Cost per Car of Ads...

I disagree. Without the ads, GM would hardly sell any cars.

Jeff

Reply to
dr_jeff
Loading thread data ...

You have no idea what my office hour are. And who's dime are you posting your triades on? You post more often and more regularly than I do. And you seem to have a no track message anti-GM, protect Toyota agenda. My guess is that you are some low level grunt stuck in the back room of a failing company and you are striking out at GM becasue they dumped your company as a supplier. aybe Toyota is still buying form you for now...but when Toyota figures out you are dependent on their buisness, look out...

Probably all of them, since the US isn't getting tax revenue from the producers and workers making the Chinese, Japanese, Phillipine, Thai, Brazilian, etc. componets.

Actually I agree with you. Fix it. When it comes to sending jobs to China, GM doesn't hold a candle to electroincs and computer companies, textile producers, etc.

So you are goign to lanch a hate filled attack on Toyota for importing complete vehicles that include no doemstic content at all? How many American jobs were lost when my Mother,Sisters,and SO bought Japanese built vehicles (three RAV4's and 1 Highlander) instead of Escapes and Edeges?

This is the sort of ridiculous statement that makes you look like an idiot.

As I have pointedout numerous times, GM has not made money in Eurpoe since around 2007. And Toyota only uses some US components. The average Toyota is only about 70% "domestic" these days (it has actually gone down for the last couple of years). Many Toyota models have little or no domestic content. The most "domestic" Toyota is the Sienna, and it is only has about 85% domestic content.

OK, but you need to start with the worst offenders. And GM isn't even close compared to almost any company in the computer or electroics industry. Heck, even the building supply companies are worse than GM...I hope you don't have any of that Chinese made drywall. And when you get the anti-free tradeball rolling, don't be surprised if Toyota is a target.

And yet you buy Hondas....

I do to, but I am often shocked how hard it is to find non-chinese items. I needed bearing for my grain drill last year. I had two choices, "chinese" bearings and supposedly US made bearings. The US made bearings turned out to be Japanese...go figure. The only disc opener blades available came from Brazil, and it took be 6 months to get those.

A higher percentage f Toyota componets come from offshore than is the case for GM. If you care about maintaining US jobs, you should purchase cars with the highest possible domestic content, which is GM on average.

You have no basis for this claim. What is the number one selling brand name in China...I think it is Buick. GM is doing exactly the same sorts of things in China as Toyota is.

And exactly what sort of high technology stuff is GM manufacturing in China?

Meanwhile Toyota and its subsiduaries have factories manufacturing, amng other items:

complete engines automotive fuel injection componets automotive processors diesel injection systems batteies for hybrid vehicles complete vehicles filters

If you want to confrm this visit the Toyota and Denso corporate web sites and learn the facts.

Not bullshit. You are irrational and hypocritical.

You have zero basis for this claim.

No, I am not. You clearly hope I am, since you depend on the ignorance of others to spread your hateful message. In 2005 GM paid 215 million in US (state and federal) income taxes. In 2004 157 million. In 2003 731 million. In 2002 $644 million. etc, etc., etc. Millions (billions) ore were paid in property taxes, social security taxes, sales taxes, etc. Millions more were paid in overseas income taxes each year.

Any references? Has GM asked for anything that other companies haven't "for decades"?

Not to the extent that Toyota has benefited from plant location incentives. For sure, GM, like most companies, extorts as much money from local governments as possible. But I was not claiming that GM didn't benefit from such programs, I was just pointing out that Toyota has also benefited from Government give away programs.

Toyota was a supporter of the program as well. In fact I think every car company and car dealer in America was behind the program. I suppose Obama was behind similar programs in Europe and Japan as well.

I'd like to know what sort of warped world you live in. No compnay would waste a dime on arguing with a putz like you. And I really should stop. If you were merely an ignorant fool, then maybe I could show you the light, but you are a spiteful narrow minded ignorant fool with an axe to grind.

I think you should be ashamed because of your ridiculous hypocrisy. You are perfectly willing to excuse Toyota's invvolvement with the Chinese by making irrational excuses, while attacking GM for nothing more than buying components from the lowest cost suppliers.

No you are a hypocritical fool. No matter what you claim, the fact is, GM cars on average contain a hgher percentage of domestically produced components than do the average Toyota cars. And while the Japanese may be our allies today, that wasn't true 75 years ago, and might not be true five years from now.

Ed

Reply to
C. E. White

i know that you're pretty damned reliable posting here 9-5 m-f. complete with your diligently interned stats and "research".

my own ed.

not in office hours ed.

weasel words ed - i'm actually not "pro" toyota. but i sure am anti g.m. exporting american jobs at taxpayer expense.

no ed, you're the one that needs to look out - you'll get burned alive in your own trojan horse.

ah yes, the list of american companies living on ±$30bn american taxpayer bailouts and exporting their jobs to japan, the philippines, thailand and brazil is long and illustrious. oh, wait, it's not. and none of those countries are despotic regimes that sell missiles to our enemies or steal our intellectual property. unlike g.m. exporting jobs to china at taxpayer expense.

if we want to throw money about, we should use it to fund automation investment, keep all production stateside, and keep all our technology/industrial muscle at home. if you have a shred of integrity left, go see your beltway buddies and make it happen ed.

the end.

Reply to
jim beam

And as mentioned earlier, MUCH lower pension and health care costs for retired workers.

Reply to
T.J. Higgins

that doesn't explain it. g.m. have been making profits on their well managed and well run european operations, and european pension/health care costs [along with virtually every other cost too] are /way/ higher than here.

Reply to
jim beam

Consumers go to the Web to get information on cars now, advertisement costs could be better spent making better vehicles.

-- Ron

Reply to
Ron Peterson

Except, without advertising, people won't know about the cars. Advertising is part of selling the cars. It's a cost of doing business.

Jeff

Reply to
dr_jeff

At the cost stated, it is about 1/25th of the cost of the average vehicle. A friend of mine works for a major cosmetics company and he says 40% of their revenue goes to advertising.

Reply to
Ed Pawlowski

"jim beam" wrote

Costs have little affect on profitability. Selling price does. You have to know both to do a comparison between US and Europe

Reply to
Ed Pawlowski

So a car that costs $100,000 to build will be real profitable at $25,000? Both costs and selling price are part of profitability. In fact, profit = selling price - costs.

Jeff

Reply to
dr_jeff

Don't have one, but I bet it'll be obsolete in a year.

Reply to
in2dadark

No, I didn't say that, you are just using a dumb analogy. A car that costs $100,000 to build is profitable at $100,001 though.

But if you can get the right selling price, it does not matter what the cost is. If the marketplace in Europe allows for a higher selling price, GM can make a profit even with higher cost.

Reply to
Ed Pawlowski

By obsolete, I mean no longer useful or being way too old. I have an iPhone 3G. It's been out for almost 2 years already. Although there is a new model out for about 9 months, it's not obselete. Nor is my iPod touch, which I think has been out for about 2 1/2 years. I doubt the iPad will be obselete in a year, even if there is a newer model. Just like my old Ford Contour is not obsolete, even if they haven't made them for about 10 years.

Certainly, I can update my iPhone 3G and get the 3GS, but I am fine with the 3G and the extra $500 in my pocket (that's would it would cost for an upgrade). I had planned on doing that when the iPhone 4G comes out in the late spring or early summer, but I may be better off keeping the iPhone and get the iPad or just getting nothing and using what I have.

Jeff

Reply to
dr_jeff

Yet, GM is not making a ton of money in Europe, either. IIRC, around

2006, they were making a bit of a profit in Europe to help offset their losses in the US, but not any more.

In Europe, there is plenty of competition, including from Asian brands. And more to come.

Jeff

Reply to
dr_jeff

accounting practices for things like this are somewhat "elastic". i.e. you can load a foreign operation with a bunch of your domestic expenses to "help" the reported profits and tax burden, etc. bottom line, g.m.'s [better managed - better product, more competitive] foreign operations have been carrying the company for years, the european one particularly, even though the european is a very high [real] cost environment.

Reply to
jim beam

I don't agree that GM's European operation have been carrying the company for years. In fact, I suspect the opposite is true recently. Opel has been struggling for decades. Saab is gone. GM does actually sell a significant number of "Chevrolets" (mostly rebadged Daewoos) and Cadillacs in Europe which is surprsing (at least to me). As you say, interantional companies can and do manipulate earning transfers between countries mostly to try and minimize taxes.

Your comment about Europe being a very high cost environement is true but you ignore the fact that the playing field is much more level in Europe. European countries all have government run health care programs, so GM is not saddled with paying for deluxe health care for workers while some competitors with younger non-union work forces don't have the same high health care benefit costs. Western European countries all have strict pension rules, so while GM may have high pension costs in Europe, so do all the competitors.

Ed

Reply to
C. E. White

"recently" being the last couple of years. prior to that, it was solid blackline. and don't forget the accounting flexibility - internationals have considerable latitude in how they report these days and right now, to attract more of the bailout ?'s the germans have been throwing about, you can bet that g.m.'s euro ops are "losing money".

not true. they have enjoyed significant profits, and have been ranked #

1or 2 in the euro sales leagues for ages. see above.

saab was already gone. g.m. should never have bought it. but they sure did hasten saab's demise.

and whine for subsidy ?'s.

you've been suckered in by too much propaganda. european employers get charged directly by the state for health care. as do employees. when i was last there, it was ~10% employee, with an additional ~10% employer. that's a 20% total wage burden, which of course is effectively all paid by the employer. [this is in addition to income tax of course. it all amounts to the same thing, but i guess differentiation is one of those deceits that makes it more acceptable to an electorate.] then there are all the other local and state taxes they pay, which also have public health components. the only thing that keeps this whole thing manageable is that through their centralized systems, inefficient though it may appear, their percentage of gdp spent on health care is roughly half that of what we spend.

and massive union burdens too. you cannot fire underperformers in germany.

indeed, they have significantly higher costs, but can still make a profit. whereas they say they can't here. what is wrong with this picture?

Reply to
jim beam

I did not say GM doesn't have higher costs in Europe. They do. I said the playing field was more level in Europe. It is. In the US, GM has to go head to head with Asian car makers that have much lower benefit and pension costs. In Eurpoe, all automakers work under the similar constraints (even Nissan, Toyota, and Honda). Eurpoeans restrict imports to a degree unknow in the US. Despite years of trying Toyta has never passed a 6% market share in Europe.

While I agree that in the past Opel made moeny and much of the profit was shifted to GM in the US (mostly for tax reasons), I don't see how you are assuming Opel is making money now and GM is hiding it. Opel's European market share has recently been below 7%. This way down compared to the past. GM is closing at least one Opel factory and others cuts are planned. GM would have sold Opel, except they realized with all the US cuts, they needed Opel's engineering to help with smaller cars. Opel is in just about the same state as is GM in the US. Here are some references:

formatting link
Ed

Reply to
C. E. White

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.