Would the BIG-3 pull out of NA

[Topaz]

On Thursday, I heard on the news that the "Big-3" may pull out of North America and go to India or elsewhere, if the unions don't take pay cuts and benefit cuts. Now, I think if the head CEO's are still making mega-bucks themselves, shouldn't they lead by example?? Most workers would take a cut if it would help the company or should I say the stockholders. The major state and province to feel the withdrawal would be Michigan and Ontario. Ontario does have Toyota building 1 and even and second plant in Ontario but Michigan is suffering now. Most of them went down south. I can't see how building new plant then uprooting them to another country is good for the profits of the company.

[jbg]

On Thursday, I heard on the news that the "Big-3" may pull out of North America and go to India or elsewhere, if the unions don't take pay cuts and benefit cuts. Now, I think if the head CEO's are still making mega-bucks themselves, shouldn't they lead by example?? Most workers would take a cut if it would help the company or should I say the stockholders. The major state and province to feel the withdrawal would be Michigan and Ontario. Ontario does have Toyota building 1 and even and second plant in Ontario but Michigan is suffering now. Most of them went down south. I can't see how building new plant then uprooting them to another country is good for the profits of the company.

I haven't heard that but it may not make a difference. Those companies, as it is, are dead men walking.

[Mad_Michael]

On Thursday, I heard on the news that the "Big-3" may pull out of North America and go to India or elsewhere, if the unions don't take pay cuts and benefit cuts. Now, I think if the head CEO's are still making mega-bucks themselves, shouldn't they lead by example?? Most workers would take a cut if it would help the company or should I say the stockholders. The major state and province to feel the withdrawal would be Michigan and Ontario. Ontario does have Toyota building 1 and even and second plant in Ontario but Michigan is suffering now. Most of them went down south. I can't see how building new plant then uprooting them to another country is good for the profits of the company.

This is quite colourful. Was it written by the company's PR-spin people or the union's?

GM and Ford are so close to bankruptcy that they would never wander far from Uncle Sam who is due to be called upon very soon to help bail them out of bankruptcy. I can't see India bailing out GM to stay alive.

And GM/Ford moving to any 3rd world country would not change their position one whit. They have contractual obligations that don't just disappear by moving away.

[marcinmoka]

Let us not forget that even the act of moving production abroad to a nation such as India would not guarantee viability since there is no assurance they would produce cars people actually want. 300C's and Mustang's are all fine and dandy, but they represent but a small sliver of the line ups.

Besides, it would be partisan "cause celebre" for the upcoming elections, where the candidate who makes the most (empty??) promises to salvage an inefficient industry can have the backing of a major state.

Nonetheless, it is a shame. Ford has some interesting, and seemingly desirable offerings in Europe ( Mondeo, C-Max, etc) and even G.M's Saturn subsidiary is starting to revive it's fortunes with more progressive designs (primarily from Opel), albeit their non-unionized labour force does not hurt either, since it helped them weather through hard times.

But either way, unless there is serious health care reform down south, Michigan will be a loser, both in the short and mid terms, but hopefully it will give even greater momentum to push forth the dire reforms.

Granted, if our precious $CAD comes back down to earth (hopefully in not too distant a future), this could bode relatively well for Ontario, and that is what concerns me the most.

There is a reason Toyota chose Ontario, other than cost effectiveness, and that is skill and quality. While they do manufacture vehicles in the American south, they would not *dare* manufacture a Lexus elsewhere on this continent. Sadly, Mercedes had to learn the hard, painful way with the ol' M class.

[Argus]

On Thursday, I heard on the news that the "Big-3" may pull out of North America and go to India or elsewhere, if the unions don't take pay cuts and benefit cuts. Now, I think if the head CEO's are still making mega-bucks themselves, shouldn't they lead by example?? Most workers would take a cut if it would help the company or should I say the stockholders. The major state and province to feel the withdrawal would be Michigan and Ontario. Ontario does have Toyota building 1 and even and second plant in Ontario but Michigan is suffering now. Most of them went down south. I can't see how building new plant then uprooting them to another country is good for the profits of the company.

The three US automakers have had just about the poorest, most close-minded leadership of any major or even minor corporations in the western world over the last fifty years. GM management has been compared - unfavourably - to the civil service of the Stalinist Soviet Union. Ford managers run screaming into the night at the first hint of innovation. They produce crappy, boring cars, that despite years of competition from the Japanese and other foreign automakers remain consistantly inferior in almost every concievable way, be it safety, innovation, reliability or ease of service.

Their major problem is that the automakers gave very generous contracts to their workers for decades, especially with regard to benefits, and then they didn't fund them properly. Health care and pension costs are enormous, and they're not likely to get out of those and still retain enough public support to sell any of their cars in the US.

Even now they exist in large part on government hand-outs. For example, the big profit margins for them is SUVs. Why do they sell so many SUVs? In large part because they bribed the US congress to put in place a ridiculous tax rebate for "small trucks" designed to "help small businesses". In point of fact it encourages anyone with any kind of business, even self employed people who have little or no use for a vehicle in their work, to buy SUVs, and big SUVs at that. The rebate is up to $100,000, so you can imagine what that's meant to the big three. Now will that rebate continue if they leave? I doubt it. Presto - instant bankruptcy.

[fellowtraveller]

On Thursday, I heard on the news that the "Big-3" may pull out of North America and go to India or elsewhere, if the unions don't take pay cuts and benefit cuts. Now, I think if the head CEO's are still making mega-bucks themselves, shouldn't they lead by example?? Most workers would take a cut if it would help the company or should I say the stockholders. The major state and province to feel the withdrawal would be Michigan and Ontario. Ontario does have Toyota building 1 and even and second plant in Ontario but Michigan is suffering now. Most of them went down south. I can't see how building new plant then uprooting them to another country is good for the profits of the company.

Of course, if the Big Three declared bankruptcy here and migrated offshore, every other manufacturer faced with high labour costs- including Toyota- would follow suit. What choice would they have?

[geoffrey]

Toyota can make cars competitively at North American labour rates because they are a much much better managed company.

I know Buzz and the NDP would hate to hear it, but the governmented killed the auto industry in Canada. Further subsidies of other industry will do the same. The big 3 will continue to lose market share and eventually collapse in on their awful corporate structure and culture.

[jbg]

The three US automakers have had just about the poorest, most close-minded leadership of any major or even minor corporations in the western world over the last fifty years. GM management has been compared - unfavourably - to the civil service of the Stalinist Soviet Union. Ford managers run screaming into the night at the first hint of innovation.

Though Michael Moore is not on the list of people I admire, the movie Roger and Me rings quite true.

[Michael Bluth]

Though Michael Moore is not on the list of people I admire, the movie Roger and Me rings quite true.

Moore probably peaked with Canadian Bacon (his first movie following Roger and Me.)

I've heard Sicko is his best effort in a long time...

[M.Dancer]

Though Michael Moore is not on the list of people I admire, the movie Roger and Me rings quite true.

Moore probably peaked with Canadian Bacon (his first movie following Roger and Me.)

I've heard Sicko is his best effort in a long time...

I have only seen Roger and Me and his TV foray, TV Nation. Now I have seen 1/2 of Canadian Bacon and then changed the channel. It was bad.

[fellowtraveller]

Toyota can make cars competitively at North American labour rates because they are a much much better managed company.

I know Buzz and the NDP would hate to hear it, but the governmented killed the auto industry in Canada. Further subsidies of other industry will do the same. The big 3 will continue to lose market share and eventually collapse in on their awful corporate structure and culture.

Toyota can also be competitive because their competitors do not make vehicles that people want to buy. That would change when the manufacture of F-150s moved to South Korea and the price went down 30%. People pay a premium for quality ( which is the case for Toyota now, they are expensive and rarely discounted). They will not pay the moon for a car, especially cars like Toyotas that don't have the mystery cachet of Porsche or BMW.

If cars that are cheap and of decent quality are brought to North America, people will buy them too. Hyundai is a good example of this, and they will put a serious dent in Toyota here.

[Guest American Woman]

Though Michael Moore is not on the list of people I admire, the movie Roger and Me rings quite true.

Moore probably peaked with Canadian Bacon (his first movie following Roger and Me.)

I've heard Sicko is his best effort in a long time...

Have you heard any more about it? Or seen it? I think I'm going to watch it tonight. Not sure what to expect, to tell the truth, but I know I'll be interested in 'comparing notes' with others who have seen it.

[GostHacked]

The Big 3 cannot pull out and move elsewhere. For one the infrastructure to produce parts and service for these vehicles may not be there. If they pull out, you have everyone at the Big 3 out of a job, and many other companies that supply parts for those cars are gone as well. Mechanics who service those cars are not really needed anymore. If you are not selling them here, who wants to service them? It is the extreme end of things yes, but even if one of the Big-3 went tits up or moved offshore, it will have a huge impact on the economy and workforce as a whole.

Let's say Chrysler, the smallest of the 3, went tits up or moved offshore (two things that saved there asses were the K-Car (K for the designation of the body type, I had a Shadow and it was a PL I think) and Lee Iacocca. You have plant closures. Layoffs. People who service these cars would be out of a job. No parts are being made for these cars. Who else wants to risk it? Niche busisness at that point. Selling and making parts at high prices for those now non serviceable cars. With these people out of work, they don't get the money anymore. No money, no food, poverty possibly. So with this batch of new poor people, they cannot put money back into a society for any kind of progression.

They go bankrupt, I am out of a job, and cannot afford anything. I have to sell my things to make ends meet. Downgrade or die. Imagine thousands, perhaps millions of people in this same predicament.

Also if they made cars that don't suck, and blend in with everything else, I might consider buying a car again. I owned a Ford, owned a Dodge and drove many GMs. But when I look at cars, style is the thing that strikes ANYONE first. Look at the Porche Cayenn, damn ugly, but really a solid vehicle overall. Hyundai at the start had some damn ugly cars, now they have great styling and great warrenties and are making decent cars now.

European cars are my personal fave, Saabs stand out the most for me.

You get what you pay for in a car most of the time. The more expensive the better the car. The new Honda Civic is a fucking masterpiece of design. A guy at work has the two door coupe and .. damn that car is just... just hot. Simple, clean and little clutter. Not only that, Honda, Toyota have consistantly have had higher resale value than any other car. People want quality in a car. Reliable. They don't want money pits. But cars are money pits any way you look at it. Some have smaller pits though.

Back to the topic. So the economy would be in shambles if even any one of them pulled out. We can take this small example http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/chry-f27.shtml and multiply it many times to get a country wide scale effect. No job, no money to buy things, cannot afford health care, doctors loose jobs or move, local businesses are affected, ect ect ect........

[Leafless]

European cars are my personal fave, Saabs stand out the most for me.

Great!

The in fact you are supporting one of the 'Big Three', GM.

Saab is a line of automobiles manufactured by Saab Automobile AB company in Sweden, and is currently a wholly-owned subsidiary of the General Motors Corporation.

[Wilber]

They will not pay the moon for a car, especially cars like Toyotas that don't have the mystery cachet of Porsche or BMW.

They do when they put a Lexus, Infinity or Acura badge on them. Those names don't exist in Japan. The same cars do but they are just Toyota's, Nissans and Honda's over there. No need to tack a fancy up market name on them.

[GostHacked]

European cars are my personal fave, Saabs stand out the most for me.

Great!

The in fact you are supporting one of the 'Big Three', GM.

Saab is a line of automobiles manufactured by Saab Automobile AB company in Sweden, and is currently a wholly-owned subsidiary of the General Motors Corporation.

Only since 2007. And I have not really supported them. I have not bought a GM in my life. Saab or otherwise. But you are right , they are owned by GM. But it is still a European car that is better than anything else GM makes domesticly in North America.

[Leafless]

European cars are my personal fave, Saabs stand out the most for me.

Great!

The in fact you are supporting one of the 'Big Three', GM.

Saab is a line of automobiles manufactured by Saab Automobile AB company in Sweden, and is currently a wholly-owned subsidiary of the General Motors Corporation.

Only since 2007. And I have not really supported them. I have not bought a GM in my life. Saab or otherwise. But you are right , they are owned by GM. But it is still a European car that is better than anything else GM makes domesticly in North America.

I have bought nothing but GM and Ford my entire life and have had no serious problems with either company other than run of the mill regular component replacement parts, common to any vehicle. I like North American vehicles especially for the extra space and most materials and parts are more durable than imports in the same price range and are easier to work on, with most parts being less expensive than imports.

[jbg]

I have bought nothing but GM and Ford my entire life and have had no serious problems with either company other than run of the mill regular component replacement parts, common to any vehicle. I like North American vehicles especially for the extra space and most materials and parts are more durable than imports in the same price range and are easier to work on, with most parts being less expensive than imports.

I inherited my father's Mustang on his death and my turning 16, both in 1973. The need for wheel alignments and ball bearings was constant. There was at least one expensive transmission job. I bought a used Chrysler Dodge Dart in 1980. Almost as useless. Blew up when climbing a not too steep hill in White Plains, New York. Those were my first, and last, American cars.

My 1979 Toyota, bought in 1983 with 70,000 miles on it, ran like a dream until I forgot to check/change the radiator fluid. My 1982 Toyota bought in 1985 with 50,000 miles on it, ran like a dream until it was stolen before NYC became a low-crime city. I don't have plaudits for the Mazda that followed, but the two Hondas, and three Toyotas since, have had minimal maintenance and headaches. I think I'm sticking to Toyota Camrys (bought late model used) for a while.

I like excitement, but not with cars.

[Leafless]

I inherited my father's Mustang on his death and my turning 16, both in 1973. The need for wheel alignments and ball bearings was constant. There was at least one expensive transmission job.

A 16yr. old, rodding a Mustang, usually is = trouble.

That explains the Mustang.

I bought a used Chrysler Dodge Dart in 1980. Almost as useless. Blew up when climbing a not too steep hill in White Plains, New York. Those were my first, and last, American cars.

You have neglected or have forgotten to include what the mileage was on the Dart or the Mustang for that matter.

Buying any kind of used car requires special attention directed at important components and lubricants.

Failure to do this could cause the situation you ended up with a blown motor or tranny, you were not specific.

[Canuck E Stan]

I have bought nothing but GM and Ford my entire life and have had no serious problems with either company other than run of the mill regular component replacement parts, common to any vehicle. I like North American vehicles especially for the extra space and most materials and parts are more durable than imports in the same price range and are easier to work on, with most parts being less expensive than imports.

I'm with you on your choices of vehicles. You're right about North American cars, repairs are usually run of the mill and most shops can do the work.

I was given a Jetta by a friends, my first import valued at about $5,000.

Milage, 154,000 km.

Local VW dealer had told them it needs a new transmission....cost $8,000 for a rebuilt, $12,000 for a new transmission,a bump in front wheel for curb damage(winter slide) $4500(replacing everything that's attached to the wheel,whether it needs to or not).

VW dealers policy is to not repair,but to replace.

Transmission only required a speed sensor, less than $85.But I did have to purchase a special VW tool to remove the single VW screw holding it down,I replace the special (why?)VW screw with a regular socket head cap screw.

Bump damage required rim,tire and control arm, final cost $150. This is how good imports are when repairs are required by their dealers.

A mechanic friend told me that before a person buys a car they should ask questions about repairing the car.

Things like how much to replace a timing belt,cost of replacing a front headlight,how much for an oil change.The answers to these questions may shock some.

No thanks,I'll stick to my North American built autos.

My 1985 Chevette,is now 22 years old and Crappy Tire can fix what I can't.

As to how much does a timing belt cost to replace in my car,$185,a headlight-$10.00,an oil change $22.00.

How do these prices compare with the imports of the same year or newer?

[jbg]

I inherited my father's Mustang on his death and my turning 16, both in 1973. The need for wheel alignments and ball bearings was constant. There was at least one expensive transmission job.

A 16yr. old, rodding a Mustang, usually is = trouble.

That explains the Mustang.

Two years old, about 10,000 miles when acquired. Next.

I bought a used Chrysler Dodge Dart in 1980. Almost as useless. Blew up when climbing a not too steep hill in White Plains, New York. Those were my first, and last, American cars.

You have neglected or have forgotten to include what the mileage was on the Dart or the Mustang for that matter.

1975 model, about 45,000 miles. Next.

Buying any kind of used car requires special attention directed at important components and lubricants.

Failure to do this could cause the situation you ended up with a blown motor or tranny, you were not specific.

Agreed. But all of the Japanese cars were bought under similar conditions. Aside from the Mazda, no complaints (my 1989 Honda succumbed to my new wife not liking it).

[ft.niagara]

my new wife not liking it).

As in there was an old one who did?

[jbg]

my new wife not liking it).

As in there was an old one who did?

LOL no. First marriage. We married during May 1991. By July 1993 the Honda was gone. She was too short to easily see over the dashboard, and needed to sit on a cushion to drive it safely. We decided not to perform a routine break job or tire replacement, I forget which, and traded the car in for my first Camry. Since then, we bought another Camry in 1996 (1993 model) and in 2001 (2000 model). Next one will be a Camry, or maybe a Lexus if I get the appropriate business to pay "all cash".

This poster does not finance or lease anything other than my house, which I have a mortgage of about 1/3 of value on. A smart bankruptcy lawyer does not like debt him or her self.

[Leafless]

I inherited my father's Mustang on his death and my turning 16, both in 1973. The need for wheel alignments and ball bearings was constant. There was at least one expensive transmission job.

A 16yr. old, rodding a Mustang, usually is = trouble.

That explains the Mustang.

Two years old, about 10,000 miles when acquired. Next.

But as a 16 yr. old, did you or did you not rod that mustang?

Buying any kind of used car requires special attention directed at important components and lubricants.

Failure to do this could cause the situation you ended up with a blown motor or tranny, you were not specific.

Agreed. But all of the Japanese cars were bought under similar conditions. Aside from the Mazda, no complaints (my 1989 Honda succumbed to my new wife not liking it).

If you did buy cars under your own type similar conditions, then you simply got lucky with your two Japanese vehicles without having any major problems.

Relating to Mustangs, I owned a used 1969 Mustang 428c.i. cobra jet, Mach 1, with no front end problems at all. The only problem I had with that vehicle out of the norm, was an over temperamental 4-barrel Holley carburetor which I eventually replaced after many attempts to get things right, at a significant replacement cost, but then again this was a special high performance carburetor.

The thing I don't understand with your choice of Jap imports is that you seem to be loyal and respectful and supportive of the U.S. culture and traditions and turn around and not support its home grown auto industry.

Why is that? Why would you not support your own U.S auto industry in fairly hard and competitive economic times?

Are U.S. built vehicles really that inferior in you mind?

Edited July 15, 2007 by Leafless

[Guest American Woman]

I have a Toyota Camry and love it; can't imagine going back to anything else. I've bought American all my life, but I need reliable transportation, so I'll buy what gives me what I need from now on. I can't believe the U.S. doesn't have the means/ability to come up with the same kind of quality in American cars at the same price.

Edited July 15, 2007 by American Woman