Phoenix said:
The problem is that so long as companies are willing to shed thousands of dollars in order to make a quarter as opposed to looking towards their long term business health (HP - 14,500 and Kodak 10,000 on 2 consecutive days), you'll never be able to expect any labor union to be anything but hostile towards negotiations with people who consider them infinitely expendable. Having watched my dad deal with it with Bellsouth for many many years and having watched my mom as a New Orleans Parish School board teacher deal with it for many years - I know exactly where they are coming from and what they are fighting for and its a very sensitive issue because in many of the instances one side gives a lot more than the other. I've always been very sensitive to workers rights because of this 'commoditization' of human labor. I remember an old job where the CEO told the employees where they were expendible and could easily be replaced. When you have that type of mindset at the top two things happen:
1) Productivity goes to shit because people don't feel they are appreciated and that there is an axe hanging over their head that could drop at any moment. An atmosphere of innovation dies in that environment.
2) The talented people jump ship.... QUICKLY. Why risk being one of the many 'to be fired' when you can just go work for someone else with a clue.
I share youre concern over whoring to shareholders and the commoditization of human labor". Personally, as someone who wants to enter the IT sector before long, its particularly troubling. However, I think its only tangentially related to the problem that GM has right now. At least as it pertains to the content of Business Weeks article. I see what youre saying WRT talented people jumping ship, but lets face it, where else are the majority of GMs UAW workers going to make that kind of money if not in union auto industry jobs?
My fear is that theyre cutting their own throat, and in the process, bringing down a huge contributor to the US economy. This is especially worrisome considering that GM, Ford and Chrysler are part of shrinking sector that we used to dominate- industrial might. Industry is synonomous with the creation of wealth. Service sector jobs are like a parasite that feeds on itself.
Creation of wealth is essential to any healthy economy.
Phoenix said:
In this day and age, that simply isn't true anymore. Production being down is just one of the many reasons that you might get laid off these days. If your profits are down, for whatever reason, corporate execs see that as a sign to cull the herd in order to make those numbers - because of course that's what their bonuses are tied to... not the long term longevity of the company. That is a HUGE problem, and one that is unlikely to go away any time soon I'm afraid.
I understand what youre saying, but insufficient demand most certainly can be a reason that companies lay off their workers. I know that their are other reasons for why workers are laid off. As well, I dont agree with lay-offs for the purpose of outsourcing or to boost quarterly profits with no eye towards the long term. The thing is, from what Ive been reading, GM isnt playing actuarial tricks here- they are indeed in dire straights. They have more money going out than they have coming in; and without changes, that trend will continue until their liquidity is sucked dry.
Phoenix said:
While, of course, that cuts into their profits - the company isn't exactly eating that cost. They are writing that down against their numbers every year.
You can read the article here:
Why GM's Plan Won't Work
Phoenix said:
One of the more popular car categories is dominated by the Toyota Camry and Honda Accord. Lets look at what GM has that's roughly in the same class:
Buick Century, Buick LaCrosse, Chevy Impala, Olds Alero, Pontiac G6
These are all IMO criminally ugly generic vehicles. I wouldn't look twice at them and think that I'd want any of them to be my next car. In some of these cases, the Camry/Accord actually costs more money - but you'd buy it because it is marketted as the preferred/better car. I mean if you put a poll up on GAF just on virtue of "what brand do you think your next car will be" I'm pretty sure just on that brand badge alone more people are likely to pick 'foreign' designs. We simply aren't building vehicles that people desire... and we're building large numbers of them. Most of the models look so boring and uninspired that it is indeed worth whatever cost it would take to kill off the line and make MORE of something that people actually want.
The only thing that I EVER think of as a positive when I think of GM is OnStar.
In the past Ive been a very harsh critic of the US auto industry. The 70s and 80s were a big turning point for them. High gas prices in the 70s, and cheap, fuel efficient imports really started the slide for the Big 3. Shoddy workmanship and inattention to market trends throughout the 80s and early 90s gave the Japanese the toe-hold they needed. That's part of the current malaise the US auto industry is in- perception. Starting in the mid-90s the average quality of the Big 3 relative to imports improved considerably. Statistically, the margin of difference is not very much now.
Styling is a different issue, and I tend to agree with you here overall. Yes, theres still too much styling by focus group crap going on; and not enough styling by car lovers going on. In the last 20 years, one of the major culprits of this bean counter mentality of making cars was Roger Smith. Now HE was an asshole. My opinion wasn't formed as the result of anything that fat-ass Moore said. Rather, it was because he produced cookie cutter POS cars during his tenure.
In the past 3-5 years I think that the Big 3 have improved the looks of their lineups somewhat. Stylistically, I really like the direction that Cadillac has taken with the CTS and the STS. A lot of people dont like them, but I like them because their different- they dont look like all of the other aerodynamic jelly beans out there. I also like the new Chrysler 300M's. BTW, Toyota is the last automaker that I would use as being on the vanguard of styling. Dont get me wrong, Toyota makes great cars, but style-wise, they leave a lot to be desired IMO. Honda is hit or miss, but in general, theyre a little more to my taste.
BTW, I currently own a 2001 Olds Aurora. Considering what I paid for it, the features, and level of comfort, I wouldnt trade it for any Japanese cars ATM.
But thats just me.
Phoenix said:
One of the huge differences is that many Japaneese companies over the years have charged off the money it would take to do that - to reinvent themselves as a better company and the banks in Japan loaned them money on top of money to do so and the Japaneese government by and large supported that behavior for many years. As a result, many companies were able to restructure in near bankruptcy protection for years and not fire off their talent and come back with a better product. A major difference in the states is that if IBM (for example) is showing a profit of .15 per share as opposed to .19 per share, you can bet your ass that some deep cuts are coming - and usually in product lines that have not yet become profitable. American companies more often than not kill their futures to try and protect the present. I've seen it happen so many times over my career that I have accepted that this mindset really DOES come from the psyche of MBA students.
Again, I understand what youre saying. However, unless the US restructures its corporate investment scheme; and/or GM pulls a circa 1980 Lee Iacocca, I dont see GM getting any relief. The problems they face will either be worked out from within, or youll probably see them in bankruptcy court for a restructure.
With IBM selling out their PC side to a Chinese company, and another Chinese company bidding for Unocal 76, can US industry recover? 
