UPDATED: GM about to smash another record!

[Francesca_Knowl]

Great news- they're within spittin' distance of surpassing the 2004 record set for most GM recalls ever! 🙂

News report wrote:

General Motors recalls another 2.7 million vehicles

The latest action covers eight different models and brings the number of vehicles recalled this year by the nation’s largest automaker to more than 11.1 million in the United States and 12.8 million worldwide. That put GM on course to break its 2004 domestic recall record of 11.8 million vehicles, the company said.

Link to source

:B

ON EDIT UPDATE 5/22

Newest recall puts 'em over the top

News report wrote:
DETROIT (AP) — General Motors has added yet another recall to its growing list for the year.

The recall of 218,000 Chevrolet Aveo subcompact cars is the company's 29th this year, bringing the total number of recalled GM vehicles in the U.S. to around 13.8 million. That breaks GM's previous annual record of 10.75 million set in calendar year 2004.

[Francesca_Knowl]

spoon059 wrote:
FYI, the American car industry nationwide only employed just over 3/4 of a million people in 2012. That is across all brands and parts suppliers...

Here is my source
http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2012/07/american-made-index-which-automakers-affect-the-most-us-w...

It's even sadder when you look at the historic statistics at the site that article got its info from- here's the curve for the last ten years:



Source

[spoon059]

FYI, the American car industry nationwide only employed just over 3/4 of a million people in 2012. That is across all brands and parts suppliers...

Here is my source
http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2012/07/american-made-index-which-automakers-affect-the-most-us-w...

[spoon059]

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
Damn Spoon you just can't get it can you. Lets do this by the numbers.

Don

Don, Don, Don... You are assuming that GM goes out of business and every employee goes down with them. Do you really think that GM customers will never buy a difference brand vehicle? When Nash went out of business, did Nash owners never buy a new car again?

Its crazy to think that GM customers are so loyal that they will never buy a different brand. Look at Indian motorcycle company... they made a fantastic and iconic motorcycle. They couldn't sustain and went out of business. HD, Honda, Kawasaki etc all increased market share when Indian fell through and are all doing well. Heck, Indian has even made several comebacks since then.

Your argument is based upon one of two theories;
#1 GM owners will never buy another car.
#2 Ford/Chrysler/Toyota/Honda/Kia/etc will produce more vehicles to take over GM's market share without hiring any new employees or increasing parts bought from (former) GM suppliers.

Neither theory holds much water to me.

FYI...
#1 In 2012 GM had 77,000 employees based upon my research, not a quarter million
#2 Yes, they will no longer receive paychecks from GM. If they get hired by Ford, for example, they receive a paycheck from Ford.
#3 If they have new jobs, they can pay their mortgage
#4 Again... not a quarter million or a half million... 77K. We are still refusing to believe that there is a chance they get hired by another auto manufacturer who needs to increase their market share...
#5 Again... I argue that JOBS aren't going to be lost if GM goes out of business, just paychecks from GM. Someone else will need to hire additional workers to handle increased output from larger market share.
#6 Vendors that used to supply that GM PS pump now supply Ford with PS pumps. Vendors continue to get paid. Maybe there is some temporary discomfort while they re-tool... Such is life.
#7 Again... why do we assume that GM goes out of business and those jobs are LOST and that market share disappears? Where is any evidence to support this theory???
#8 Ummmm... okay?
#9 Sounds horrible, guess the sky is falling?

Where are your FACTS to support your claims? All you have is a theory of what could have happened. Lets be real, do you really honestly believe that GM owners will never fix their old cars (because that would still supply jobs for vendors, which you argue cannot possibly happen) or buy new non-GM cars?

I simply don't believe that those options are viable. Indian went out of business. People lost jobs. Owners were upset. Harley filled in that market share. Harley hired more people than Indian ever employed. Life goes on.

[fx2tom]

fx2tom wrote:

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
Damn Spoon you just can't get it can you. Lets do this by the numbers.
1: GM and Chrysler close their doors laying off over 250,000 direct workers and another 250,000 indirect workers (these are very conservative numbers).
2: The sub pay GM and Chrysler direct hourly workers get, stops.
3: These people can no longer make their mortgages/rent, car payments, or pay their bills.
4: The banks now have 500,000 or so mortgages, car loans and credit cards not being payed. What do you think that will do the the banks?
5: Unemployment that was already taxed to the hilt before GM & Chrysler closed their doors. Now they will be bankrupt do to the new claims being filed. So you know the Feds were already subsidizing State unemployment.
6: The vendors that already were waiting 90+ (more like 180) days for their bills to be paid are not going to get anything and they too close their doors. Terryallan should be able to attest to this.
7: Now with even more people losing their jobs the already slow auto market stops dead along with everything else. So without sales how is Ford and the rest going to sell their cars. You do understand that the massive recession the WORLD was in, not just the USA is the reason GM and Chrysler could not get their loans refinanced right?
8: Now the whole Country along with the World dives into a massive depression.
9: Even jobs that were recession proof like your's are laying people off.

Note: number seven, if you don't have any customers you can't sell any cars and you can't hire anyone. But lets not let anything like the facts get in the way.

Don

There is a difference in not getting it and disagreeing

You may feel you are right but so does Spoon. There is absolutely no reason to be disrespectful about it.

I also notice you are from Ohio and this is a subject that hits quite close to home, keep that in mind when answering

[fx2tom]

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
Damn Spoon you just can't get it can you. Lets do this by the numbers.
1: GM and Chrysler close their doors laying off over 250,000 direct workers and another 250,000 indirect workers (these are very conservative numbers).
2: The sub pay GM and Chrysler direct hourly workers get, stops.
3: These people can no longer make their mortgages/rent, car payments, or pay their bills.
4: The banks now have 500,000 or so mortgages, car loans and credit cards not being payed. What do you think that will do the the banks?
5: Unemployment that was already taxed to the hilt before GM & Chrysler closed their doors. Now they will be bankrupt do to the new claims being filed. So you know the Feds were already subsidizing State unemployment.
6: The vendors that already were waiting 90+ (more like 180) days for their bills to be paid are not going to get anything and they too close their doors. Terryallan should be able to attest to this.
7: Now with even more people losing their jobs the already slow auto market stops dead along with everything else. So without sales how is Ford and the rest going to sell their cars. You do understand that the massive recession the WORLD was in, not just the USA is the reason GM and Chrysler could not get their loans refinanced right?
8: Now the whole Country along with the World dives into a massive depression.
9: Even jobs that were recession proof like your's are laying people off.

Note: number seven, if you don't have any customers you can't sell any cars and you can't hire anyone. But lets not let anything like the facts get in the way.

Don

There is a difference in not getting it and disagreeing

You may feel you are right but so does Spoon. There is absolutely no reason to be disrespectful about it.

[Perrysburg_Dodg]

Damn Spoon you just can't get it can you. Lets do this by the numbers.
1: GM and Chrysler close their doors laying off over 250,000 direct workers and another 250,000 indirect workers (these are very conservative numbers).
2: The sub pay GM and Chrysler direct hourly workers get, stops.
3: These people can no longer make their mortgages/rent, car payments, or pay their bills.
4: The banks now have 500,000 or so mortgages, car loans and credit cards not being payed. What do you think that will do the the banks?
5: Unemployment that was already taxed to the hilt before GM & Chrysler closed their doors. Now they will be bankrupt do to the new claims being filed. So you know the Feds were already subsidizing State unemployment.
6: The vendors that already were waiting 90+ (more like 180) days for their bills to be paid are not going to get anything and they too close their doors. Terryallan should be able to attest to this.
7: Now with even more people losing their jobs the already slow auto market stops dead along with everything else. So without sales how is Ford and the rest going to sell their cars. You do understand that the massive recession the WORLD was in, not just the USA is the reason GM and Chrysler could not get their loans refinanced right?
8: Now the whole Country along with the World dives into a massive depression.
9: Even jobs that were recession proof like your's are laying people off.

Note: number seven, if you don't have any customers you can't sell any cars and you can't hire anyone. But lets not let anything like the facts get in the way.

Don

[Lessmore]

waynec1957 wrote:
I don’t come to this forum to discuss politics; I get plenty of that in other venues. So I’ll make this my last comment in this thread.

My background is, for the past 20 plus years I’ve studies politics, political theory, political economy, and globalization. At first it was just something in was interested in but as time went on, without even realizing it, I started to get deeper into these subjects. When I retired from GM 8 years ago this all became a second career, mostly teaching and doing research. This doesn’t make me any smarter than the next person. All it means is I’ve delved deeper into these topics than the average Joe or Jane and while I have my own personal beliefs, it gives me a perspective a lot of folks don’t have…nothing more, nothing less.

I see and hear a lot of people throw around the term “socialism”, most often in in association with “big government”. In theoretical terms socialism doesn’t have a thing to do with “big government”, but in American politics it has become a catch phrase that means nothing because it encompasses everything. In other words, most people don’t know what it means they just use it as an insult.

But let’s assume for the sake of argument socialism DOES mean “big government” to most people. All of us to some extent enjoy the benefits of “big government”—the roads we travel on, the bridges we cross, the rest parks we stop at, the state and national parks we camp at, and some of folks have begun to collect that social security check every month (all of which are made possible through taxation). Anyone can expand this list, but the point is we do not, and I don’t think most people would want to, live in a pure capitalist or pure socialist society. In fact, nowhere in the world does there exist a “pure” capitalist or “pure” socialist economy, certainly not according to this “big government” definition.

The question then is not WHETHER the government (any government) should be involved in the economy (or private enterprise), but to WHAT EXTENT and WHERE. This is the root of the argument, and to be frank, I don’t think a lot of people don’t think this one through. Someone mentioned foreign automakers receiving subsidies from their governments. One reason for this is other industrialized countries take a different approach to this question. Another is businesses in other industrialized countries typically have a business plan that covers decades versus the 3-5 years American businesses have.

Businesses in other industrialized countries typically focus on long term growth and are not as vulnerable to dips in the global market. US businesses on the other hand must focus on making the shareholders happy in the (relative) short term which makes them extremely vulnerable to dips in the global market. Governments in other industrialized countries have policies in place that help soften the blow of (relative) short term economic downturns (for both employers and workers), outside of unemployment and food stamps, the US does not.

I could ramble on about this a lot longer, but I’ll finish with this. Consider the GM recalls being discussed here. A “pure market” solution to these problems, absent any kind of government involvement, would be something like “if enough people die from these defects people would stop buying GM products (exercising choice in the free market) and GM would be forced, of their own accord (in response to market signals) to fix the problems or go out of business”. Instead, we have government instituted safety standards that dictate these recalls. Personally…I prefer the latter.

Well said on every topic.

Les

[hone_eagle]

Right on spoon X2

[spoon059]

goducks10 wrote:
Spot on. And may I add for those that say the GM/Chrysler jobs would've been snatched up by the other auto makers. How long would that have taken? So the estimated 1,000,000 workers loose their jobs and have to collect unemployment for how long before the other auto makers can hire them. 3, 6, 9 months? A year? My guess is all those workers that just lost their jobs could end up losing their house as well. It would've been a huge ripple effect. JMHO.

I have zero clue how long it would have taken. I do know that people will still buy cars. If GM folded, people would have still had to buy new cars. If GM made 20 out of every 100 cars sold in the US, those 20 customers would have bought something else. The other companies would have had to make more vehicles to make up for GM's 20 vehicles that are no longer being made or sold. They would have bought more parts from 3rd party suppliers. The third party supplies that made a power steering pump for GM would have changed over to making those power steering pumps for Ford/Chrysler/Honda/Toyota/Kia/etc. The laid off assembly line workers could have gotten jobs pretty quickly for one of those other manufacturers that are previously mentioned.

Yea, maybe they would have to be out of work for a little while. Maybe they would have to move to a different state. Life is tough. The government doesn't owe you ANYTHING in this regard. People lose their jobs all the time. People have to relocate all the time. Think about our military families that move every couple of years. Sorry if I don't shed too many tears for a couple thousand people that are paid decent money to work on an assembly line.

Lets just pretend that every GM employee lost their job and couldn't find new work. That that almost $50 BILLION and divide it by all the GM employees, even millionaire management. The government could have given all those employees there full salary for a year, let them relocate or take training to figure something else out and still spent well less than half that amount.

In 2012 GM was estimated to have 77,000 employees in assembly, drivetrain, stamping, casting and tooling plants, research and design facilities, U.S. headquarters, testing grounds, etc. $50 BILLION divided by 77,000 employees means that we paid $650,000 per employee for the bailout. That is 13 years salary of $50,000 (TAX FREE) for each and every employee of GM.

Can you honestly tell me that anyone thinks it would take 13 years for all the employees to find new work?

Come on...

On top of that, we have set precedent that poorly managed private industry can ask for and possibly receive a massive bailout from the government if they employ enough people. That is ridiculous. Where does it end? 77,000 people is enough to bailout... how about 30,000? How about 10,000? How about 2...? My father in law owns his own small business employing him and his wife. If he screws the pooch and runs his company to the ground, can he expect the US government to bail him out? it would only cost $1.3 million to fund him and my mother in law for that same 13 year period. That is vastly more affordable than bailing out a big company.

Its only money, right? We can just keep taxing the rich to pay our bills. We will never run out of other peoples money, will we? Couldn't possibly happen.

That must be the new American dream... be "too big to fail". Not great enough to succeed, that's too hard of a standard to meet.

[Charlie_D_]

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:

Charlie D. wrote:

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
If you want to get upset read this!!!

That is nearly 2 years old. Got anything more recent.

The "bail out" is five years old, your point is what?

Don

Hey Man. I'm on your side. I see many of your posts and agree with most of them I also see you getting beat up for many of those same posts.

My point is that the auto market is much changed from 2 years ago. What is GM and Opel doing now? I copy and pasted this most recent clip:

Opel’s success is broad and spans multiple markets. In March, the brand gained market share in ten European countries, including:
?Germany, where Opel enjoyed a March 2014 market share of 7.1 percent, up 0.3 percent compared to March 2013
?Poland, where Opel registrations grew by 57 percent
?Hungary, where Opel reinforced its number one position in the passenger car market
?The Netherlands, where Opel became the most popular automotive brand for the first time since March 2012
?The UK, where sales of Opel’s sister brand, Vauxhall, jumped 17 percent on a year-over-year basis. Notably, Insignia and Zafira were number one in their segments, while Corsa and Mokka were in second place.

GM is still not making money in Europe, neither is Ford, but has shown some improvement. All the auto makers there are still struggling with a weak economy. With the strong unions and tight government control in Europe GM, IMO, should take the hit now get out of Europe.

[hone_eagle]

goducks10 wrote:

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:

spoon059 wrote:

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
If the banks would have refinanced GM and Chrysler we 2 would not be having this conversation.

Don

And if GM or Chrysler had better management practices at the time they wouldn't have had the sudden and urgent need for a massive influx of capital. They would have been able to sell a product for a profit and been in possession of their own capital, thus not needing a bailout. I guess that little point doesn't factor into your argument very well though...

Miss management and the union pond scum had nothing to do with it. Fords loans came do before the Banks locked their vaults. In order for Ford to get their loans refinanced the Ford Family had to put up their personal property and stake in Ford to secure the refi. BTW two thumbs up to the Ford family!



GM and Chrysler did not have that option and it's a good thing for Chrysler GM didn't. Had GM been able to secure their refi, Cerberus Capital would have sold off the Ram and Jeep lines to the highest bidder then closed the rest.

When the Government was looking for someone to take over Chrysler Corp Nissan steeped up and said they would take Ram and Jeep only. They were told take it all or nothing so they walked away. So enter Fiat, looking to get their foot back in the USA what better way then to take over Chrysler. Unlike what some of the uninformed think it did cost Fiat money, just not up front. Fiat has pumped tons of cash into Chrysler and our plants.

No matter what Spoon and others think, had GM and Chrysler closed the effect on the US economy would have been devastating. Remember nobody was buying anything at that time. People that had jobs were so scared that they were forgoing any larger purchases. So the other car manufactures would not have picked up anything and all but the largest of GM and Chrysler's suppliers would have closed their doors. This would have then started a domino effect and spread not only though the US but the world. Think I'm full of BS? Do some research there is a reason why everyone was pushing for the bailout, even people that didn't like GM and Chrysler.

Don

Spot on. And may I add for those that say the GM/Chrysler jobs would've been snatched up by the other auto makers. How long would that have taken? So the estimated
1,000,000 workers loose their jobs and have to collect unemployment for how long before the other auto makers can hire them. 3, 6, 9 months? A year? My guess is all those workers that just lost their jobs could end up losing their house as well. It would've been a huge ripple effect. JMHO.

I bet they wouldn't of missed a day ,2 weeks tops and they would have been walking under the workers putting up the new sign.
It was no secret Nissan wanted Ram in the worst way ,the banks and new owner were incentivized to get it done ,bottom of the pool hourly workers are gold in this case - middle management - not so much.

[Fordlover]

goducks10 wrote:

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:

spoon059 wrote:

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
If the banks would have refinanced GM and Chrysler we 2 would not be having this conversation.

Don

And if GM or Chrysler had better management practices at the time they wouldn't have had the sudden and urgent need for a massive influx of capital. They would have been able to sell a product for a profit and been in possession of their own capital, thus not needing a bailout. I guess that little point doesn't factor into your argument very well though...

Miss management and the union pond scum had nothing to do with it. Fords loans came do before the Banks locked their vaults. In order for Ford to get their loans refinanced the Ford Family had to put up their personal property and stake in Ford to secure the refi. BTW two thumbs up to the Ford family!

GM and Chrysler did not have that option and it's a good thing for Chrysler GM didn't. Had GM been able to secure their refi, Cerberus Capital would have sold off the Ram and Jeep lines to the highest bidder then closed the rest.

When the Government was looking for someone to take over Chrysler Corp Nissan steeped up and said they would take Ram and Jeep only. They were told take it all or nothing so they walked away. So enter Fiat, looking to get their foot back in the USA what better way then to take over Chrysler. Unlike what some of the uninformed think it did cost Fiat money, just not up front. Fiat has pumped tons of cash into Chrysler and our plants.

No matter what Spoon and others think, had GM and Chrysler closed the effect on the US economy would have been devastating. Remember nobody was buying anything at that time. People that had jobs were so scared that they were forgoing any larger purchases. So the other car manufactures would not have picked up anything and all but the largest of GM and Chrysler's suppliers would have closed their doors. This would have then started a domino effect and spread not only though the US but the world. Think I'm full of BS? Do some research there is a reason why everyone was pushing for the bailout, even people that didn't like GM and Chrysler.

Don

Spot on. And may I add for those that say the GM/Chrysler jobs would've been snatched up by the other auto makers. How long would that have taken? So the estimated 1,000,000 workers loose their jobs and have to collect unemployment for how long before the other auto makers can hire them. 3, 6, 9 months? A year? My guess is all those workers that just lost their jobs could end up losing their house as well. It would've been a huge ripple effect. JMHO.

There was already a huge ripple effect. Many would say we're still feeling it in the States. The pain would have been worse initially, but the recovery would have been more robust if the bailout of the automakers and banks hadn't happened. When bad behavior results in business failure, better behavior is encouraged. Instead we've rewarded bad business decisions, and indirectly punished the one US company that had made good (lucky) business decisions.

How many people do you think would say our economy is great or good right now? I think it's about 1/3 of the population. Not a number I'd parade around as a great success.

[waynec1957]

I don’t come to this forum to discuss politics; I get plenty of that in other venues. So I’ll make this my last comment in this thread.

My background is, for the past 20 plus years I’ve studies politics, political theory, political economy, and globalization. At first it was just something in was interested in but as time went on, without even realizing it, I started to get deeper into these subjects. When I retired from GM 8 years ago this all became a second career, mostly teaching and doing research. This doesn’t make me any smarter than the next person. All it means is I’ve delved deeper into these topics than the average Joe or Jane and while I have my own personal beliefs, it gives me a perspective a lot of folks don’t have…nothing more, nothing less.

I see and hear a lot of people throw around the term “socialism”, most often in in association with “big government”. In theoretical terms socialism doesn’t have a thing to do with “big government”, but in American politics it has become a catch phrase that means nothing because it encompasses everything. In other words, most people don’t know what it means they just use it as an insult.

But let’s assume for the sake of argument socialism DOES mean “big government” to most people. All of us to some extent enjoy the benefits of “big government”—the roads we travel on, the bridges we cross, the rest parks we stop at, the state and national parks we camp at, and some of folks have begun to collect that social security check every month (all of which are made possible through taxation). Anyone can expand this list, but the point is we do not, and I don’t think most people would want to, live in a pure capitalist or pure socialist society. In fact, nowhere in the world does there exist a “pure” capitalist or “pure” socialist economy, certainly not according to this “big government” definition.

The question then is not WHETHER the government (any government) should be involved in the economy (or private enterprise), but to WHAT EXTENT and WHERE. This is the root of the argument, and to be frank, I don’t think a lot of people don’t think this one through. Someone mentioned foreign automakers receiving subsidies from their governments. One reason for this is other industrialized countries take a different approach to this question. Another is businesses in other industrialized countries typically have a business plan that covers decades versus the 3-5 years American businesses have.

Businesses in other industrialized countries typically focus on long term growth and are not as vulnerable to dips in the global market. US businesses on the other hand must focus on making the shareholders happy in the (relative) short term which makes them extremely vulnerable to dips in the global market. Governments in other industrialized countries have policies in place that help soften the blow of (relative) short term economic downturns (for both employers and workers), outside of unemployment and food stamps, the US does not.

I could ramble on about this a lot longer, but I’ll finish with this. Consider the GM recalls being discussed here. A “pure market” solution to these problems, absent any kind of government involvement, would be something like “if enough people die from these defects people would stop buying GM products (exercising choice in the free market) and GM would be forced, of their own accord (in response to market signals) to fix the problems or go out of business”. Instead, we have government instituted safety standards that dictate these recalls. Personally…I prefer the latter.

[Perrysburg_Dodg]

Fordlover wrote:

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:

Fordlover wrote:

The author says that Loan = Bailout. Interesting. Wrong, but interesting.

Both GM and Chrysler received "loans" it guys like you say tagging the word "bailout" to them. Both companies have repaid their loans, Chrysler's a lot sooner than anyone elses I might add.

If Ford is doing so well then repaying 14 billion should be no problem right? Why are they taking so long to repay it?

Loans are to be repaid, with interest. This is what Ford's deal was.

If what GM recieved was a Loan, then the Taxpayer got screwed on the return. That, my friend, is the difference between a loan and a bailout.

Chrysler did very good, by paying back every dollar of the bailout. Anyone who believes GM did the same is delusional.

Well just so you know Chrysler did not pay every penny of the loan back. The "old Car Company" as it is now referred to was given 4 billion and of that 1.9 billion was forgiven. This was money the Bush administration gave Chrysler until Obama got in office. But if you figure in the 13+% interest Chrysler paid the Government they still did not lose a penny.

Just want to keep the facts straight, BTW GM had some of it's original loan amount forgiven also.

Don

[Fordlover]

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:

Fordlover wrote:

The author says that Loan = Bailout. Interesting. Wrong, but interesting.

Both GM and Chrysler received "loans" it guys like you say tagging the word "bailout" to them. Both companies have repaid their loans, Chrysler's a lot sooner than anyone elses I might add.

If Ford is doing so well then repaying 14 billion should be no problem right? Why are they taking so long to repay it?

Loans are to be repaid, with interest. This is what Ford's deal was.

If what GM recieved was a Loan, then the Taxpayer got screwed on the return. That, my friend, is the difference between a loan and a bailout.

Chrysler did very good, by paying back every dollar of the bailout. Anyone who believes GM did the same is delusional.