So now the big 3 want $50B. Apparently $25B is not enough.

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: boomerang
Originally posted by: Skoorb
boomerang, For your silly rant you earn a very rare, Skoorb-endorsed Go Fuck Yourself. I LIVE IN THE US you dumb sh*t, which you'd know if you clicked the icon next to my name that says it. My kids are US citizens, I'm a permanent resident who could be a citizen in a few years, and I'm almost certain I pay more taxes than you.
I'll take your Go Fuck Yourself and give you another one right back. You still aren't a citizen of this country by your own admission. I know you live in New York and where you live is irrelevent. Where your kids were born is irrelevent. My issue is with the nature of your multitude of posts here.

If you want to quit using us and we in your posts I'm fine with anything you've got to say. You're a citizen of another country and as such 'we' and 'us' would refer to yourself and your fellow Canadians. When you make this statement 'who could be a citizen in a few years' you're making your allegiances very clear.

You've started yet another thread lambasting the auto industry in this country. It's stating your uninformed opinion for the umpteenth time. You don't have a dog in this fight. If things get bad enough over here, well hell, you can just pack up and go back home. You choose to live and work over here - fine. You pay taxes - that's great. You live and work here by choice. You pay taxes because it's required. You can't vote here.

When US citizens are unhappy with things of a political nature we have a means to convey that. We can contact our Representative, our Congressman, our Senator. We can write to our President. We have the ultimate power and that is the power of our vote. It's a right that we as citizens have. You're not a citizen and I resent the depth of your political involvement here. I don't feel you have the right to declare your thoughts and opinions in a manner that leads people to believe you're a citizen of the US. I can't say it any more simply.

If and when you ever decide to make the move and become a citizen of this country, when you're 'fully vested' here and have the right to vote, I'll have no problems with you voicing your opinions. At this time, I find your posts deceitful.
Blah blah, I can say with all honesty I did not read anything in this after the I'll take your Go Fuck Yourself and give you another one right back. You still aren't a citizen. Honest to God. I don't know if after that you apologized and/or gave me the winning lotto numbers to make a millionaire, but maybe some others gained something from what I can only presume was a rambling bunch of irrelevant BS :)

 

bctbct

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2005
4,868
1
0
Originally posted by: Balt
Is there a realistic expectation that this bailout money would actually help the companies survive and return to consistent profitability? Or are we throwing our money away on companies that are going to continue whatever policies have led them to where they stand now?

These domestic producers also have a significant image problem. Even if they can get their automobiles' reliability ratings up to snuff with some of the overseas companies, people are not necessarily going to immediately trust them. Many people (including myself) have witnessed and experienced more problems with domestic cars than foreign ones, and trust isn't going to return overnight.


They were on track over the next few years to begin an image rebuild imo. Toyota has taken a black eye the last few years and I think people are taking note that gm quality is coming back.

I dont know why people are so hard on the big 3. The deck was stacked against them very early. I could be wrong, but autos were one of the first industry that foreign competitors targeted because the profit could be huge.

Recent numbers suggest that Toyota makes $5k per unit while the Big 3 lose approx. $2.5k

It really comes down to the legacy costs. The employees are not incometent or evil. They want a decent job with good benefits.

The other day we were talking at work and of about 15 employees children, relatively few had great jobs, even the college educated kids made much less than the parents. Not one manufacturing job in the group.

American workers should take note that as you strive for cheaper goods and services you fuel the demand for cheaper labor such as....yourself.


One problem some people never think about.

History of the M1 Carbine production

IBM (production: 346,500) Receiver marked "IBM CORP"
Inland Division, General Motors (production: 2,632,097), sole producer of the M1A1 Carbine. Receiver marked "INLAND DIV."
Irwin-Pedersen (operated by Saginaw Gear and production included with Saginaw total) Receiver marked "IRWIN-PEDERSEN"
National Postal Meter (production: 413,017) Receiver marked "NATIONAL POSTAL METER"
Quality Hardware (production: 359,666) Receiver marked "QUALITY HARDWARE"
Rock-Ola Music Corporation (production: 228,500) Receiver Marked "ROCK-OLA"
Saginaw Division General Motors (production: 293,592) Receiver marked "SAGINAW DIV."
Saginaw Steering Gear, Grand Rapids (production: 223,620 including production at Pedersen facility) Receiver marked "SAGINAW SG"
Standard Products (production: 247,100) Receiver marked "STANDARD PRODUCTS"
Underwood Typewriter Company (production: 545,616) Receiver marked "UNDERWOOD"
Winchester Repeating Arms (production: 828,059) Receiver marked "WINCHESTER"[28]


Remember the shortage of bullets, armored vehicles, and body armour in recent years. Should you continue to advocate the demise of the american manufacturing industry? Would Toyota and Honda gear up to produce weapons during a major military conflict or would they let politics guide their decision?

 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Remember the shortage of bullets, armored vehicles, and body armour in recent years. Should you continue to advocate the demise of the american manufacturing industry? Would Toyota and Honda gear up to produce weapons during a major military conflict or would they let politics guide their decision?
That's a very valid point. Auto manufacturing was retooled in WWII to great benefit. As the US loses its manufacturing over time, it would be increasingly difficult to wage a war.
 

nergee

Senior member
Jan 25, 2000
843
0
0
Success is impossible for GM. It's only hope is for the government, i.e. taxpayers, to bail them out.
It's time to stop throwing good money after bad and let GM slide into the abyss......
 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,928
142
106
Originally posted by: boomerang
Originally posted by: Skoorb
boomerang, For your silly rant you earn a very rare, Skoorb-endorsed Go Fuck Yourself. I LIVE IN THE US you dumb sh*t, which you'd know if you clicked the icon next to my name that says it. My kids are US citizens, I'm a permanent resident who could be a citizen in a few years, and I'm almost certain I pay more taxes than you.
<snip>You're not a citizen and I resent the depth of your political involvement here. I don't feel you have the right to declare your thoughts and opinions in a manner that leads people to believe you're a citizen of the US. I can't say it any more simply.

At this time, I find your posts deceitful.
Wow, someone got beaten by the intolerance stick by daddy as a child. I feel sorry for your parents. I hope you aren't a descendant of an immigrant, you're a hateful excuse of an American citizen and I'm sad that people like you still exist in this great nation.

 

PingSpike

Lifer
Feb 25, 2004
21,747
579
126
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Remember the shortage of bullets, armored vehicles, and body armour in recent years. Should you continue to advocate the demise of the american manufacturing industry? Would Toyota and Honda gear up to produce weapons during a major military conflict or would they let politics guide their decision?
That's a very valid point. Auto manufacturing was retooled in WWII to great benefit. As the US loses its manufacturing over time, it would be increasingly difficult to wage a war.

This isn't brought up as often, but its true that not having a manufacturing base is a national security issue.

Frankly, keeping a manufacturing base is a much better use of money then all the cash we just spent on failed banker bonuses.

Its annoying that the American automakers seem to be poorly managed and refuse to learn from mistakes. Just let Dodge die, they're by far the most retarded of the 3 and we already bailed them out once so they've used up their do-over.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Looks like it will probably happen.
congressional leaders called on the Bush administration yesterday to offer government assistance to the car companies
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) asked Paulson to "review the feasibility . . . of providing temporary assistance to the automobile industry during the current financial crisis."

I like how she calls it temporary, like it will be temporary or the last time, hehe
 

nergee

Senior member
Jan 25, 2000
843
0
0
We Americans do not believe in socialized Medicine. We do believe in socialized mortgage lending,
socialized insurance, socialized banking, socialized auto manufacturing, and socialized whatever GE does.
Makes perfect sense to me....
 

GTaudiophile

Lifer
Oct 24, 2000
29,767
32
81
I'm sorry, let them die.

I have zero sympathy for American auto companies that 1) purposefully included planned-obsolescence into their products (to boost sales for parts and maintenance) and 2) banked on SUV/truck sales despite the writing on the wall in terms of oil and gas prices. All of this in the face of Japanese manufactures who knew what the people wanted and provided what they wanted, namely reliability and efficiency.

I do feel sorry for the common workers, especially the non-unionized workers who truly worked hard, but the management of Ford/GM/Chrysler must be punished for their ineptitude and greed.

America produces SHIT cars...let the shit go down the drain.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,750
2,525
126
An additional thing to think about-at exactly the same time GM is signing the blues to US lawmakers it is seeking to buy additional shares in a Chinese venture-to make and sell trucks and autos over there. And this will help US taxpayers, workers or employees how??

GM seeks to expand in China


For someone who is reasonably sympathic to the proposed bailout, this irritates the heck out of me.
 

venkman

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2007
4,950
11
81
Originally posted by: Thump553
An additional thing to think about-at exactly the same time GM is signing the blues to US lawmakers it is seeking to buy additional shares in a Chinese venture-to make and sell trucks and autos over there. And this will help US taxpayers, workers or employees how??

GM seeks to expand in China


For someone who is reasonably sympathic to the proposed bailout, this irritates the heck out of me.

ummm....selling more cars....turning more profit....businessy things like that.
 

ponyo

Lifer
Feb 14, 2002
19,688
2,810
126
Originally posted by: Thump553
An additional thing to think about-at exactly the same time GM is signing the blues to US lawmakers it is seeking to buy additional shares in a Chinese venture-to make and sell trucks and autos over there. And this will help US taxpayers, workers or employees how??

GM seeks to expand in China


For someone who is reasonably sympathic to the proposed bailout, this irritates the heck out of me.

China and India will lead us out of this global recession/depression. With the beating Chinese shares have taken this year, it wouldn't be a bad time to acquire if you have the means. Of course GM doesn't have the mean. That's why they're asking for govt handout. Not much different from the banks using the bailout money to buy other banks.

It will help GM, US taxpayers, employees if it will make GM a stronger company through increased earnings and profits in the future. China is the 2nd largest auto market in the world behind the US and will soon pass us as the largest car market in the world. If you're not heavily involved in that fast growing and large market, you'll soon be irrelevant.

People blast GM for not thinking ahead. They're thinking ahead here and people still blast them. But I don't blame them. GM deserves all the scorn it gets.
 

Mark R

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
8,513
16
81
Originally posted by: BarneyFife
People don't realize that each automaker layoff results in the indirect impact of 12 jobs. So if they lay off 500k people, you are talking about 6 mil people unemployed.

What about laying off the non-productive automakers, or the partially productive ones?

A friend tells me that the way things are run at the major plants, a good 10-15% of workers only do about 15-30 minutes work per day, but receive a full days salary and benefits. Something to do with union regulations about 'one machine, one worker' - every machine must have its dedicated operator, even if it's only used for a few minutes each day.

Of course, this doesn't solve the problem that there is significant overproduction of cars and trucks. GM and Ford have tried to increase capacity and market share in an already saturated market.

What is needed is a massive reduction in capacity, as well as efficiency savings. If you accept that the market is saturated, then the companies need to concentrate on a particular segment of the market, that they can do better than the others, and to maximize their efficiency.

The more I think about it, the more bankruptcy strikes me as a viable option. You fire the management, you get rid of the vampires that are the unions, reduce capacity and sell off unnecessary factories, and you retool the remainder to produce cars that people want and can afford. At that point, the govt can step in with $25 or $50 billion should it be needed to retain manufacturing and engineering capabilities - there's no point in throwing good money into the bottomless pit that is a badly run company. Change the manament and kill the parasites first, that way the medicine has a chance to work.

At the moment, the big 3 have been poorly managed and are bloated and inefficient. Unless something happens, they risk closure and the loss of a generation of manufacturing capability - and once it's gone, and the jobs gone elsewhere, it may never come back. A bailout isn't the way to preserve capabilities. Better to go Chapter 11, cut out the fat, and build-up the core manufacturing, labor and engineering divisions free from leeches.
 

Sureshot324

Diamond Member
Feb 4, 2003
3,370
0
71
If business is bad, a company needs to be able to lay off some employees and downsize. Right now, due to union contracts, the big 3 are not able to do that, at least not without offering huge buyouts to their employees. If this doesn't change, then even if this government bailout turns around the big 3 and helps them become profitable (I have my doubts) then they're just going to be in the same situation when the next financial crisis hits a few years/decades from now. The government is going to continue to have to bail them out.

Labor contracts that prevent companies from laying off employees should be illegal.
 

bctbct

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2005
4,868
1
0
Originally posted by: Sureshot324
If business is bad, a company needs to be able to lay off some employees and downsize. Right now, due to union contracts, the big 3 are not able to do that, at least not without offering huge buyouts to their employees. If this doesn't change, then even if this government bailout turns around the big 3 and helps them become profitable (I have my doubts) then they're just going to be in the same situation when the next financial crisis hits a few years/decades from now. The government is going to continue to have to bail them out.

Labor contracts that prevent companies from laying off employees should be illegal.

Toyota has 2 plants shutdown and are paying the workers. No reason to think GM wouldnt make the same decision.

 

Sureshot324

Diamond Member
Feb 4, 2003
3,370
0
71
Originally posted by: bctbct
Originally posted by: Sureshot324
If business is bad, a company needs to be able to lay off some employees and downsize. Right now, due to union contracts, the big 3 are not able to do that, at least not without offering huge buyouts to their employees. If this doesn't change, then even if this government bailout turns around the big 3 and helps them become profitable (I have my doubts) then they're just going to be in the same situation when the next financial crisis hits a few years/decades from now. The government is going to continue to have to bail them out.

Labor contracts that prevent companies from laying off employees should be illegal.

Toyota has 2 plants shutdown and are paying the workers. No reason to think GM wouldnt make the same decision.

Link?

Toyota happens to be in a financial situation that they can do this, but that doesn't make it right. In any other industry, if a company doesn't have a use for employees, they get layed off. Why should the auto industry be different?
 

bctbct

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2005
4,868
1
0
Originally posted by: Sureshot324
Originally posted by: bctbct
Originally posted by: Sureshot324
If business is bad, a company needs to be able to lay off some employees and downsize. Right now, due to union contracts, the big 3 are not able to do that, at least not without offering huge buyouts to their employees. If this doesn't change, then even if this government bailout turns around the big 3 and helps them become profitable (I have my doubts) then they're just going to be in the same situation when the next financial crisis hits a few years/decades from now. The government is going to continue to have to bail them out.

Labor contracts that prevent companies from laying off employees should be illegal.

Toyota has 2 plants shutdown and are paying the workers. No reason to think GM wouldnt make the same decision.

Link?

Toyota happens to be in a financial situation that they can do this, but that doesn't make it right. In any other industry, if a company doesn't have a use for employees, they get layed off. Why should the auto industry be different?


"Toyota generally doesn?t lay off its workers during shutdowns, as U.S. automakers do, and this will be no exception. Goss said the workers who build its trucks and SUVs as well as 891 Huntsville, Ala.-based workers who build engines for the Tundra and Sequoia will stay on the job through the shutdown. The San Antonio plant employs 1,900 people, while the Princeton plant employs nearly 4,500, although only 2,000 of those build the Tundra and Sequoia, Goss said."

Text





 

Toastedlightly

Diamond Member
Aug 7, 2004
7,213
6
81
Originally posted by: bctbct
Originally posted by: Sureshot324
Originally posted by: bctbct
Originally posted by: Sureshot324
If business is bad, a company needs to be able to lay off some employees and downsize. Right now, due to union contracts, the big 3 are not able to do that, at least not without offering huge buyouts to their employees. If this doesn't change, then even if this government bailout turns around the big 3 and helps them become profitable (I have my doubts) then they're just going to be in the same situation when the next financial crisis hits a few years/decades from now. The government is going to continue to have to bail them out.

Labor contracts that prevent companies from laying off employees should be illegal.

Toyota has 2 plants shutdown and are paying the workers. No reason to think GM wouldnt make the same decision.

Link?

Toyota happens to be in a financial situation that they can do this, but that doesn't make it right. In any other industry, if a company doesn't have a use for employees, they get layed off. Why should the auto industry be different?


"Toyota generally doesn?t lay off its workers during shutdowns, as U.S. automakers do, and this will be no exception. Goss said the workers who build its trucks and SUVs as well as 891 Huntsville, Ala.-based workers who build engines for the Tundra and Sequoia will stay on the job through the shutdown. The San Antonio plant employs 1,900 people, while the Princeton plant employs nearly 4,500, although only 2,000 of those build the Tundra and Sequoia, Goss said."

Text

From the article, that is just a closing for re-tooling. That is not due to a failing business.
 

Sureshot324

Diamond Member
Feb 4, 2003
3,370
0
71
Originally posted by: Toastedlightly
Originally posted by: bctbct
Originally posted by: Sureshot324
Originally posted by: bctbct
Originally posted by: Sureshot324
If business is bad, a company needs to be able to lay off some employees and downsize. Right now, due to union contracts, the big 3 are not able to do that, at least not without offering huge buyouts to their employees. If this doesn't change, then even if this government bailout turns around the big 3 and helps them become profitable (I have my doubts) then they're just going to be in the same situation when the next financial crisis hits a few years/decades from now. The government is going to continue to have to bail them out.

Labor contracts that prevent companies from laying off employees should be illegal.

Toyota has 2 plants shutdown and are paying the workers. No reason to think GM wouldnt make the same decision.

Link?

Toyota happens to be in a financial situation that they can do this, but that doesn't make it right. In any other industry, if a company doesn't have a use for employees, they get layed off. Why should the auto industry be different?


"Toyota generally doesn?t lay off its workers during shutdowns, as U.S. automakers do, and this will be no exception. Goss said the workers who build its trucks and SUVs as well as 891 Huntsville, Ala.-based workers who build engines for the Tundra and Sequoia will stay on the job through the shutdown. The San Antonio plant employs 1,900 people, while the Princeton plant employs nearly 4,500, although only 2,000 of those build the Tundra and Sequoia, Goss said."

Text

From the article, that is just a closing for re-tooling. That is not due to a failing business.

Yeah, the article was posted in July so they are all most likely back to work now.

[Q}Princeton plant spokeswoman Kelly Dillon said employees will be working on special safety and quality improvement projects during the shutdown.

?We will be doing extensive training during this time frame,? Dillon said. Goss said some workers may also do volunteer projects.[/quote]

Also, they are dismissing all their temp workers. You can be sure that if Toyota was going to permanently shut down a plant, they wouldn't keep all the workers on the payroll doing nothing, like GM is forced to do.
 

bctbct

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2005
4,868
1
0
Originally posted by: Toastedlightly
Originally posted by: bctbct
Originally posted by: Sureshot324
Originally posted by: bctbct
Originally posted by: Sureshot324
If business is bad, a company needs to be able to lay off some employees and downsize. Right now, due to union contracts, the big 3 are not able to do that, at least not without offering huge buyouts to their employees. If this doesn't change, then even if this government bailout turns around the big 3 and helps them become profitable (I have my doubts) then they're just going to be in the same situation when the next financial crisis hits a few years/decades from now. The government is going to continue to have to bail them out.

Labor contracts that prevent companies from laying off employees should be illegal.

Toyota has 2 plants shutdown and are paying the workers. No reason to think GM wouldnt make the same decision.

Link?

Toyota happens to be in a financial situation that they can do this, but that doesn't make it right. In any other industry, if a company doesn't have a use for employees, they get layed off. Why should the auto industry be different?


"Toyota generally doesn?t lay off its workers during shutdowns, as U.S. automakers do, and this will be no exception. Goss said the workers who build its trucks and SUVs as well as 891 Huntsville, Ala.-based workers who build engines for the Tundra and Sequoia will stay on the job through the shutdown. The San Antonio plant employs 1,900 people, while the Princeton plant employs nearly 4,500, although only 2,000 of those build the Tundra and Sequoia, Goss said."

Text

From the article, that is just a closing for re-tooling. That is not due to a failing business.


From the article

The company will suspend production of the Toyota Tundra pickup at its San Antonio truck plant and the Toyota Sequoia sport utility vehicle at its Princeton, Ind., plant for three months starting Aug. 8 because of declining demand. Next spring, it will stop producing Tundras in Princeton and will consolidate all truck production in San Antonio.


Toyota said it made the moves as U.S. demand for trucks and SUVs continues to decline due to high gas prices and the weak economy. Toyota?s U.S. sales fell 21 percent in June

Toyota?s moves follow production cuts at General Motors Corp. and other automakers. GM said last month it is cutting shifts, reducing assembly line speeds and temporarily idling seven factories because of declining consumer demand for truck-based vehicles. Chrysler LLC has announced plans to close a minivan factory and cut a shift at a full-size pickup factory, while Ford has said it is cutting production for the rest of the year.

Ultimately Toyota is delaying the opening of open a new plant by shifting production plans. The article says that the truck plant is approx. 1 year old, this is a huge hit for Toyota and while they are adapting it going to cost them much in profits. No way have they paid for their capital costs in 1 year.


edit: From another article

With increased gas prices consumers are not looking to buy a pickup truck. According to autonews.com, the demand for pickup trucks has fallen more than 40% since January. Toyota has come up with a plan to shut down the less than year old Tundra plant in San Antonio. The plan consists of closing the plant for three months (to begin in August). This should then reduce Toyota being overstocked with the popular Tundra pickup truck.

The reason for the change is to reduce inventory by quite a bit and relieve much felt pressure of the sales team. Compared to June of 2007, this year sales of the Tundra has fallen a whopping 53%, according to Toyota
. Toyota thinks this is the best plan for the company and they will strive to continue to be the #1 requested vehicle manufacturer.

Just because Toyota is at the top of vehicle sales doesn't mean they can't feel the hits of the economy. They created the $1.3 billion dollar plant in San Antonio plant to manufacture Tundra's. The plant has over 2,000 employees plus employees of suppliers. I'm sure they didn't know at the time that gas prices were going to skyrocket within a year. The economic issues were unforeseen and Toyota is doing what they feel is the best recovery method.


 

ModerateRepZero

Golden Member
Jan 12, 2006
1,572
5
81
economic issues were unforeseen but the Big 3 should've known long before last year that downplaying hybrids and not preparing for more gas-efficient cars puts it at a disadvantage to other countries which have higher mpg requirements. Small surprise that with the high price of oil this summer, hybrids + high mpg models suddenly look good, while SUVs + other gas guzzlers like the Hummer suddenly don't look so hot.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
All they have to do is quit making giant SUV's and make some automobiles people actually want to buy. All of the cars cost too much money to buy. It is time for the industry to solve its own problems they should just tell the unions either accept less pay or we will just file bankruptcy and quit. Just hire some undocumented workers to replace them at a fourth of their pay.

Then there is the government intervention which makes it even more expensive to build a car, and the evil EPA that harasses car owners and makes them get their vehicles inspected, which does not make the air Cleaner.