents means North America. So that 55% domestic content may be parts made in Mexico or Canada.

I think the stickers say North American content, not US content when slapped on a vehicle. So it's true for ANY car maker, not just the domestics, we really don't know where that 55% or whatever percent is made.

I haven't read where any import automakers were closing plants in the US, other than NUMMI and GM pulled out of there as well, so that's a wash when comparing domestic and foreign car makers.

It was around April or May 2009, IIRC when Chrysler shed 27000 jobs from it's US workforce.

Going back to 2007

http://www.ere.net/2007/11/01/chryslers-cuts-by-the-numbers/

that's another 12K workers back then.

So did Chrysler add about 40K workers to the Trenton and other engine plants?

How many did Chrysler cut in Mexico? How many Mexican plants did Chrysler shut down.

How many Nissan, Toyota, Subaru, BMW, Hyundai and Honda plants were shut down in the past three years?

I think one, and that was co-venture with GM, the NUMMI plant in Freemont, CA. Meanwhile, didn't Toyota open a new truck plant in TX, and Hyundai open a new plant in Alabama to build the Sonata?

So how many jobs did Chrysler add to the Trenton plant? Are those adds net gains after previous lay-offs, or is it still a net loss of jobs for Chrysler?

Why couldn't Ford have built the Fusion in St Louis after idling the Explorer plant, instead of producing that car in Mexico?

My point is not to disparage the car makers from building cars where they build them. My point is why do the "Buy American" crowd cheer on their pet car makers while coming short of calling those who buy a South Carolina built BMW traitors for buying a foreign car?

I'm the first to say buy what you like, regardless where it's made. My question is directed at those who are rabidly "Buy American" How can those who are rabidly "Buy American" give their car makers a pass for not buying American themselves, but blame the consumer when he/she does the same.

There is a local Chevy dealer encouraging folks to buy American. Yet they also run specials on the Aveo. (Still made in Korea for a while longer.)

How does the deal square up selling Aveo's when he's advertising "Buy American?"

It doesn't square up.

So to those who say I'm not as patriotic, because I have a Geo Prizm (A Chevy badged Corolla, made by the UAW) two other Toyotas made in KY and a Nissan made in TN, I answer back that I'm as American as Baseball, Apple Pie and Chevrolet. (Recall the ad campaign from the 80's or 90's if you will.) If Chevrolet is an American car company, and they sell cars made outside the US, then that must make me even more American than Chevrolet, since I buy in a fashion similar if not the same as good old American Chevrolet.

 

[javacontour]

Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
Originally Posted By: javacontour




So if it's OK for their favorite carmaker to build cars outside the US for sale here, why is it not OK for car makers to actually build cars here for sale in the US?




Where did I ever say that it wasn't.

The point is that they dont employ anywhere near the number of people that would be representative of their market share here.

If you just ignore the fact that Toyota has over 20% of our car market, yet employs only 7% of the total automotive workforce, there is no point in continueing this conversation. It is relevant when considering the number of cars they sell here vs the number they employ here.

How many plants does Nissan have here in the States?





But why does Toyota have a smaller work force here?

Look at the labor hours to build a vehicle. Toyota has what many consider the gold standard of the lowest labor hours.

http://www.autoobserver.com/2007/05/harbour-toyota-most-productive----by-a-hair.html

Now that's 2007 data, so I suspect it's getting better with respect to hours of labor put into each car.

Some of the difference can be attributed to that.

Notice that 2007 was still a good year for automakers, and still GM was losing money, FWIW.

So relatively speaking Toyota employs 1/3 of the number of people per market share to build it's share of cars.

Is that because they are under-employing, or doing more things overseas, or is that because they are doing things more efficiently?

In 2007, they were making money, so it's hard to argue with how they were conducting business. GM, Ford and Chrysler were not making money. They were losing on each car sold.


Instead of fixing the real problem, the legacy costs, they choose to close the plants here in the US that have those workers that come with the high costs and build cars and trucks in Mexico, or Korea, while the fans and even the dealers keep shouting, "Buy American" Never mind the man behind the curtain at GM, Ford or Chrysler who is closing plants here and keeping production going in Mexico or other places.

 

[LS2JSTS]

Whatever Java....you got me defending people who make "traitor" comments. I never said ANYONE was less American based on car purchases. I never said

Clearly you arent interested in discussing the disparity between market share and total employment. That was my point. The numbers clearly show that the transplants employ in numbers far below what their market share should dictate. Sorry if I hit a nerve, but that doesnt mean you can ascribe comments to me that I haven't made or even agree with. Why all the straw men to derail any meaningful discussion?

Straw men like the Chrysler plant.......the fact remains that Chrysler employs far more people here relative to their market share than Nissan does.

"Buy American" crowd is apparently smart enough to understand that the domestics are in competition with the rest of the world. They accept and acknowledge to build all their cars here in the states would be suicide. The costs would kill them. What will it take to understand that the domestics build cars offshore and in Mexico to compete with other companies that utilize the same practices.

I agree with you, buy what you want. But it doesn't change the numbers or Toyotas measely number of people employed here relative to their market share. The numbers are fact, the rest is just geusses and hunches.

 

[javacontour]

It's speculation either way. The way things are going for the domestic car makers, their numbers will likely fall into line with Toyota and others.

There will never be parity because each car maker has it's own way of doing things.

Of course, I'm not sure how much we really want to explore what you suggest. After all, the Chinese may want their Buicks built by Chinese, with as little US content as is possible.

So from that perspective, it may be better not to examine that topic too closely, or GM's fastest growing market, may not mean many jobs for the US. (It probably doesn't already.)

I was interested in discussing that number. As I said, parity is likely coming as the big three are shedding US jobs, while the others are not.

We may not be in a period of job growth for the foreign car makers building cars here. But they are not cutting jobs either. All the while, the domestics are.

So I predict there will be parity, but more so because the US car makers will continue to shed jobs here in favor of jobs outside the US. They will become what they despise in the foreign car makers.

Then what? Both Toyota and GM will have same measly number.

Mark my words, in 10 years this will be the case.

 

[javacontour]

I'm not really contradicting myself. What I mean to say is the numbers will never be exactly even. So from that perspective, there will likely never be 100% parity in the jobs market.

However, from the perspective that in big round numbers, it will likely happen, or at least be far closer than it is today.

It won't be because Toyota added jobs, but because car makers such as GM will continue to slash domestic work forces until their workforce is so small that Toyota's will more closely match their market share, instead of being 1/3 the employees relative to market share.

 

[LS2JSTS]

Originally Posted By: javacontour
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
Originally Posted By: javacontour




So if it's OK for their favorite carmaker to build cars outside the US for sale here, why is it not OK for car makers to actually build cars here for sale in the US?




Where did I ever say that it wasn't.

The point is that they dont employ anywhere near the number of people that would be representative of their market share here.

If you just ignore the fact that Toyota has over 20% of our car market, yet employs only 7% of the total automotive workforce, there is no point in continueing this conversation. It is relevant when considering the number of cars they sell here vs the number they employ here.

How many plants does Nissan have here in the States?





But why does Toyota have a smaller work force here?

Look at the labor hours to build a vehicle. Toyota has what many consider the gold standard of the lowest labor hours.

http://www.autoobserver.com/2007/05/harbour-toyota-most-productive----by-a-hair.html

Now that's 2007 data, so I suspect it's getting better with respect to hours of labor put into each car.

Some of the difference can be attributed to that.

Notice that 2007 was still a good year for automakers, and still GM was losing money, FWIW.

So relatively speaking Toyota employs 1/3 of the number of people per market share to build it's share of cars.

Is that because they are under-employing, or doing more things overseas, or is that because they are doing things more efficiently?

In 2007, they were making money, so it's hard to argue with how they were conducting business. GM, Ford and Chrysler were not making money. They were losing on each car sold.


Instead of fixing the real problem, the legacy costs, they choose to close the plants here in the US that have those workers that come with the high costs and build cars and trucks in Mexico, or Korea, while the fans and even the dealers keep shouting, "Buy American" Never mind the man behind the curtain at GM, Ford or Chrysler who is closing plants here and keeping production going in Mexico or other places.



Yeah, the difference is in the higher efficiency.....lol. The article you linked to even points out the miniscule differences between the makes...get real.

The fact that you think you can extrapolate "1/3 employment gives 20% market share" and then assume they produce their total market share from that number of employees, says it all. Are you forgetting the huge number of imported out of whole cloth vehicles?

Carry on with your guesses and hunches.....I'll stick to the numbers.

Ford 41 plants in the USA....15% market share
Toyota 7 plants in the USA....20+% market share
Honda 4 plants in the USA.....10-11% market share

Numbers dont lie, hunches and guesses serve no purpose at all.

 

[javacontour]

You haven't answered the question. Did Chrysler hire 40K workers to build engines? Is their domestic employment shrinking or growing?

What about GM? What about Ford? How is their net employment today compared to three or five years ago.

How about the same question for Toyota, or Honda, or Nissan, or Hyundai? Are they employing more or fewer employees here than they did three or five years ago?

 

[LS2JSTS]

Originally Posted By: javacontour
I'm not really contradicting myself. What I mean to say is the numbers will never be exactly even. So from that perspective, there will likely never be 100% parity in the jobs market.

However, from the perspective that in big round numbers, it will likely happen, or at least be far closer than it is today.

It won't be because Toyota added jobs, but because car makers such as GM will continue to slash domestic work forces until their workforce is so small that Toyota's will more closely match their market share, instead of being 1/3 the employees relative to market share.



Just more specualtion, assumptions and guesses....do you have any real data to back up any of your claims?
If you don't then I would suggest that your whole point is based on the assumption that things continue on their current path. That Toyota will continue to employ more and more people here while GM lays them off.

I'm providing real ghard numbers that reflect the current situation. Not engaging in some speculation as to what the future MAY hold.

And if the future holds for Chinese produced Buicks being sold in China I'm all for it....assuming GM is still in Detroit and an American company....now that is an assumption.

 

[LS2JSTS]

Originally Posted By: javacontour
You haven't answered the question. Did Chrysler hire 40K workers to build engines? Is their domestic employment shrinking or growing?

What about GM? What about Ford? How is their net employment today compared to three or five years ago.

How about the same question for Toyota, or Honda, or Nissan, or Hyundai? Are they employing more or fewer employees here than they did three or five years ago?


So, the totals are meaningless, but discussion of one specific plant to build one specific truck is relevant?

I did answer your question, before you even asked it. The domestics employ 65+% of the total auto workforce here in the states. The transplants enjoy a much higher ratio of market share/total employment than the domestics. Anyone who makes the argument that the domestics dont do more for American workers and employment in general is just searching for rationilizations to excuse the transplants poor employment numbers here.

As to the question "now vs 4-5 years ago".....I have to wonder if you've ever even been inside an auto manufacturing plant. You said before that it takes "thousands" to build a car and only a few to engineer it. This isn't 1928 anymore, Ford doesnt need hundreds of thousands of laborers anymore. Modern manufacturing practices have drastically cut the numbers for EVERY manufacturer.

It's likely that Fords total labor numbers would have dropped over the last ten years even if the market was booming. Same can be said for almost all manufacturers...lean is in, has been for a while.

 

[Ben99GT]

Originally Posted By: javacontour
Many "import" car makers are opening design studios here. So the complaints about design work being done overseas are starting to ring untrue, as more and more of the work of not just building, but also designing the cars is being done in the US.


If you think the US manufacturing workforce is lopsided in favor of the domestics, the white collar workforce is even more so.

 

[javacontour]

Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
Originally Posted By: javacontour
You haven't answered the question. Did Chrysler hire 40K workers to build engines? Is their domestic employment shrinking or growing?

What about GM? What about Ford? How is their net employment today compared to three or five years ago.

How about the same question for Toyota, or Honda, or Nissan, or Hyundai? Are they employing more or fewer employees here than they did three or five years ago?


So, the totals are meaningless, but discussion of one specific plant to build one specific truck is relevant?

I did answer your question, before you even asked it. The domestics employ 65+% of the total auto workforce here in the states. The transplants enjoy a much higher ratio of market share/total employment than the domestics. Anyone who makes the argument that the domestics dont do more for American workers and employment in general is just searching for rationilizations to excuse the transplants poor employment numbers here.

As to the question "now vs 4-5 years ago".....I have to wonder if you've ever even been inside an auto manufacturing plant. You said before that it takes "thousands" to build a car and only a few to engineer it. This isn't 1928 anymore, Ford doesnt need hundreds of thousands of laborers anymore. Modern manufacturing practices have drastically cut the numbers for EVERY manufacturer.

It's likely that Fords total labor numbers would have dropped over the last ten years even if the market was booming. Same can be said for almost all manufacturers...lean is in, has been for a while.


I have been in a plant. Our computers were installed in the Ford Explorer plant in St. Louis.

It was absolutely amazing to watch a vehicle built from beginning to end. I saw the whole production line from bare frames starting at one end to completed vehicles started for the very first time.

I also saw where there were extra inspections for the RHD Explorers going to Japan because the Japanese market would not buy the same "low" (relative term) quality Explorers that were sold in the US market. So the Explorers bound for Japan got extra inspections to meet the standards of the Japanese market.

So yes, I saw the folks who worked the line, for two or three shifts and the number would be measured in the thousands when you consider more than one shift working.

I suspect the GM plant in Wentzville, and the Chrysler North and South plants in Fenton, MO were pretty much the same.

Look at the numbers. The Toyota plants, you know, the ones you say don't employ enough auto workers employ from 2000 to 5000+ employees.

http://www.toyoland.com/toyota/plants.html

There are plants with as many as 6900 workers in that table. So please, don't tell me that there are three shifts of 2000+ engineers for every car that is made for any automaker, foreign or domestic. There is likely one or two white collar managers, marketers, engineers, etc for every 10 workers on the line building the cars.

Everytime you see cuts it's about 10:1 blue collar vs white collar. So I suspect the labor breakdown is similar 10:1 or 10:2.

The biggest part of any automakers labor force is going to be those who build the cars, even in a post 1928 factory.

 

[oldmaninsc]

Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS


Carry on with your guesses and hunches.....I'll stick to the numbers.

Ford 41 plants in the USA....15% market share
Toyota 7 plants in the USA....20+% market share
Honda 4 plants in the USA.....10-11% market share

Numbers dont lie, hunches and guesses serve no purpose at all.



Numbers don't lie? That's funny. Numbers can and usually are EASILY manipulated to mean whatever a person wants them to. The numbers quoted above are absolutely meaningless for the reasons I just mentioned.

I've been saying for a long time some of the same things Javacontour said.
For one - why should I be loyal to an "American" company (for the sake of argument American company means with an "American" name like Chevy, Ford, etc.) who isn't loyal to me? Is GM or any other automaker being loyal to us by building engines or cars in China, Canada, Korea or Mexico? Nothing against Canada or Mexico but last I looked they are NOT part of the United States of America.

As I've stated before I own both GM, Ford and Toyota products. I buy what works best for me and what I happen to like.

 

[LS2JSTS]

Yeah Java.....it's all about Toyotas greater efficiency....lol. From your own linked article.....


"The productivity gap among the six manufacturers was the closest in the nearly two-decade history of the study. That gap is so close, Harbour said, There's no telling who will be on top next year."

Did you even bother to read the article you claim is proof of Toyotas vastly superior efficiency?

 

[MrHorspwer]

Quote:
Many "import" car makers are opening design studios here. So the complaints about design work being done overseas are starting to ring untrue, as more and more of the work of not just building, but also designing the cars is being done in the US.


A design center or two? Seriously?

At 5.3 million square feet, the Chrysler Tech Center in Auburn Hills is the 19th largest building IN THE WORLD!

You could likely take every engineering center, research center, and design center that transplant automakers have built on U.S. soil and still not even come close to to the size Chrysler's single building.

 

[LS2JSTS]

Originally Posted By: oldmaninsc
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS


Carry on with your guesses and hunches.....I'll stick to the numbers.

Ford 31 plants in the USA....15% market share
Toyota 7 plants in the USA....20+% market share
Honda 4 plants in the USA.....10-11% market share

Numbers dont lie, hunches and guesses serve no purpose at all.



For one - why should I be loyal to an "American" company (for the sake of argument American company means with an "American" name like Chevy, Ford, etc.) who isn't loyal to me?


In all earnestness have you ever once claimed that the Japanese makers are being disloyal to Japan by building cars here in the States? Why is that the double standard you just used is only applied to the domestic builders.


And since you chimed in I'd love to get an answer to my long ago unanswered query...What would you suggest the domestic builders do? Do you propose that they should build all of their cars here in the states? Do you propose that the transplants do the same?

If they built all their cars here with US labor, they wouldnt be able to compete and would die a slow death. Honestly how would you have them operate in a climate where they compete with copmpanies that have plants all over the world as well. It's simple minded to think that the US manufacturers could or even should operate in sucha manner. Heck Ford has had plants around the world since the beginning, because it's smart, good business.