Selling more helps, but they have to be sold above cost of manufacture.
That is difficult when you have a 1950's style contract to compete against
2006 car companies with less restraints and costs for retirees and others
that are not productive.
Manufacturing or material? That is typical in most industries. What I
meant was the total cost of doing business. Much as I like to see the
working man have a nice long retirement, we can't afford to pay one car
maker to do it when another does not. I read that GM spends $1200 per car
for health benefits for retirees.
Many contracts with workers are based on what was written 50 years ago when
business was growing rapidly and the life expectancy was many years lower.
Workers were given a decent pension, health care, and with social security,
you could be reasonably comfortable. Those days are gone and most of us
will depend on our 401k to take care of us. SS will barely take care of
property taxes, surely not good health care.
It is ironical that Bush is killing GM
The oil prices are rising and giving GM trouble
The oil is rising because Bush is making threats towards Iran
Oil has risen as the dispute over Iran's nuclear research program
escalated, threatening a conflict that could disrupt exports from the
world's fourth-largest oil producer
Bush said this week that ``all options are on the table'' to stop Iran
developing nuclear weapons
Bush is always invading one country after the other in the hopes of
getting cheaper oil but the results are always the opposite
Using seven eleven as an excuse does not hold water
The real reason is to kill GM
We know President Bush is responsible every thing that is wrong with the
world, but how do you come to that conclusion? GM offers for sale more
vehicle that get over 30 MPG than does Toyota. The fact is more buyers
prefer to buy larger, safer, more powerful vehicles that get fewer MPG.
First you complain GM is paying too much on healthcare and good pensions for
its workers, then complain the government does not pay enough in retirement
benefits and to pay for heath care. Who exactly should pay for pensions and
heath care? Perhaps if the import manufactures in the US paid their
workers as much as do the domestic manufactures and offered them the better
benefits and pensions that are paid by the domestics there would be fewer
costs that would need to be paid by the government who simply takes the
money from the taxpayers. Particularly when one realizes imports vehicles
cost more to buy in the first place. American are quick to buy imported
products but then like to blame the government and others for all of the
lost production and good paying jobs in their own county. ;)
The same people that actually pay for it now. The working person. Just as
businesses don't pay taxes, they don't pay healthcare either. They pass on
the cost to the consumer.
GM add in enough money to cover the worker fairly well. Wal Mart and
McDonald's don't. Where does GM (or any other company) get the money from?
The customer, the working man, just like you and me.
Same with the government. They take our money and then re-distribute as
they see fit. Take that SS deduction and invest it in a 401k or any stock
fund and after working for 40 or 50 years, see what benefits you will have.
You don't fall for that line so often used that "it won't cost us anything,
the government is paying for it" do you?
My point is that for a business to be competitive they must be able to
control real costs. Agreements made 50 years ago do not always apply today,
but strong unions prevent them from changing and newcomers don't have to
play by the same rules.
If that is the what you believe, buy a Toyota that is only assembled in the
US of mostly imported parts, putting even more Americans out of work and
taking the profits out of the US, federal tax free. Toyota does not pay
their workers as well as GM, they give them fewer benefits, less desirable
health coverage, and do not offer a defined pension, only a 401K. Of course
the Toyota does not sell for less, it will cost you more to drive home than
a comparable equipped GM vehicle of the same size. In the end you will only
give the government more money to care of those Toyota workers who pay lower
taxes, have less to spend and invest, and who will be even worse off than
the GM workers when they get old. ;)
That may be your opinion but it is contrary to US law. Every Sienna I have
ever seen has a 'J' or a '5' as the first number of the VIN. By federal law
that indicates the vehicle was made Japan (J) or was only assembled it the
US (5) of less than 40% North American parts. The only Japanese vehicles
sold in the US with a '1' are the Honda Accord and those made in the
GM/Toyota plant in California all others are either a '4,' 40% to 70% North
American parts, or '5'
As to retail value used, domestics have a better return on average of the
original investment. Domestics return a higher percentage of the actual
drive home price than does Toyota. If you look at a three year old mid size
domestic V6 in NADA Guides you will they are indeed listed at around $4,000
less on average than a V6 Camry. However when you factor in the $6,000
higher drive home price of the three year old Camry when it was new, it is
obvious which has the best return of around $2,000 on the original
investment. The domestics on average are actually better, not worse.
Better start again, the competitive vehicle to the Accord was the Taurus.
The competitive vehicle to the Contour was the
Civic. If you want to compare vehicles by MSRP, rather than actual selling
price, the comparable Ford to the Accord is
larger V8 the Crown Vic. ;)
Apples to pears. I bought a fully load 2000 V6 Mercury Mystic, that cost me
$16,000, $,6000 less than the Accord in you example. One of my grand
children still has the car it has been trouble free for its 80,000 miles
If you knew that why did you compare the Contour an Accord? you said:
No wonder you are having a problem you are using a less accurate source. If
you want to find at which prices vehicles are actually trading in the market
place at wholesale and retail, you most use the most accurate source,
That is because you are assuming they cost the same when new. In fact it
cost at least $3,000 more to drive home the Civic in 1997. The Contour has
returned at least $1,000 more of it original investment than did the Civic.
I guess we can assume you are not a math major. What you believe is WRONG
because they did not cost the same new. The Civic is worth more today but
by a lesser amount the its higher price when new. Therefore the Contour
returns a greater percentage of its value, not the Civic. A $1,000 greater
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.