AMTRAK comes to mind.
"Thinking out loud, Shooting from the hip AND I don't understand everything that I know about it"
Steve
I didn't realize Toyota is THAT successful
- Thread starter ToyotaNSaturn
- Start date
- Status
"Thinking out loud, Shooting from the hip AND I don't understand everything that I know about it"
Steve
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Well, my assertions were based on a documentory that included with an interview with Lee Iacoca. He was basically discussing Chrysler's issues and how, for example, Mitsubishi labeled 3000 GT's were sold at a higher rate then Stealths ..yet came from the same plant. He remarked that none of the new (at the time) foreign origin plants weren't being placed in the big urban centers that were built up around the current manufacturing base of domestic industry (lower taxes ..lower cost of living). They started with a young and new work force.
I have nothing against 55 year old labor. The fact is that an employee with 27 years of senority is a greater burden to the company then one that has 3 years seniority. If the earth opened up and swallowed up every worker in the UAW over 50 years old and with over 25 years senority ..and their spouses ..the defferred compensation relief in future avoided costs would be a windfall for the Big Three. They are closer to their liability to the bottom line ..and have a bigger impact on it. Toyota USA (probably) has less active employees that the Big Three have in retirement. It's not that big a stretch.
As far as tax breaks ..this was also mentioned in the documentary. They effectively subsidized the venture. States competed for these jobs...agressively. They didn't mention the depth or duration of the incentives.
But!! I guess if you grease their palms enough ..they'll build in some place like San Antonio
There could be as many as 2,300 additional hires at the plant after it opens, according to local reports. As it is, the 2,000 scheduled jobs will generate a $100 million annual payroll. The plant's location on the south side of town has not been the recipient of much positive economic development in years past. Toyota is receiving a $133 million incentive package—almost 17% of its total investment in the state. The package consists of job training funds, utility infrastructure, and some tax incentives. The plant site will be annexed to the city of San Antonio so that residents can immediately benefit from school and other taxes.
tax breaks ..they're good for business
it was cruel timing for officials in Georgia. Mercedes announced on September 30, 1993 it would build its first U.S. plant in Vance, Ala. Alabama offered $253 million to lure Mercedes. The state was highly criticized for the way back then.
Now this is how it is done today. Anyone who's willing to build a plant anywhere is going to get a decent deal ..but back when Toyota hit the nation for domestic assembly ..this wasn't a common practice.
[ June 22, 2005, 01:51 AM: Message edited by: Gary Allan ]
Even if some of what Iacoca is true, that's old news from the early 80's. Chrysler got a Gov't bailout, bought Jeep, AMC, etc. AND, most importantly he ran Chrysler, not GM. GM had enough cash to buy Toyota wholesale in the early '90s. Then they preceded to sell Trucks and SUVs by the pound in the late 90's and early '00s.
Firstly, it's sounds like your guessing, or at best, extrapolating from Iacoca's bull from 30 years ago. Let's see some current verifiable numbers.
In any event, I just don't understand that kind of thinking. Corporate management makes some bad strategic decisions so let's blame the old people at the lower end of the food chain that invested their whole life in the corporation? How about we start at the top and work down cutting compensation packages? You'd probably come up with a couple hundred million in savings before you reached middle management.
Yes, but they do that with American based companies all the time. When Boeing was looking for their new headquarters, or when AMD was considering to move out of Austin. Heck, the city of Austin built a brand spanking new office building downtown for Intel to lure them here, but then Intel decided not to. I guess not enough palm greasing on either side or both.
Like I said above, American based corporations get the same kind of incentives. And as I mentioned before, have a look see where all the American based auto manufacturing plants are located. Better yet, look at the percentage content on some of the new American cars. I recall a comparison between an Oldsmobile and a Honda, and the Honda had a larger percentage of content made in the USA compared to Oldsmobile.
Oh well, dude, if you apply for the top GM job to straighten out their current mess, you can put me on your references list. Oh wait! Wouldn't you have to lay yourself off shortly after being hired?
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Who said that I blamed the workers? ..or the UAW? Do I blame myself for being 49? Do I blame my parents for making me a baby boomer (thanks ma and pa for leaving in the bitter dregs of the good stuff ..ss, good pensions, reliable employment, etc.)? This doesn't alter the fact that if I had been a 30-35 year employee of a typical manufacturing enterprise ...I would be expensive well beyond my productive worth to the company. I would typically have a defined benefit package with a healthy multiplier ..I would have a 30 and out with full benefits. A Firestone worker next door got a great pension. Every time the current contract got a raise in pension ..he did too. He made almost as much as I did working ..in retirement. He was 85 and was on his third wife. He never approached my hourly wage.
More power to him. I wish I had that good fortune. None of that alters the fact that a company that doesn't have that legacy of deffered compensation has a desinct advantage. Or ..however you choose to define it ..has none of those costs to encumber it. Add to it that the same company also doesn't hand out multimillion $$ bonuses also affords an edge.
I doubt Toyota has enough money to support GM's debt if ever they wanted to buy it.
GM debt is classified in junk bonds.
That last sentence demonstrates your underlying beliefs in spite of your attempts at disavowing blame. I don't think we should begrudge people who were fortunate to obtain a fair wage and retirement package. I think we should rise up as a nation and demand the same for all. And if someone points out that large corporations will just move overseas, we should demand that our Gov't place tariffs on such products until the overseas countries impose the similar labor, safety, environmental laws along with the costs of infrastructure such as schools, transportation, defense and housing.
Further, GM was well aware of the costs they were incurring when they employed people at a given wage and benefits package. Just as Toyota (or anyone else) has to incur costs to build a plant here. And even though incentives reduce some of this cost, it doesn't do away with a large percentage of them. Surely GM should of set aside and properly managed the funds to cover these cost while they were incurring them, not cry fowl after they squandered the billions they made when times were good.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Well, I don't see it that way. A bargain made is a bargain made. The discomfort that our larger manufacturing concerns are feeling is mainly demographic. When I was on the union negotiating team for my plant ...the average life expectancy for anyone in retirement was 18 months. We only had 21 current people tapping the plan (totally company funded). Now they have 300 .and have over 600 that will come onto the plan when they reach 55 years of age (reduced rate). Instead of being dead in 18 months average ..they will probably live into their mid to high 70's. It's just a collision of conditions that cause a rapid upramp in costs. This is everywhere. Public education, municipal (police, public works, administration), you name it. That's why most businesses that I see being viable are usually small, have a limited investment, and can pack up and move when any evolutionary burdens become too expensive. I never said that this was a socially responsible or "nice" evolution. It is what it is. I have no issue with letting the free market fund UAW retired workers. What we will see, in my prediction, is a goverment adoption or an "allowed reneg" on many of these promises. It's been done with Bethlem Steel. It will be done with others.
That much we can partly agree on, however, any long term corporate strategy planning meetings should of included at least one person who understands and stays current on the demographics of their labor force. Jeesh, that's covered in Social Studies 101. All these brainiac multi-million dollar salaried+bonus-ed CEOs/VPs didn't see this coming 15 years ago? I don't buy it. I just think they're applying the old "misdirection maneuver", i.e. get everyone to believe the problem just popped up and it's in no way their fault...it's those **** retirees who receive to much money to live on.
If you want to talk about an unfair advantage, how about the patriotism factor? How many people buy American cars just because they believe it's the patriotic thing to do? How much is that advantage worth?
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
I just think they're applying the old "misdirection maneuver", i.e. get everyone to believe the problem just popped up and it's in no way their fault...it's those **** retirees who receive to much money to live on.
Sure. Absolutely. You know my views on economy and other government spending (and borrowing) habits. This is a publically deceptive ..or disingenuous depiction. I'll venture to assume that they've surely known about it for quite some time ..and rationalize it as being "necessary" and "let's not look at those who happen to be left out of chairs when the music stops. Let's look at how many we seated for so long." type thing. As you and, perhaps XS650, have said, there is a corporate culuture that is short sighted and self serving.
Sure. Absolutely. You know my views on economy and other government spending (and borrowing) habits. This is a publically deceptive ..or disingenuous depiction. I'll venture to assume that they've surely known about it for quite some time ..and rationalize it as being "necessary" and "let's not look at those who happen to be left out of chairs when the music stops. Let's look at how many we seated for so long." type thing. As you and, perhaps XS650, have said, there is a corporate culuture that is short sighted and self serving.
Here's some newspaper articles on the subject. There's enough ammo here for both sides to continue this debate for weeks.
http://www.freep.com/money/autonews/gm-retiree20e_20041220.htm
http://www.freep.com/money/business/walsh20e_20050420.htm
http://www.freep.com/money/autonews/gm-health20e_20041220.htm
http://www.freep.com/money/autonews/gm-retiree20e_20041220.htm
http://www.freep.com/money/business/walsh20e_20050420.htm
http://www.freep.com/money/autonews/gm-health20e_20041220.htm
It's good that the GM issue is being debated among us Americans. Causes and blame as well as praise are evident in abundance, There are many truths in the answer to this question of GM's, future.
My conclusion to the argument is this. If and when GM, ceases to be the one of the great financial and economic engines of this nation, we will have an effect of a great Tsunami, upon our and the worlds economies. This nation will be changed and our way of life (prosperity) will become unable to respond in a positive way. This with the deficits and the oil situation, world politics, will destabilise the world as we know it. Corporate and Political Greed have caused a condition that will make us less able to correct our destany, let alone the status quo. We don't have many friends right now and the ones we do have are in the same mess. We in a heap of trouble!
My conclusion to the argument is this. If and when GM, ceases to be the one of the great financial and economic engines of this nation, we will have an effect of a great Tsunami, upon our and the worlds economies. This nation will be changed and our way of life (prosperity) will become unable to respond in a positive way. This with the deficits and the oil situation, world politics, will destabilise the world as we know it. Corporate and Political Greed have caused a condition that will make us less able to correct our destany, let alone the status quo. We don't have many friends right now and the ones we do have are in the same mess. We in a heap of trouble!
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
(in Yoda voice with eyes closed briefly)
Difficult the future to see, it is. Fallen the shroud of darkness has.
Difficult the future to see, it is. Fallen the shroud of darkness has.
Toyota has been manufacturing in the US for over 30 years. Their first US facility was a sheet metal stamping plant opened in 1972 in Long Beach.
Its not rocket science. Toyota just makes better cars than GM. Simple as that. Even with all of Congress in its pocket, GM still can't resolve this fundamental problem.
Yeah, GM's reliability issues has come to everybodies attention and Toyota, Honda, and other more reliable car makes which happen to be non-american, have been making the auto buyer 'turn the page' to a more reliable vehicle.
I think the proof of GM's issues is with this GM Employee Discount for everyone program that is going on now. I find it hilarious how as I drive around I am not seeing those little "Ronny's PontChevBuiCadGMCHumSatOld dealer advertisement plates" with the little yellow temporary license in the window. I haven't seen ONE!!! That is what showed me the issue. It is funny because I have seen a few Toyotas, a Honda, and a Mazda during this time, all not GM.
...I suppose people could be waiting for the 2006 models, but I have my doubts.
I think the proof of GM's issues is with this GM Employee Discount for everyone program that is going on now. I find it hilarious how as I drive around I am not seeing those little "Ronny's PontChevBuiCadGMCHumSatOld dealer advertisement plates" with the little yellow temporary license in the window. I haven't seen ONE!!! That is what showed me the issue. It is funny because I have seen a few Toyotas, a Honda, and a Mazda during this time, all not GM.
...I suppose people could be waiting for the 2006 models, but I have my doubts.
GM's problems aren't really centered around quality anymore ...in fact their vehicles are more reliable than a number of high end European vehicles. They're also very close to the second and third tier Japanese vehicles. Only Toyota, Honda, Subaru are clearly better. Mazda and Nissan are only slightly better at this point and Mitsu is probably on a par with GM in terms of defects after 3-5 years.
GM's problem is Design, Design, Design - they simply DO NOT build cars that young buyers want to own. The Corvette is the only GM car folks lust after.... Once those 21-25 year old professionals start buying Japanese or European vehicles, they very rarely go back and buy domestic. My first car was a 1974 Chevy Nova, followed by a Datsun 620 pickup. I haven't owned a domestic car since 1976 - and based on the rental vehicles I drive for business, there are very little GM or Ford vehicles that appeal to the German sports sedan owner or Japanese sports coupe owner...
The Caddy CTS looks like a nice car, but for $40k I'd rather have an actual BMW and not some imitation. The Chrysler 300M and Olds Intrigue were nice sports sedans, but both were discontinued. I see nothing in the 3 Series, Audi A4, SAAB 9/3 class that appeals to me as a mechanical engineer and dedicated "Motorhead"....
Expect to see $3.00/gallon gas within two years ($3.50 in the Golden State), based on supply and demand (China, India). That will spell the death knell for the bloated SUV (replaced by smaller minivan type vehicles) and very large vehicle market in general. Folks who really need full sized trucks/vans for work will still buy them, but hopefully they'll be modern TDI diesels and not 8.1L, V-8's....
Tooslick
GM's problem is Design, Design, Design - they simply DO NOT build cars that young buyers want to own. The Corvette is the only GM car folks lust after.... Once those 21-25 year old professionals start buying Japanese or European vehicles, they very rarely go back and buy domestic. My first car was a 1974 Chevy Nova, followed by a Datsun 620 pickup. I haven't owned a domestic car since 1976 - and based on the rental vehicles I drive for business, there are very little GM or Ford vehicles that appeal to the German sports sedan owner or Japanese sports coupe owner...
The Caddy CTS looks like a nice car, but for $40k I'd rather have an actual BMW and not some imitation. The Chrysler 300M and Olds Intrigue were nice sports sedans, but both were discontinued. I see nothing in the 3 Series, Audi A4, SAAB 9/3 class that appeals to me as a mechanical engineer and dedicated "Motorhead"....
Expect to see $3.00/gallon gas within two years ($3.50 in the Golden State), based on supply and demand (China, India). That will spell the death knell for the bloated SUV (replaced by smaller minivan type vehicles) and very large vehicle market in general. Folks who really need full sized trucks/vans for work will still buy them, but hopefully they'll be modern TDI diesels and not 8.1L, V-8's....
Tooslick
I agree with much above. Little is more disgusting than blaming the union for negotiating a fair settlement and later calling them to task for market loss . . "Members of the board, I am distressed to announce that the janitors are destroying the company". National healthcare and fully-funded portable pensions would "solve" those problems along with equitable Social Security and Medicare taxation. Capitalism is a belief system, an artificial construct. The rules can be changed which force such a currently lousy situation. We've done it before and we can do it again. We're overdue.
As to styling, Tooslick is on the money. 1966 was the last year that all cars of the Big Three had something for everyone: Style, wow-factor, good engineering, overall economy, and plain ol'sexiness.
Even a Slant Six Dart had more pizzazz by comparison to todays econoboxes that a midget has a hard time fitting into. (You could hot rod it; and you had a learning curve of 300-500m miles.)
The bean counters were waiting in the wings with their "sky is falling" fear-mongering, and were firmly in control by the early 1970's across the board. The different GM divisions lost their uniqueness after about 1970, only their engines were different. And that ended in 1976 when GM should have left itself with Chevrolet (base models, cars & trucks), Pontiac/GMC (take the Olds/Buick upgrades with a wheelbase/options change on the higher end, and leave GMC with motorhomes, medium and large trucks)and set Cadillac loose to kick the Germans back to Stuttgart. A V12 Eldorado would have been nice, 4-whl brakes and susp for a start.
As for me, I want a 1966 Chrysler 300 coupe in Turbine Bronze with buckets and a 440, overlay it with 1990's ignition/fuel-delivery/cylinder & cam development and back with a diesel-spec 727-derived OD tranny, and I'd never sell it. Only changes would be dirt cheap: tires, shocks, better steering feel. Run rings around about everything out there, get close to 20 mpg and last 250m no sweat. Carry 5 or 6 real Americans, their luggage and pull a heavy trailer to boot. Or commute to work and the grocery store and be far easier to park than this pickemup I'm stuck with now. Better looking, better ride, longer lasting, cheaper to own . . . whats not to like?
GM just can't seem to learn. One had hopes for FORD, but it seems that terminal blandness is the only thing envisioned. And who better than the Asians to serve us an unending, little changing diet of rice. Rice steamed, rice baked, rice with fish, always more rice. Glorified appliances, a rice cooker is what this Lexus is, the default mode of "Cars" . . raised to iconic status for "quality". ****, I want some fun for spending so much money, fun just in looking at it, sitting in the drivers seat and never turning the key.
1967-8 was the beginning of the slide. "First thing we do, let's hang all the MBA's."
As to styling, Tooslick is on the money. 1966 was the last year that all cars of the Big Three had something for everyone: Style, wow-factor, good engineering, overall economy, and plain ol'sexiness.
Even a Slant Six Dart had more pizzazz by comparison to todays econoboxes that a midget has a hard time fitting into. (You could hot rod it; and you had a learning curve of 300-500m miles.)
The bean counters were waiting in the wings with their "sky is falling" fear-mongering, and were firmly in control by the early 1970's across the board. The different GM divisions lost their uniqueness after about 1970, only their engines were different. And that ended in 1976 when GM should have left itself with Chevrolet (base models, cars & trucks), Pontiac/GMC (take the Olds/Buick upgrades with a wheelbase/options change on the higher end, and leave GMC with motorhomes, medium and large trucks)and set Cadillac loose to kick the Germans back to Stuttgart. A V12 Eldorado would have been nice, 4-whl brakes and susp for a start.
As for me, I want a 1966 Chrysler 300 coupe in Turbine Bronze with buckets and a 440, overlay it with 1990's ignition/fuel-delivery/cylinder & cam development and back with a diesel-spec 727-derived OD tranny, and I'd never sell it. Only changes would be dirt cheap: tires, shocks, better steering feel. Run rings around about everything out there, get close to 20 mpg and last 250m no sweat. Carry 5 or 6 real Americans, their luggage and pull a heavy trailer to boot. Or commute to work and the grocery store and be far easier to park than this pickemup I'm stuck with now. Better looking, better ride, longer lasting, cheaper to own . . . whats not to like?
GM just can't seem to learn. One had hopes for FORD, but it seems that terminal blandness is the only thing envisioned. And who better than the Asians to serve us an unending, little changing diet of rice. Rice steamed, rice baked, rice with fish, always more rice. Glorified appliances, a rice cooker is what this Lexus is, the default mode of "Cars" . . raised to iconic status for "quality". ****, I want some fun for spending so much money, fun just in looking at it, sitting in the drivers seat and never turning the key.
1967-8 was the beginning of the slide. "First thing we do, let's hang all the MBA's."
Once again I agree with Ted (this is getting habit forming!) and yet have never given it much thought until the post that's quoted above.
The Buick Grand National was a car that I lusted over, but simply could not afford in my teen years. The GNX...even more lust! After that, only the Camaro and Firebird were left to have on the top of the "wish" list. Then they died a sad death in 2002.
GM offers underpowered/buzzy 4cyl Ecotech's in most of their lower end models, leaky 3.4L V6's (even though they're fun to drive as a rental car) in so many of their cars. What happened to being unique, taking chances, etc? Vanilla is the only flavor left at GM in most circumstances from engines to interior design. The new Malibu would be exempt from this, but alas, it uses the 3.5L engine that was derived from the leaky 3.4L. Thumbs down on that one.
Where has all the money gone for R & D at GM? Ford's newest offerings are all ergonomically superior to most of GM's products. For years, it was the other way around...
Judging by what I see in the service manuals, it went to:
1)Adding a whole bunch of control modules (body control module, etc)
2)Connecting all of these modules together
3)The software for all of these modules so they can talk to each other over a network so you get silly features like a chime that goes off when you've driven too far with the turn signal going.
By the way, my experience with the Ecotec (note spelling) is that it is neither "buzzy" nor "underpowered".
- Status
