From: frank theriault
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Paul Stenquist
<[email protected]> wrote: <snip> It was also necessary due to
onerous obligations to the union.
Heaven forbid we should pay workers a fair wage...
Many of those agreements were made at a time when the Detroit
automakers monopolized the U.S. car market. The union would
strike, and the automakers would give them whatever they wanted
and roll it into the price of the cars. That usually meant taking
quality out.
Hey, don't blame the unions for the decision of the automakers to
make lousy cars. They ~could~ have said, "We'll just keep making the
best cars we can, whatever the price may be (or even better, at a
reduced profit), because the consumer doesn't mind spending a fair
price for a quality product."
But no, they thought more about short term gain than long-term
customer satisfaction. The consumers (not such a stupid lot after
all) voted with their feet. They bought foreign quality, even well
after the price gap between domestic and foreign was minimal to nil.
The other thing you're not factoring into the equation is how
Detroit handled the rising price of fuel in the 70's along with
government enforced safety and pollution standards. (which standards
wouldn't have been necessary if Detroit had "done the right thing"
all along and made safe, clean cars). Detroit's downfall began when
they stopped doing what they did best (front-engined
rear-wheel-drive vehicles) and tried to out-Japanese the Japanese
with small cars that were simply pieces of crap. Can you say
"Firenza"?
I'll differ with you on some points here. You're blaming the engineers
for the failings of the bean counters.
GM did have quality issues for a short time in the early 80s, but those
were fairly rapidly overcome. What they were not able to overcome was
the perception of quality issues that lingered long after GM corrected
them.
And GM's problems with rising fuel prices, safety and pollution
standards stem not from trying to "out-Japanese the Japanese" with small
cars, but from trying to avoid the standards altogether by concentrating
on SUVs.
The "light truck" segment kept GM afloat for a while because they were
subject to lesser requirements in those areas and were therefore more
profitable to manufacture.
But when the crunch came and fuel prices spiked to the point consumers
could no longer ignore the low fuel efficiency of SUVs, GM had neither
the alternative models in the pipeline nor the experience to draw upon
to make the necessary transition.
Compare GM to Ford, who *did* try to compete with the imports in the
small to medium size market. Despite Ford's own problems with the
(temporary) collapse of the SUV market, Ford faced neither bankruptcy,
nor needed government bail-outs because they had alternative lines in
production that allowed them to weather the storm.
The largest segment of the "import" market is the mid-sized luxury
sedan. That's an area where GM should be able to compete. It is, after
all, their area of traditional expertise.
And most of those "imports" are actually manufactured here in the U.S.
(and under NAFTA, Canada and Mexico). Additionally, many of the
"import" manufacturers have cooperative or co-manufacturing agreements
with the U.S. "Big Three".
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3470 - Release Date: 02/26/11
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
