Toys4RJill

mmarshall

Well, to be honest, few things, right now, would personally make me happier to see GM and/or Ford get boycotted by the public for their actions. But I will not call for one publically, for three reasons. First, no matter what GM or Ford's actions, a number of people look to me for car help and buying advice (yes, I actually have a life outside of CL) and, IMO, it would be unethical of me (or anyone else) to try and tell other people not to spend their money if a GM or Ford product fits their needs (as the Lacrosse fit mine). Second, I believe in Karma, God, Fate, What-Goes-Around-Comes-Around, Sowing/Reaping........whatever you want to call it. So, IF GM and Ford are doing something morally wrong, forces far greater than me could be at work in the background, and will handle the situation. Third, the public itself has already had a role in this action by worshipping the SUV, and, as a result, GM and Ford marketers are only responding by shutting down sedan plants. But GM and Ford may also be attempting to force more people away from sedans because they consider SUVs more profitable....in other words, engineering more demand for SUVs when there was not as much previously.

JDR76

I understand your disappointment in GM's move away from sedans, but can you explain what could be "morally wrong" with a corporation abandoning low profit models in favor of higher profit models? Or how it could be "morally wrong" for a corporation to reduce their staffing to meet their production needs? I do not believe God (or karma) punishes corporations for these types of business decisions.

GM and Ford are not forcing anyone into an SUV. There are still loads of sedans available to anyone who prefers a sedan over an SUV. Consumers are buying what appeals to them, and right now that is SUVs and CUVs. No worshiping, but buying what they want to buy. I don't get this very common CL belief that consumers buy SUVs and CUVs just because they are the hot item. The reality is that SUVs and CUVs have never been better and many of the drawbacks that haunted them before (poor ride, poor gas mileage, fewer features) are now gone.

I own one sedan and one CUV. Both great vehicles that serve different needs, but there is no doubt that my Highlander wins out in every category relating to utility. My GS is way more fun to drive, but that's the compromise, as the Highlander is better at almost everything else (gas mileage, room, features, smooth ride). As much as I love sedans (and I really, really do), if we were to go down to one car, the sedan would be out of here.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

boycotts never work.

i saw canadian gm workers are striking now... good luck with that. one more reason the plant should be closed.

LeX2K

Nothing will convince GM more to keep the plant than their workers going on strike.

mmarshall

I disagree. Boycotts that are strong enough, widespread enough, and determined enough will indeed work....but the problem is getting enough workers, long enough, in enough places to actually do it. If all of the GM plants throughout the country (and perhaps the world) strike at once, and are determined to carry it out, Mary Barra will be forced to change her mind....she will have no choice, or be overruled by her own board.

I agree, though, that getting a boycott or strike that wide is very difficult. Many workers think only about their own plant, and their own family, and don't always look at the bigger picture.

Strikes are serious business. Even if the plant wasn't producing that much to start with, strikes still mean no production, and no production(and sales) means lost money for the corporation. Each day management holds out means less income and less potential profit at the end the year....and shareholders won't like that.

mmarshall

Bad luck and retributions can come from many non-divine sources as well. That's why I used the term..."whatever you want to call it". This is not just your typical run-of the mill business decision, though. This is very serious business...and has already gotten GM into a lot of trouble, even as far up as with two heads of State and two national legislatures. Like to or not, the company simply is biting off more than they can chew.

True, but one cannot deny two things. One, that the overall sales-trend is indeed towards trucks and SUVs, and, Second, that there is still indeed a significant core of sedan-buyers despite the overall SUV trend. GM and Ford have basically chosen to ignore the latter.....only this time (and, I'll admit, not like in the past, where similar decisions were quietly brushed aside), it is getting them into serious trouble. Nether corporation, particularly GM, expected the backlash they are getting, with perhaps lots more to come.

JDR76

I haven't seen anyone deny that...

Like I said, still lots of sedan options out there from plenty of manufacturers. I just cannot fathom getting so upset with a company for choosing to produce the products that sell the most. If the pendulum swings back and sedans fall back into favor, they'll just start outputting sedans again. Nothing is forever.

mmarshall

No problem. I respect your opinions....always have. But I'm just one human being. My own opinion, in the big world of auto marketing, is worth little if anything. GM is not in trouble with me....they are in trouble with lots higher-ups than me, including two major autoworker unions, two Heads of State, and two national legislatures. They are the ones digging themselves into a hole, not me. Mary Barra has managed to do something that is quite rare in Congress...get BOTH major parties angry at her at the same time, and united in their cause. We also see a more or less similar reaction in the Canadian legislature.

SW17LS

GM will just cancel models they would have imported from China. Until a few years from now when he's gone and so are the tariffs.

JDR76

Thanks, I appreciate that.

My employer was given multi-billion dollar government tax breaks, only to turn around and lay off tens of thousands of employees last year. Our union and government officials were tossing out threats, stomping up and down, etc. and nothing happened. The jobs left, the people left, and we all moved on. It's just life with a big company. Just like at GM, Trump stood in our factory touting job growth, only to have it completely flipped around. I just don't see this being different with GM, and frankly, I do not want the government involved in telling our companies what to build and where.

mmarshall

GM would probably not exist today if it were not for the government. Some UAW money, and funds from bondholders/bond-sales also contributed to the buyout, but the clear majority of it came from Congress.

JDR76

No argument there. But it's my understanding that the government no longer holds any stock in GM so they shouldn't be directing GM on what cars to build and what ones to retire. Now, if GM returns asking for money from the government, then yes, by all means, as a major shareholder they should be involved in some of the business decisions.

MattyG

Normailzing bad corporate behavior is a symptom of the fact that collectively society decided and was persuaded that corporations should have it both ways. Corporate welfare in the form of tax breaks, incentives and bail-ins when required. Restructuring and offshoring during good times, so the shareholders, BoDs and executive class managers can derive even more profits using the working class as their fodder.

Not much changes. The fact that some of the posts on this forum seem to come straight out of Ayn Rand or the Chicago School is kinda indictative of just how far reaching Reaganomics and by extension Thatcher-nomics extended their reach.

Sure GM needed to do something to get rid of the drag on the corporate bottom line because of slowing sedan sales. But actually not doing anything to mitigate the damage to the communities that supported GM shows no loyalty and no commitment to the very places that helped GM derive those profits in the first place.

The massive profit margin from building something in Mexico at $2 - $5 an hour vs $20-$25/hr is apparently lost on people. Do you think GM will heavily discount and subsidize the Blazer for you when you go to the showroom, because they only pay $5/hr?

SW17LS

The Government's investment to save GM was not to benefit its shareholders and executives, it was because they wanted to save the jobs of all of GM's workers in the midst of the recession. It wasn't corporate welfare at all, it was entirely self serving.

What exactly would you like to see GM do for these workers and these communities?