Obama does it again - forces GM to hire 10K new workers to make economy look good....

[Ryan]

http://bottomline.nbcnews.com/_news...ing-10000-information-technology-workers?lite

Geeze - we all know the economy is horrible - Mitt Romney said so! Now Obama is forcing Government Motors to hire more people in a bid to make it look like the economy is picking up steam. Great election timing on Obama's part - just like the unemployment numbers~!

:whiste: lol

Thread locked until OP submits a more factual title.

Perknose
Forum Director

 

[rudder]

Super instead of losing $40,000 per Volt, GM will lose $60,000 as the company takes on 10,000 more employees.... on a project that probably could be done by a lot less.

 

[xBiffx]

So they are going to hire 10,000 people to work on shit that has no business being in a moving vehicle. WTG. I'll laugh hard when some of this technology is outlawed because dipshit drivers won't be able to get out of the driveway without killing someone.

At least the workers will earn a paycheck for a while. That is a definite plus.

 

[MixMasterTang]

Just because you say they lose 40k on every car made doesn't make it true. That number is based on the R&D and other costs that have been paid already. With that kind of thinking businesses should never invest in themselves and never grow or innovate.

 

[MovingTarget]

Super instead of losing $40,000 per Volt, GM will lose $60,000 as the company takes on 10,000 more employees.... on a project that probably could be done by a lot less.

GM is NOT losing $40k per volt. Those are sunk development costs. GM makes a physical profit on each Volt sold. The research from the Volt is also being incorporated into various other and future models. Outrage not found. The comparison isn't valid.

Also, as per the article:

“GM is executing an IT best practice by in-sourcing IT services and making them a strategic part of assuring GM remains a fast-moving leader,” Rob Enderle, principal analyst at the Enderle Group in San Jose, Calif.

So is bringing in-house a service vital to you a bad thing? Even if it was performed by a foreign company? Sheesh. In-sourcing is supposed to be good for the economy.

 

[UberNeuman]

So they are going to hire 10,000 people to work on shit that has no business being in a moving vehicle. WTG. I'll laugh hard when some of this technology is outlawed because dipshit drivers won't be able to get out of the driveway without killing someone.

At least the workers will earn a paycheck for a while. That is a definite plus.

What? These metal move-abouts replacing horses! Poppycock! The next thing you know is they'll claim that men will leave the ground in some other metal contraption!

 

[Greenman]

So they are going to hire 10,000 people to write software? How much code does it take to run a car? And what the hell happens if you have to reboot on the freeway?

 

[MixMasterTang]

So they are going to hire 10,000 people to work on shit that has no business being in a moving vehicle. WTG. I'll laugh hard when some of this technology is outlawed because dipshit drivers won't be able to get out of the driveway without killing someone.

At least the workers will earn a paycheck for a while. That is a definite plus.

Your post seems like you think they are going to be working on 'entertainment' type of advancements that will distract drivers. I am curious how did you come to that conclusion.

 

[xBiffx]

GM is NOT losing $40k per volt. Those are sunk development costs. GM makes a physical profit on each Volt sold. The research from the Volt is also being incorporated into various other and future models. Outrage not found. The comparison isn't valid.

Proof? I find it hard to believe that car doesn't cost at least $50K to produce.

Perhaps they aren't losing as much as $40K but they are definitely not making a "physical profit" whatever the hell that is supposed to mean.

 

[xBiffx]

Your post seems like you think they are going to be working on 'entertainment' type of advancements that will distract drivers. I am curious how did you come to that conclusion.

Why in the hell would I think that?

The nation's biggest automaker is moving past layoffs and the Motor City's rusty, low-tech image in a bold and expensive move to develop software and invent the most advanced gizmos for your car, rather than buy software and other electronic applications from outside companies.

Oh right this. Also the fact that you don't need 10,000 IT workers to develop software for the computers within a car outside the gizmos it has.

 

[UberNeuman]

Proof? I find it hard to believe that car doesn't cost at least $50K to produce.

Perhaps they aren't losing as much as $40K but they are definitely not making a "physical profit" whatever the hell that is supposed to mean.

Opinion isn't proof.... The info is out there; if you care to look...

 

[rudder]

Just because you say they lose 40k on every car made doesn't make it true. That number is based on the R&D and other costs that have been paid already. With that kind of thinking businesses should never invest in themselves and never grow or innovate.

Well GM can't seem to make a product that is not so costly to produce that they could recoup it's costs before 4-5 years passed. This in an industry where there are leaner competitors who have more profitable competing products.

 

[ivwshane]

Lol the OP was trying to be sarcastic and do some preemptive spinning, I guess it wasn't enough spin, look at the responses so far!

Ha! The "R" stands for "retarded", it's how you know a person with an "R" next to their name isn't all there!

 

[MixMasterTang]

Proof? I find it hard to believe that car doesn't cost at least $50K to produce.

Perhaps they aren't losing as much as $40K but they are definitely not making a "physical profit" whatever the hell that is supposed to mean.

There are plenty of sites out there with better numbers than this one: http://m.csmonitor.com/Business/In-...he-Chevy-Volt-How-much-does-it-really-cost-GM but this is the first I found when searching from my phone.

 

[ivwshane]

Well GM can't seem to make a product that is not so costly to produce that they could recoup it's costs before 4-5 years passed. This in an industry where there are leaner competitors who have more profitable competing products.

It's not like car companies historically use R&D from one car to be used on other models! It's not like car companies historically use the same platform for different car models or use the same platform for multiple years in a row.

Just think if they did that how profitable they would be then! They could hire like 10,000 more people!



/s

 

[xBiffx]

There are plenty of sites out there with better numbers than this one: http://m.csmonitor.com/Business/In-...he-Chevy-Volt-How-much-does-it-really-cost-GM but this is the first I found when searching from my phone.

So if they sell a lot, they will make a profit, gotcha.

 

[MixMasterTang]

Why in the hell would I think that?



Oh right this. Also the fact that you don't need 10,000 IT workers to develop software for the computers within a car outside the gizmos it has.

Advanced gizmos like self adjusting cruise control (like the Lexus stuff), automated emergency response systems, tracking and monitoring teen drivers, driverless cars, fuel economy optimization, etc. ohh, but those will only distract drivers, are worthless and a waste of time and resources right?

 

[MovingTarget]

Proof? I find it hard to believe that car doesn't cost at least $50K to produce.

Perhaps they aren't losing as much as $40K but they are definitely not making a "physical profit" whatever the hell that is supposed to mean.

Profit per unit. I was using layman's terms. If they were truly losing money on each Volt sold, they'd have to close down more than just the production line. As it stands, GM does better the more that are sold.

http://www.ibtimes.com/why-gm-actually-getting-its-moneys-worth-chevy-volt-780795

The issue with Reuters’ math, though, is that it only takes into account the 21,500 Volts sold so far, as if GM would never sell another one. If that is taken to be true, then each Volt sold has cost GM around $55,000 in development costs. However, each Volt sold spreads out the development costs incrementally, pushing down the R&D cost per unit. GM has acknowledged that it has not yet sold enough Volts to break even, but it suspects that it will reach the break-even point by the time the second- generation Volt is introduced onto the market in about three years’ time.

Thats about the same situation that Toyota had with its parallel hybrid - the Prius. Nobody complains about that because it is largely seen as a worthy investment from a business perspective.

 

[MixMasterTang]

So if they sell a lot, they will make a profit, gotcha.

Isn't that how any manufacturing works? The first kit kat bar probably cost millions using this type of math.

 

[xBiffx]

Advanced gizmos like self adjusting cruise control (like the Lexus stuff), automated emergency response systems, tracking and monitoring teen drivers, driverless cars, fuel economy optimization, etc. ohh, but those will only distract drivers, are worthless and a waste of time and resources right?

Like I said, you don't need 10K IT people to write this. The stuff you listed isn't software either. Its firmware. I shouldn't have to say this here of all places but one thing that makes firmware less cumbersome to develop is the fact that you don't have to write a nice interface for the end user to be able to use it. This is just simple logic resulting in very simple code, data in, data out.

 

[rudder]

Advanced gizmos like self adjusting cruise control (like the Lexus stuff), automated emergency response systems, tracking and monitoring teen drivers, driverless cars, fuel economy optimization, etc. ohh, but those will only distract drivers, are worthless and a waste of time and resources right?

GM would save a lot of money by licensing this tech from Lexus, Google, or whoever else had already has a decade lead in developing this stuff.

See 10,000 people X lets say a conservative $50,000 in salary and benefits equals $500,000,000 in additional costs per year for GM. Do you think that much expenditure would bring in enough return for GM?

Ever wonder why Apple does not hire a bunch of engineers to develop chips for their phones and PC's? Of course discounting the broo haha with Samsung. Ever wonder why that is profitable for them?

 

[xBiffx]

Isn't that how any manufacturing works? The first kit kat bar probably cost millions using this type of math.

Perhaps, but then you didn't prove anything about the volt did you? If you want to back up the claim that it takes a lot of sales before its profitable, fine. But then tell me how many you are going to have to sell to do it. Then tell me how many more Volts you have to sell over what Ford has to sell Fusions to be able to make it profitable.

We should probably discuss elsewhere. This really isn't on the topic.

 

[mshan]

So they are going to hire 10,000 people to write software? How much code does it take to run a car? And what the hell happens if you have to reboot on the freeway?

GM spokeswoman in this video clip says that people no longer buy cars like they used to (e. g. must have that Mustang), it is just a utility to get from point a to point b, so design and ergonomics might become important differenting factors.

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000114536&play=1



(the guy making comments at the end of video clip is Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks, who I think made his fortune in satellite tv).

 

[Rainsford]

So they are going to hire 10,000 people to write software? How much code does it take to run a car? And what the hell happens if you have to reboot on the freeway?

You and xBiffx definitely stopped learning about cars in 1987 or something. Cars today, particularly at the higher-end, are absolutely LOADED with software driven features. As the article says, many of these things are bought from outside companies and GM is trying to develop them in-house.

 

[MixMasterTang]

How many people do you know who are 'firmware' engineers? I work for a very large technology company (with over 10,000 employees btw) and guess what, we don't have a single 'firmware engineer' even though even though we develop hundreds of devices each year that all have 'firmware', but I guess that just comes from the magic pixie dust.....