BuffettNews.com

Mplsfins wrote:With health care and all related cost the average US autoworker gets about $72 per hour vs. $42 for a foreign brand. The main thing that is killing the US auto workers is the health care costs for retirees.
If the big three go under, it will cause a dramatic ripple throughout the worlds economy that will essentially make the great depression seem like a recession. The big 3 and all their parts vendors etal. that work with them would put millions of people out of work. There is no clear cut solution but for the union to play hardball is suicide.
I myself have a Dodge, Pontiac, and Toyota vehicle. All are great in their own way and all were manufactured on US soil.
The main advantage the foreign makers have is their health care coverage is socialized where ours is privatized. Big difference.

I would say that the main advantage the foregin owned auto-manufacturers on US soil have is that they do not have to pay union wages or union pensions to retirees.

Mplsfins wrote:With health care and all related cost the average US autoworker gets about $72 per hour vs. $42 for a foreign brand. The main thing that is killing the US auto workers is the health care costs for retirees.
If the big three go under, it will cause a dramatic ripple throughout the worlds economy that will essentially make the great depression seem like a recession. The big 3 and all their parts vendors etal. that work with them would put millions of people out of work. There is no clear cut solution but for the union to play hardball is suicide.
I myself have a Dodge, Pontiac, and Toyota vehicle. All are great in their own way and all were manufactured on US soil.
The main advantage the foreign makers have is their health care coverage is socialized where ours is privatized. Big difference.

your dodge transmission hasn't died on you yet?

Toyota, Honda and BMW all have US plants employing US workers and they are not asking for any money, they also do some research and development here as well providing jobs for US workers. So to say "Foreign Cars" these days doesn't ring as true as it once did. A lot of "foreign" cars were built here in new, efficient factories owned by car makers who have learned some lessons the big three haven't.

This is a short article from CNN "There is a US car industry that works"

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/ ... index.html The guy makes some good points.

And the take I got on it this morning is that the UAW refuses to discuss bringing themselves in line with the other auto makers in this country in terms of pay and benefits until their contract expires in 2011 Do retirees deserve something for their years of service? Of course they do, I don't think anyone is arguing that, but at the expense of the current employees and the fate of the entire company?
I don't know what benefits retirees currently get but unfortunately in today's world we're all looking at getting less than we thought. Right now they're between a rock and a hard place - if the company goes under completely they've got nothing - if the company is forced to restructure more efficiently they stand a better chance. Do they want 100% of nothing?

Anyone who still has a company offering a pension is fortunate. People who hired on while a company still offered a pension will (hopefully) still get what was they earned, but many companies have quit offering pensions to new hires.
(My husband qualified for a pension, but the Co. stopped offering it to new hires and quit contributing any additional funds to qualified accounts a couple of years ago...but we're glad for what's there.)

IMHO, That's one of the problems with the Auto Union...while I can appreciate that they want to protect their workers, they are trying to do it at the expense of the rest of the country. It's not so much their hourly wage, or even the insurance...which companies nationwide are having to negotiate. It's the pensions.

Sadly, for the most part many people haven't saved their OWN money for their retirement, or taken FULL advantage of 401K or deferred compensation plans that their companies offer in addition to or in lieu of pension plans. But like it or not, for the most part pension plans are a thing of the past. If you've got one, count your lucky stars and hope your able to collect on it.

The auto workers (and their bosses) need to realize this, too.

Dr.Corona wrote:

phjrsaunt wrote:

Lightning Bolt wrote: The UAW better see the big picture quick, because Senate 'Pubs are willing to flush the midwestern economy simply on principle.

Civil War/Free the slaves payback??

Amen to that. Meanwhile, my husband and I are very happy with the two Toyotas in our driveway.

Here's the deal.....Big 3 wages & bennys are on par with the Japanese autoworkers. The difference in costs lies in the legacy employees..ie retirees. You don't think those people deserve what they worked their entire lives for?
We're talking about jobs......people......futures.
Are you saying our future is JAPANESE AUTOMAKERS??
Thanks for the social conscience.

My "social conscience" is to buy the highest quality car with the lowest total cost of ownership at the best price. That has been Toyota since at least the mid-70s.

I've been watching Detroit automakers self-destruct since the 70s. They fought for import quotas in the early 80s, rather than making a better car. They fought seat belts, shoulder belts, crash resistance, air bags, and higher gas mileage, rather than making a better car. And now they are looking for handouts and flying to Washington in their private jets, rather than making a better car. I am not responsible for their total abdication of "social responsibility" to create the best products at the best price.

I owned two Fords, when I was younger. They started having constant mechanical problems starting at 60K miles, and were essentially crap by 100K miles. My Toyotas go 100K miles before needing major repairs, and I can rely on them until at least 200K. I have friends who get 300-400K miles out of theirs.

If "social conscience" for you is creating full-time work for auto shops, parts dealers, overpaid wrench-turners, and landfill operators rather than buying something durable and high-quality that uses half the gas of most of what Detroit makes (I get 45 MPG in my Prius), then we do not agree on what that means. And I'm glad I don't have *that* kind of "social conscience."

Maybe if Toyota owned GM, they'd make better cars. I'm just sayin'.

I feel badly for those folks who really *do* work hard and earn their pay who'll be in trouble if the automakers fall. But I don't see why those who *aren't* doing what's best for anyone other than themselves should be rewarded just 'cause they can hold a financial gun at other people's heads.

As for the pension and healthcare funds? I haven't got one of those for *my* retirement; I don't have much sympathy.

TropicalTroubador wrote:

Dr.Corona wrote:

phjrsaunt wrote:

Lightning Bolt wrote: The UAW better see the big picture quick, because Senate 'Pubs are willing to flush the midwestern economy simply on principle.

Civil War/Free the slaves payback??

Amen to that. Meanwhile, my husband and I are very happy with the two Toyotas in our driveway.

Here's the deal.....Big 3 wages & bennys are on par with the Japanese autoworkers. The difference in costs lies in the legacy employees..ie retirees. You don't think those people deserve what they worked their entire lives for?
We're talking about jobs......people......futures.
Are you saying our future is JAPANESE AUTOMAKERS??
Thanks for the social conscience.

My "social conscience" is to buy the highest quality car with the lowest total cost of ownership at the best price. That has been Toyota since at least the mid-70s.

I've been watching Detroit automakers self-destruct since the 70s. They fought for import quotas in the early 80s, rather than making a better car. They fought seat belts, shoulder belts, crash resistance, air bags, and higher gas mileage, rather than making a better car. And now they are looking for handouts and flying to Washington in their private jets, rather than making a better car. I am not responsible for their total abdication of "social responsibility" to create the best products at the best price.

I owned two Fords, when I was younger. They started having constant mechanical problems starting at 60K miles, and were essentially crap by 100K miles. My Toyotas go 100K miles before needing major repairs, and I can rely on them until at least 200K. I have friends who get 300-400K miles out of theirs.

If "social conscience" for you is creating full-time work for auto shops, parts dealers, overpaid wrench-turners, and landfill operators rather than buying something durable and high-quality that uses half the gas of most of what Detroit makes (I get 45 MPG in my Prius), then we do not agree on what that means. And I'm glad I don't have *that* kind of "social conscience."

Maybe if Toyota owned GM, they'd make better cars. I'm just sayin'.

I feel badly for those folks who really *do* work hard and earn their pay who'll be in trouble if the automakers fall. But I don't see why those who *aren't* doing what's best for anyone other than themselves should be rewarded just 'cause they can hold a financial gun at other people's heads.

As for the pension and healthcare funds? I haven't got one of those for *my* retirement; I don't have much sympathy.

My father is a retired US Airways employee of nearly 30 years in service, and had fully paid retiree benefits. But.... that airline went into bankruptcy, and as a result, a bankruptcy judge ruled that all health care benefits to retirees could be wiped off the slate in order to save the company. He's just fortunate that there's no mortgage to worry about anymore, because now he supplements Medicaire with another policy that won't leave you in the street on a gurney.

Green1 wrote:The 3 of them will go into bankruptcy Chapter 11. The pensions will go away and they will reemerge as essentially the same company with a lower operating cost. Similar to what the airlines did.

There is a marked difference in this instance, and comparing this situation to airlines is oversimplifying it. Demand for air travel is ceaseless. It is a very short-term business transaction and can be discounted heavily in short terms to attract the customer. The same cannot be said of buying an automobile, as it is more of an investment for the majority of buyers. The future is important.. certainly now... when you consider that investment, and the idea of your purchase being swallowed up in the POSSIBILITY of bankruptcy does nothing to attract buyers. You couldn't discount the cars enough to get people to buy if they think they're buying a Pacer. That is why the union will not commit to any pay scalebacks if there is even the mention of the word BANKRUPTCY. It looks like the Senate Republicans were just not going to let the BAILOUT tag get hung around their necks one more time, and instead, will gladly "pass the buck" to the outgoing chim,... er, chief to add to his illustrious portfolio to take back on his mozy on back to the ranch...

I am sick and damb tired of mis-informed people beating up on General Motors.

Have they built some poor vehicles in the past? Yes

Are they building quality vehicles now - Yes!

I bought my current Impala 9 years ago. 150,000 miles later it still gets 25 miles a gallon, and the only thing I have done other than oil changes has been replace a power window motor.

My daughter is driving my wife's old Pontiac Grand Am.
10 years old, 135,000 miles. We had to replace the air conditioner compressor last year; that is the only repair it has needed since 1998.

Disclaimer: I am part of a GM family

My brother is the program manager of the Cadillac CTS
only the Motor Trend Car of the Year last year.

for all of you b!tching about the supposed $73 an hour, here is a good article from the New York Times breaking down the labor costs of domestic vs imported vehicles.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/busin ... dt.html?em

The difference between domestic and foreign labor: about $10 per hour, or $800 per vehicle. The rest of the labor difference is legacy pension cost. Guess what; if GM goes under your taxes will pay the retirement for over 400,000 retirees through the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp. (PBGC is a federal corporation created by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and is paid for by taxpayers)

Sure Senators; block $15 billion of bridge financing, let 'em go bankrupt. Instead, let the taxpayers pick up tens of billions of additonal liabilities for pension costs as well as unemployment payments to the hundreds of thousands (millions?) who will lose their jobs if the domestic auto industry collapses.

It doesn't matter, you already took care of all your buddies on Wall Street with a blank check for $700 billion!!!

thank you Zman!!!! very well said!!!!

A loan to the auto companies is not going to help in the long run. Instead demand for the american vehicles has to increase. I don't know, do federal/state government vehicle fleets contain any foreign vehicles, I certainly hope not...How about some tax incentives to the car rental companies to use US manufactured vehicles? or how about some tax incentive to the car makers for using US produced parts? Wouldn't it be nice if Americans made the steel that was being formed for those parts? Don't do it just for the car makers, offer the same thing to Maytag and the other manufacturers. Lets get the products back in the US. I work for a company that has burned through its second bridge loan in 14 months...I will be unemployeed by the end of February.

I'm not a big fan of protective tarriffs, but maybe the foreign cars need a $800 tarriff per vehicle to be thrown into the pension guarantee trust.

Skibo wrote:A loan to the auto companies is not going to help in the long run. Instead demand for the american vehicles has to increase. I don't know, do federal/state government vehicle fleets contain any foreign vehicles, I certainly hope not...How about some tax incentives to the car rental companies to use US manufactured vehicles? or how about some tax incentive to the car makers for using US produced parts? Wouldn't it be nice if Americans made the steel that was being formed for those parts? Don't do it just for the car makers, offer the same thing to Maytag and the other manufacturers. Lets get the products back in the US. I work for a company that has burned through its second bridge loan in 14 months...I will be unemployeed by the end of February.

I'm not a big fan of protective tarriffs, but maybe the foreign cars need a $800 tarriff per vehicle to be thrown into the pension guarantee trust.

Wouldn't a car that is manufactured here in the US be exempt from such a tariff?

Skibo wrote:A loan to the auto companies is not going to help in the long run. Instead demand for the american vehicles has to increase. I don't know, do federal/state government vehicle fleets contain any foreign vehicles, I certainly hope not...How about some tax incentives to the car rental companies to use US manufactured vehicles? or how about some tax incentive to the car makers for using US produced parts? Wouldn't it be nice if Americans made the steel that was being formed for those parts? Don't do it just for the car makers, offer the same thing to Maytag and the other manufacturers. Lets get the products back in the US. I work for a company that has burned through its second bridge loan in 14 months...I will be unemployeed by the end of February.

I'm not a big fan of protective tarriffs, but maybe the foreign cars need a $800 tarriff per vehicle to be thrown into the pension guarantee trust.

I agree that demand for American cars needs to be higher, but I think your approach is bass-ackwards.

American car companies need to make better cars, and they need to be *perceived* as making better cars. Until I am much more certain that an American car is going to last me at least ten years and 200K miles, I ain't buying one. *That's* what Detroit needs to address, and I don't think they're going to get there by stifling competition...again. This was tried in the early 80s. All it did was raise the cost of foreign cars; the Big Three didn't change a d@mn thing about how they did business in order to compete.

If we don't learn from history, we will only repeat it.

I haven't read all the comments yet but from the one's that I have read so far, no one is mention that the foreign makers don't want the big three to go bankrupt either. Most of the automakers who have factories here (and that includes the major Japanese car makers, and BMW and probably Daimler) have factories here, yes they have a lot of their workers who are non-unionized and do make less than those in the factories in Michigan and Indiana which have the higher concentration of union workers in those factories, however, the foreign companies don't want the big three to go under because if they do, a lot of the suppliers would also go under and most of the companies do business with the same suppliers.

TropicalTroubador wrote:I agree that demand for American cars needs to be higher, but I think your approach is bass-ackwards.

American car companies need to make better cars, and they need to be *perceived* as making better cars. Until I am much more certain that an American car is going to last me at least ten years and 200K miles, I ain't buying one. *That's* what Detroit needs to address, and I don't think they're going to get there by stifling competition...again. This was tried in the early 80s. All it did was raise the cost of foreign cars; the Big Three didn't change a d@mn thing about how they did business in order to compete.

If we don't learn from history, we will only repeat it.

GM is building cars and trucks that are good for 200K right now
the problem is getting people to believe it.


agreed that tarrifs are a terrible idea

z-man wrote:I am sick and damb tired of mis-informed people beating up on General Motors.

Have they built some poor vehicles in the past? Yes

Are they building quality vehicles now - Yes!

I bought my current Impala 9 years ago. 150,000 miles later it still gets 25 miles a gallon, and the only thing I have done other than oil changes has been replace a power window motor.

My daughter is driving my wife's old Pontiac Grand Am.
10 years old, 135,000 miles. We had to replace the air conditioner compressor last year; that is the only repair it has needed since 1998.

Disclaimer: I am part of a GM family

My brother is the program manager of the Cadillac CTS
only the Motor Trend Car of the Year last year.

for all of you b!tching about the supposed $73 an hour, here is a good article from the New York Times breaking down the labor costs of domestic vs imported vehicles.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/busin ... dt.html?em

The difference between domestic and foreign labor: about $10 per hour, or $800 per vehicle. The rest of the labor difference is legacy pension cost. Guess what; if GM goes under your taxes will pay the retirement for over 400,000 retirees through the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp. (PBGC is a federal corporation created by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and is paid for by taxpayers)

Sure Senators; block $15 billion of bridge financing, let 'em go bankrupt. Instead, let the taxpayers pick up tens of billions of additonal liabilities for pension costs as well as unemployment payments to the hundreds of thousands (millions?) who will lose their jobs if the domestic auto industry collapses.

It doesn't matter, you already took care of all your buddies on Wall Street with a blank check for $700 billion!!!

Z....to the rescue!!!

phjrsaunt wrote:If Toyota wants to have plants in the US, fine. The company appears to be operating at a profit, and offering reasonable pay and benefits to its employees. They make a good product at a fairly reasonable price.

And those profits go to Japan! The sale of that car is included in Japan's GNP and adds to the trade imbalance.
We're in a global economic war and when you buy a Toyota (or Honda, or . . .) you are buying from the enemy.

I own a '99 Mustang, an '06 Explorer, and an '08 Escape . . . not a problem with any of them!

z-man wrote:

TropicalTroubador wrote:I agree that demand for American cars needs to be higher, but I think your approach is bass-ackwards.

American car companies need to make better cars, and they need to be *perceived* as making better cars. Until I am much more certain that an American car is going to last me at least ten years and 200K miles, I ain't buying one. *That's* what Detroit needs to address, and I don't think they're going to get there by stifling competition...again. This was tried in the early 80s. All it did was raise the cost of foreign cars; the Big Three didn't change a d@mn thing about how they did business in order to compete.

If we don't learn from history, we will only repeat it.

GM is building cars and trucks that are good for 200K right now
the problem is getting people to believe it.


agreed that tarrifs are a terrible idea

But z, perception IS reality.
Americans didn't come by their belief that foreign cars are better made than american cars by fluke.
It was from experience. And it will take experience to reverse that trend.

So until Detroit makes a better car that is borne out by time, perception is not likely to change.
A lot of folks have already jumped ship because of prior experience with an inferior product.
It's going to take something special to get them to come back.
Just MHO.

Dezdmona wrote:
But z, perception IS reality.
Americans didn't come by their belief that foreign cars are better made than american cars by fluke.
It was from experience. And it will take experience to reverse that trend.

So until Detroit makes a better car that is borne out by time, perception is not likely to change.
A lot of folks have already jumped ship because of prior experience with an inferior product.
It's going to take something special to get them to come back.
Just MHO.

agreed.
Mrs Z is driving a new Pontiac G6 hardtop convertible
people who see it (especially the top going up and down) can't believe it is a GM
saw an Infiniti G37 hardtop convertible on display yesterday (goes on the market next month)

body looks almost identical to the Pontiac,
Pontiac interior is better looking,
Infiniti has a bit more horsepower but costs over $15K more.

Guess which one will sell better.

Ok so this is my two cents...

build a car that I want.. or a truck.. and can afford..

look at the new rigs.. XM/Sirius radio. GPS. 12 pack ice chests, DIRECTV
DVD players, Remote doors,tailgates, and starters, Heated Mirors and seats..
40 gig Ipods storage boxes in the bed railing, glove boxes that cool drinks
cup holders that heat/cool drinks.. monitors that tell you your tire pressure,
gas milage, how long your gas will last at the current usage...
the list goes on.. and each and every Feature adds to the cost of not only
the vehicle that contains them, but the entire model line (R and D costs)

also quit bundling the extras..
just because i want a cruise control do not charge me for the
power adjustable seat, or Heated mirrors..
do not make me get the fog lamps if I want the big front bumper..
ETC..

z-man wrote: GM is building cars and trucks that are good for 200K right now
the problem is getting people to believe it.


agreed that tarrifs are a terrible idea

I'm not advocating tariffs, but it seems that as a last resort, taxes influence behavior more than any other motivating factor in society.

I do agree that it is a perception problem. My wife has a Buick that she loves, (over 125k miles) I hate it. Only problem was a solenoid which took 3 dealer visits to repair. There are other issues that she doesn't tell me about but it runs.

The Chevy Avalanche is cursed (in my eyes) Power window motor died, fiberglass tailgate (cheap) 4 recalls. Wife likes it. It never got stuck in mud or snow or left us stranded.

So far the Cadillac has been wonderful. I love driving this vehicle.

The Jag on the other hand has been in the shop 3 times this year. It is a dream to drive...when I can. Call me crazy but our next car will be a Jag XF instead of a Cadillac. Doesn't make sense to me but despite the British quality being below the US. I really really like that vehicle. I'm also paying a premium over what it would cost me for a US equivalent.

I've had Land Rovers in the past. Of course I experienced a lot of classic British electrical issues with them. I would still buy another Land Rover before I purchased a GM SUV. I did almost purchase a Hummer last year, but changed my mind when I discovered the demographic that it appealed to.

ragtopW wrote:Ok so this is my two cents...

build a car that I want.. or a truck.. and can afford..

look at the new rigs.. XM/Sirius radio. GPS. 12 pack ice chests, DIRECTV
DVD players, Remote doors,tailgates, and starters, Heated Mirors and seats..
40 gig Ipods storage boxes in the bed railing, glove boxes that cool drinks
cup holders that heat/cool drinks.. monitors that tell you your tire pressure,
gas milage, how long your gas will last at the current usage...
the list goes on.. and each and every Feature adds to the cost of not only
the vehicle that contains them, but the entire model line (R and D costs)

also quit bundling the extras..
just because i want a cruise control do not charge me for the
power adjustable seat, or Heated mirrors..
do not make me get the fog lamps if I want the big front bumper..
ETC..

A-bloody-men. I don't need 90% of that cr@p either.

And while they're at it, I want something that gets better mileage than my Prius, and a dealer network whom I'm not concerned is going to shaft me at every conceivable opportunity. There are real and valid reasons why car dealers are often viewed as less trustworthy than politicians.