GM wasting time on Crap again

Have to agree! If I get to the point I can't see where the care is then I don't need to be in the thing!

Not to get off the subject, but a few years back I was riding my Motorcycle down a normal street, here comes grandma in her 65 galaxy with her hood ornament lined up on the center line. My point being, it wasn't her eye sight, it's the possibility she might have had a stroke and could not see to the right. My first wife, her dad had a stroke and no one knew, kept going in the ditch on the right hand side of the road and hit a bridge before they had him checked out.

 

Actually I don't see too much wrong with the research, that kind of stuff will eventually be common place, GM had HeadsUpDisplays, I had one and I loved it, wish it was on more cars, the Prius does a fairly good try at it with our speedo.

 

They want to make it easier for their customers to be guided to the service bays.

 

Just like any auto manufacturer, they have a lot of different groups working on a lot of different technologies. It's called progress. Anyway, I doubt the windshield guys are going to have the technical skills to improve engine efficiency.

 

I agree but it is just the whole thing in general. General Motors just closed plants in the United States and Canada that produces SUV's--WHY?--because they realized they are not selling well- Gas has been going up for a few years now and has every indication that it will continue. Do these people not have windows in their offices? Even a small business guy knows you can only sell a product that there is demand for. I feel sorry for the employees but the so called Big 3 should be history---We all see how Honda is trying to complete and what Toyota plans for 2010 but there is nothing at all impressive being done by the littel three :-(

 

Toyota just put a stop on all production at their Sequoia plant. So I don't see the difference. Manufacturers are responding to changes in the marketplace.

But to the point, is Toyota doing a better job at it than GM? Probably. But besides questionable management, GM is also hobbled by a lot of union-imposed hurdles that Toyota, since they import from Japan and to my understanding is also non-union here in the U.S., does not have to deal with.

 

I see a big difference GM = bad, Toyota = good

 

Closing and stopping production --is the difference--
"Toyota said the moves will not affect any full-time workers, who will get training and do other projects during the shutdown."

 

Why? All I see are two companies trying to derive a profit in the marketplace. What makes one "bad" and one "good"?

 

I was being sarcastic, around here GM can do no good
(note to self its priuschat.com not realworld.net)

 

Ah - OK - sorry. The sarcasm got lost on me in the written word! I agree - what is it with the anti-GM attitude around here anyway? Heck, it's only a company, people. Not Adolph Hitler!

 

I mainly have a problem with them because there is no intelligence at the wheel. I bought a Celica in 1986 because GM did such a poor job on my 1980 Buick Skylark (crap reliability, crap economy, totally wore out after 6 years) -- and what do you know? NINETEEN years later, when I needed to replace my Celica (well, I kind of needed to replace it, anyway -- it's still in my garage after 22 years...) NOTHING AT ALL had changed at GM. You gotta be kidding. They lost me in 1986, yet nothing needed to be changed?

So, I bought a Prius to upgrade the Celica in 2005.

I'm 53, and this is the MOST thrilled I've ever been with a car. So far three years and zero defects (not different than my Celica experience), and now averaging much better reliability and MPG than any current GM product by far.

Ya gotta learn to survive... Otherwise ya gotta learn to take some hits!

 

Wayne, I think you nailed it - no intelligent management = crap products. I've owned domestic cars most of my life but I won't again until the quality and reliability improves to the level of Toyota/Honda. I'm amazed that the big three keep putting out the same garbage year after year. Top brass at ToMoCo and Honda must be laughing their heads off:rofl:

 

I had a 1982 Skylark and a 1976 Ford Pinto before that... after the Skylark gave me problem after problem, I've been buying Japanese cars ever since.

What gets me wondering is how people justify buying their poor quality over and over? They must not be too worried about spending money on keeping the car running, or having the inconvenience of having a car in the shop all the time.

 

Tim, I'm no expert here so bear with my process please. As to your first paragraph, all is true. HOWEVER, the big 3 have been shoving high profit SUVs down the public throats until recently EVEN THOUGH the trend toward higher gas prices has been around a while. Toyota? They have been roundly criticized on PC for that faux pas of a full-sized pu, they did it anyway for a SHORT time, realized their mistake and moved away from the project, unlike the big 3 who have been flogging enormous vehicles for years. I'd call that positive proactive management. See a profit center and 'go for it', realize it's a mistake and immediately re-tool for more desirable autos.

As to your second paragraph, again true (but misleading). Why? because through higher taxes, the nation of Japan provides health coverage to citizens NOT COVERED BY EMPLOYER HEALTH COVERAGE (since the 1920s I believe).

So, the argument becomes higher taxes to cover nationalized health care or employer mandated coverage. Either way, the money will be spent. Naturally, the US corporations have built into their retail prices employee benefits, so they would like nothing better than to have US single payer health care funded by income taxes. Then they would just keep that 'built in' health care component of employee benefits as additional profit while the US government picks up the tab for mandated health care.

Here is an easy way to look at it. Workers have certain definite minimum needs of which food, housing, clothing, medical and retirement are part. These can be funded through wages, employer mandates, or government mandates. No matter how funded, the costs will remain. Now you can pay employees LOTS MORE MONEY per hour and let them buy their own benefits. You can mandate either employer benefits which will be reflected in the price of the goods. Or, you can pay higher taxes and have the government pay for these benefits.

Now let's see:

Significantly raise minimum wage...corporations will fight against this.

Mandate employer benefits...as is done now BOTH IN JAPAN AND THE US

Raise taxes and have the government pay for the benefits...good luck with this too.


So...as of this moment our system strives to keep taxes low (compared to other first-world countries). Our corporations strive to keep minimum wages low (so workers can't afford their own benefits). This leaves employer mandates (which can be paid out of the relatively low tax base).


NO, there is no really huge disparity between US and Japanese funded benefits. It's just a matter of who pays for them. Trouble is, how? Through higher prices, higher taxes, or higher minimum wages. OH, there is one more way to pay and that is the road the rest of the civilized business world has taken. TO KEEP CEO PAY DOWN TO A PERCENTAGE OF THE LOWEST PAID WORKER. This a) boosts min wages b) leaves money in the corporation kitty to pay for benefits. See below chart then tell me why US corps can't 'afford' benefits. Be sure to see Japanese CEO pay as compared to US CEO pay.


Country Average CEO pay Percent
change 1988
to 2003
Foreign CEO
pay relative to
U.S.
(U.S.=100)
1988 2003
Japan $473,655 $456,937 -4% 20%
Belgium $361,591 $697,030 93 31
France $381,015 $735,363 93 33
Sweden $221,138 $700,290 217 31
Netherlands $373,545 $675,062 81 30
New Zealand $449,414 20
Switzerland $481,125 $1,190,567 147 53
Germany $388,486 $954,726 146 42
Spain $331,708 $620,080 87 28
Australia $170,336 $694,638 308 31
Italy $322,743 $841,520 161 37
Canada $398,946 $889,898 123 40
United
Kingdom
$427,335 $830,223 94 37
United States
$759,043
$2,249,080
196
100
Non-U.S.
average
$360,969 $748,904 129 33

 

This could be a good thing, or a bad thing. I live in an area with a lot of older drivers and many keep driving when they should not be driving. Something like this could encourage many who shouldn't, to continue driving....or it may save lives.

 

LOL! All I can say is "wow", John.

Anyway, my point simply is there seem to be a lot people who take GM's every move quite personally. It's almost like they enjoy waiting for each and every mistake so they can pounce on it. It's become sport. Meanwhile, when Toyota screws up there's always an excuse.

I haven't bought a GM car in years, but I see no need to take their mistakes personally or make sport of them. And I would consider one of their cars if it had the right mix of features, safety, fuel economy, and reliabilty. That's really the determining factor for me - not that a car happens to come from wonderful Toyota or "evil" GM.

 

It depends on which part of the country you're in. Toyota is the one that is "evil" around here. Talk about how great the Toyota hybrids are here and they instantly bring up the Tundra as an utter failure or "Toyota engine oil sludging recall". If you don't live in Detroit, you are sitting on the porch.