Er, we already redefined the percentages didn't we? Talking mid sized cars, it's in the double digits. And I noticed that among power, style, etc that you mentioned, there wasn't super high mpg's.
GM has good to very good to great entries in the market segments covering about 85% of the US market volume.
The Prius is roughly 2% of the US market and no GM does not have a super high mpg entry in this segment. If you are talking mid-size cars in general GM does have the Malibu which has better mpg than the Camry.
So let me see if I've got this straight: GM has everything most Americans want, and misses out on only 2% of the market which is the tree-hugger segment that wants a clean, efficient car. Is that right? Then how come GM is losing money faster than the water going over Niagara Falls?
Prepare your self Daniel ... here comes the legacy spiel. Lutz et al will continue that line 'till they're buried, and turn into fossil fuel. The question is, what will be the spin, after the BKO is complete. .
Ah yes, "legacy" costs: GM had a contractual obligation to provide certain benefits to workers and retirees. But instead of honest accounting, and investing some of the profits to pay for continuing future costs, GM paid its executives obscene salaries and made no provisions for those costs, assuming they could be paid for out of future profits. This is a kind of self-ponzie scheme. The real meaning of the "legacy" costs is that GM's management are crooks. They stole money from the company that the company would need in the future. They belong in prison alongside the people who rob liquor stores, because what they did was exactly the same thing. BTW, I don't blame Malorn. He's a small businessman who owns a few car dealerships. He's a little like a troll here, but he's honest about the fact that he does not own a Prius, and that he has a financial stake in the success of GM, and that the more popular Toyota is, the less money he makes. It's actually kind of interesting to see how a GM dealer thinks. Of course, if we took his advice, we'd be screwing ourselves, paying too much money for inferior cars than pollute more and burn more gas and cost more to repair. But it's still interesting to see his "reasoning."
The "legacy costs" were set up when GM had 40-50% of the market and, if GM still had even 35% of the US market we would not be having this discussion. I am in agreement that GM has been run very poorly over the last 3 decades. GM has been much more focused on product over the last 5 or so years, but it was too little too late. I do disagree with your reasoning on compensation, if you had all of the compensation back from even the top 100 people in GM over the last 30 years it would hardly make a dent in the "legacy costs". How much do you think it costs to insure a million people a month when over half are over the age of 65? While the auto execs have been overpaid over the last decades based on performance, their pay has paled in comparison to other industries especially banking and Wall Street. I still think we are all "screwing" orselves through the incredible imbalance of trade and unfortunately now those chickens are coming home to roost for all of us. General Motors are in the exact same situation, too many obligations and not enough income, the only difference is the federal governmetn has a printing press and GM does not. Tell me why we don't change the trade situation tomorrow? Until we do anythng Obama does is just using bandaids to repair a ruptured aorta.
If you put GM's legacy costs onto toyota's balance sheets over the last 10 years it is Toyota being bailed out by the US government and not GM. Their revenue is roughly the same, raw materials are roughly the same, Toyota has no health care costs in Japan, and probably enjoys a small edge in labor costs. The difference is legacy costs. Social Security is facing the same thing, unless their is an incredible populatin boom in this country the Social security fund will be broke soon.
sorry but the only reason Americans have abandoned american car companies is that the american car companies spent years not providing what the americans want to drive. its incredible to me that you can honestly say that gm provides products that americans want when they prove on a daily basis that they dont want them. you spout off about all the fuel efficient cars gm produces...well fricking call me jaded if you need to but i dont consider 30 mpg to be good enough...in fact its not even borderline acceptable to me. 30 mpg was good enough in the 90's, but that "benchmark" has long since passed and that is why gm has also passed. now its easy to see your point of view. u r simply human. you are like a father of a convicted murderer. you know your son did wrong but you will still love him... but at the same time, you need to be a responsible parent. if you see your son about to do something wrong, do you correct them? sure you do and i understand your last name aint "motors" so you have a very limited say in what gm does... but you are like a father whose son is trashing the neighbor's rose bushes saying "ah, boys will be boys"
You admit that GM doesn't presently make anything that competes with the Prius, and you essentially argue that it doesn't really matter, as the Prius only has a 2% market share. This leaves me wondering why you insist on trying to convince Prius owners that they should switch brands. If the Prius only holds 2% market share, don't you have bigger fish to fry? Shouldn't you be preaching to the masses who drive the Toyota vehicles that hold significant market share? Especially, given that GM actually produces cars to compete in the more popular market segments. I think you contribute positively to the discussion, but I have to wonder if perhaps you are barking up the wrong tree.
The writing was on the wall decades ago, and nothing was done about it. In the end, just decades worth of bad management One can make the suggestion that in Japan, and Western Europe, the nationalized health care system provided an "unfair" advantage as the health care costs were borne by all of society - in taxes - not by the car maker That arguement becomes murkier with a country like Canada. In this country, health care is a Provincial responsibility, and each province has its own health care authority. As an example, in the province of Ontario, the Ontario Health Insurance Plan. In Manitoba, Manitoba Health. These programs have huge expenses, and represent among the largest single item budget appropriations Now, to pay for it, a very complicated accounting scheme is used. In most provinces, the various provincial revenues fall short of funding the programs. So a federal transfer is used, which for a long time meant the printing presses During the 1990's, Finance Minister Paul Martin came up with a rather simple means of "balancing" the budget. He dramatically cut federal transfer payments, in a process called "downloading." No surprise that at the federal level, the books became "balanced" but most provinces started to have massive budget deficits So even when a company can shove costs onto the public sector, that doesn't mean these costs magically go away. If costs are fungible, they tend to show up even amplified, somewhere else. I've often wondered why semi-skilled workers were given such elaborate health and pension plans. Like "punishing" spoiled children by spoiling them even more
I agree. Such niche market vehicles like the Prius, and lets face it, the FJ Cruiser, shouldn't even be a blip on the radar screen. Why not target the Camry forum, and the Corolla forum?
Why is 2% market share for the Prius (a single model) small? Which GM single model has double digit market share?
I know that I not in a place where most people share my views but I always think it is better to be challenged in life and this is where I come. I have learned many things over the years and do have a somewhat adjusted perspective of GM, the auto market, consumers, and the US. I subscribe to both the New York Times and the Wall Street journal for get somewaht the same result. Over the years I have had many members of PC email me privately and thank me for pointing out various things from the content of the prius, to the way trade effects all of us. I try not to be too much of a troll but also try to stand my ground. Anyways when I have the time(sometimes I make time to escape the rest of the current auto dealer world) I enjoy my time on PC.
The Prius has been the halo vehicle for toyota and has been the catalyst for incredible growth over the last 4-5 year for Toyota. Plus most people on PC are miles from me culturally, socially, ecomically etc, so it is more interesting than "camry chat" yuck.
I agree but in the bigger picture, the lifestyle that you and I enjoy is related to what those UAW members make. Certainly all other semi-skilled worker and/or public employee can thank the UAW and the teamsters etc for their current standard of living. Right now there is incredible downward pressure on wages, and the UAW is part of that. Of course a much larger part of that is the trade disaster.
The Prius doesn't hold 2% US market share. All hybrids combined hold 2.2%. The Prius represents 51.6% of all hybrid sales so it holds 1.1% of US market share. The Prius has been very successful for Toyota. With Toyota's product line hybrids are mainstream and Toyota sells 78% of all hybrids. However, hybrids in general have not been nearly as successful. No model from any company has more than 10% of US market. The Ford F-150 holds the biggest single slice of the market @ 3.6% The best selling Chevy is the Silverado with 3.3% of the market The best selling Toyota is the Camry with 3.1% of the market.
The thing is, with semi-skilled folks *expecting* so much, with little work in return, where was the incentive for anybody to strive upwards? For most of my career, I took home far, far less than a UAW worker, and I really had to bust my cubes to take home that Thing is, in the last 12 years, my fortunes dramatically changed. My career really soared, and even now shows no real limit. So in a relative handful of years, my take-home not only matched, but far surpassed what those rank-and-file brotherhood were earning What I find ironic, is that during the time I was skimping and squeaking by, the rank and file brotherhood thought that was funny. I've had union workers laugh right at my face, telling me I was crazy for having been in the army, worked for those engineering degrees, while they proudly boasted they could sit on their nice person and make 3 times what I was making, at the time But now that my career has far exceeded what the rank-and-file are capable of even imagining, suddenly I'm expected to "share" my success. Why the hell should I have to "share" what I worked for, indeed worked very hard for? I've lived my entire life by the principles in the book "The Millionaire Next Door," and rule 1 is to live FAR below your means. Rule 2 is to find a career that allows for upward mobility, without any dangerous side effects. Eg drug dealing piece of s*** may allow upward mobility, but they always seem in danger of being rubbed out in a gang war. I made a far better choice than that IMHO I feel we created this fantasy of unlimited reward for no real work. That's not how it works in the real world. I've also observed that when you *give* something, it has no value. You work for something, you respect it more
