Automaker Bailout Poster

[Don]

This was just too funny not to share. I normally try to add something insightful to my posts and ask a thought-provoking question, but this time it's just for fun. :)

The text below the picture, in case it's too small to read:


You probably thought it was smart to buy a foreign import of superior quality, with better mileage and resale value. Maybe you even thought that years of market share loss might prod us into rethinking our process and redesigning our products with better quality in mind. But your forgot one thing: We spend a shitload of money on lobbyists. So now you're out $25 billion, plus the cost of your Subaru. Maybe next time you'll buy American like a real man. Either way, we're cool.

We're The Big Three. We Don't Need to Compete.


ETA: Okay, here's the thought-provoking question: Would you like to buy a brand-new 2009 Bailout? Low mileage, only $25 billion. :D

http://inlinethumb60.webshots.com/25915/2161389010100527759S600x600Q85.jpg

[Plot Device]

Hah!

[rubarbb]

When the whole system crashes... then we'll see out great Senators scramble...

[astonwest]

I got a huge chuckle out of it. :D

[donroc]

:ROFL:
:roll:

[Joe270]

I love it, Don.

I'm against the bailout as it stands right now. I will be against any bailout which lets the management keep their jobs.

[cethklein]

I love it, Don.

I'm against the bailout as it stands right now. I will be against any bailout which lets the management keep their jobs.

Agreed but be careful what you wish for. The current management (at leas at GM anyway) is pathetic, but it could be much worse with new management. I'd like to see Wagoner go but at the same time, I cringe at the thought of who would get slapped in there to take is place. Better the fool you know than the fool you don't.

As for the poster, that's priceless. A+

[maestrowork]

The current management (at leas at GM anyway) is pathetic, but it could be much worse with new management.

They're pathetic but they're going to hold on to their jobs and hefty paychecks and McMansionsto their dear lives. But what makes you think a new crop of execs wouldn't be, perhaps, the change they need? Perhaps recruit a few top guys from Honda and Toyota?

I think there's an underlying sentiment here I don't quite understand: "oh yeah, it's shitty now, but it could be more shitty." Anything is possible, of course. But to me, that's self-defeating; we're accepting there is a "worse" before we even attempt to make any changes. It's the same mentality that makes people hold on to their falling shares until they become penny stocks, or elect GWB for a second term, or stay in an abusive relationship because "oh, it could be worse."

[benbradley]

ETA: Okay, here's the thought-provoking question: Would you like to buy a brand-new 2009 Bailout? Low mileage, only $25 billion. :D
But does it come with a 5-year, 50,000 mile drivetrain warranty? Can I still get warranty coverage on my Bailout if the manufacturer goes out of business?

Only her hairdresser my congressman knows for sure...

[Clair Dickson]

Love the poster!

And hey, I did buy one of them General Mexican Motors cars! I should get a discount on my part of the bailout.

[Williebee]

My last four purchases have been Chrysler or Ford. I put 300,000 miles on all the Fords, and 200,000 (so far) on the Chrysler.

And, I'm with Clair. I want a discount on my part of the bailout!

[cethklein]

They're pathetic but they're going to hold on to their jobs and hefty paychecks and McMansionsto their dear lives. But what makes you think a new crop of execs wouldn't be, perhaps, the change they need? Perhaps recruit a few top guys from Honda and Toyota?

I think there's an underlying sentiment here I don't quite understand: "oh yeah, it's shitty now, but it could be more shitty." Anything is possible, of course. But to me, that's self-defeating; we're accepting there is a "worse" before we even attempt to make any changes. It's the same mentality that makes people hold on to their falling shares until they become penny stocks, or elect GWB for a second term, or stay in an abusive relationship because "oh, it could be worse."

Another flaw I see in the idea of removing management is the bank bailout. Again, no one demanded any of those guys step down. Why has the auto industry been asked so many things (as they should have) but the banks were just handed a free check? Most of these banks didn't exactly have a plan to fix things either. (well as far as I know, it's impossible to tell for sure since no one asked them first.)

[cethklein]

My last four purchases have been Chrysler or Ford. I put 300,000 miles on all the Fords, and 200,000 (so far) on the Chrysler.

And, I'm with Clair. I want a discount on my part of the bailout!

I agree that domestic brands can be and often are good cars. I know a guy who just put 400K on an SHO Taurus (An SHO!) It all comes down to maintenance. However, the Japanese brands ARE often ranked higher in initial quality and short-term reliability. And there workers don't even get paid $75 an hour.

[KTC]

The whole disgusting industry is too screwed up for me to laugh at anything about it. They infuriate and disgust me. I'd like to see them disappear, but it's like living on the top of a house of cards and hoping the bastard card at the bottom gets pulled out and burned. Sure...it'll die, but you're gonna fall too. The bastards!

[James81]

Yeah, I can see the humor in the poster and how it's funny, but all it does is make the little vein in my forhead pop out.

[Clair Dickson]

I agree that domestic brands can be and often are good cars. I know a guy who just put 400K on an SHO Taurus (An SHO!) It all comes down to maintenance. However, the Japanese brands ARE often ranked higher in initial quality and short-term reliability. And there workers don't even get paid $75 an hour.

Ah, there's the rub, isn't it? Most people don't keep their cars for years and years (and hundreds of thousand miles). The sales guy when we bought the "new" car was quite unhappy when we mentioned that we planned to get at least ten years out of the car. And how few people even know how to fix their cars anymore? Some do, but they are becoming a minority.

By the way, has everyone forgotten about GM being one of the first to pull it's company out of the US to find cheaper work? Flint it still a ravaged town with it's entire industrial base destroyed. And I should thank GM for that, by purchasing one of their cars? Thanks for thinking of your bonuses first, guys...?

[benbradley]

Ah, there's the rub, isn't it? Most people don't keep their cars for years and years (and hundreds of thousand miles). The sales guy when we bought the "new" car was quite unhappy when we mentioned that we planned to get at least ten years out of the car.
What business is it of his anyway? I say that after hearing his reaction that you won't be a repeat, every-other-year customer, spending thousands of dollars more every year to always drive a 'newer' car - I could almost justify this with newer cars having more safety features, but that's virtually never the reasoning of a 'gotta have a new car' buyer.
And how few people even know how to fix their cars anymore? Some do, but they are becoming a minority.
Much of fixing cars now consists of "replacing this computer module" at a cost of $150 or $500, and they can only be ordered by Authorized Repair Centers (usually dealers), so more and more things can't be fixed by 'shadetree mechanics.' Fortunately they are much more reliable and last much longer than cars made decades ago.
By the way, has everyone forgotten about GM being one of the first to pull it's company out of the US to find cheaper work? Flint it still a ravaged town with it's entire industrial base destroyed. And I should thank GM for that, by purchasing one of their cars? Thanks for thinking of your bonuses first, guys...?
I don't know that I blame only the company for that, the unions did their part too. I'm sure this has been rehashed before, but in the US the big three are saddled with union contracts, yet foreign companies such as Honda and BMW have no problem building plants and hiring perfectly willing, non-union workers in the US. No doubt unions aren't the only competitive disadvantage the big 3 have, but it's certainly one of them.

[Clair Dickson]

It's not like the CEOs don't take way more than their fair share.

I do think that the UAW has made some errors in their demands, and that auto worker pay has gotten a bit high; however, we do need entry level jobs that allow a person/ family to live above poverty. Retail doesn't provide that.

But at the same time, I can't overlook the double-standard where CEOs get bzillions, plus stock options, etc, while they lay off workers-- bonuses for cutting staff? This to me seems wrong. I think the captain should sacrifice himself for the good of the crew (to a reasonable end.) And a company that's failing shouldn't be paying out. So long as the average CEO pay is more than 300 times* (http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/26/business/fi-execpay26) the rate of the average worker, I'm going to be displeased with the situation and feel that the demands of the worker are not entirely out of line. If perhaps things were bit more equitable, there would be less room to complain-- why should I get paid peanuts while the guy at the top who (usualy) does way less work, gets paid SOOOO much more?

(Note: I'm one of those poorly paid teachers, with no loyalty to car companies.)

[Dale Emery]

ETA: Okay, here's the thought-provoking question: Would you like to buy a brand-new 2009 Bailout? Low mileage, only $25 billion. :D

Dude, that's a used car.

Dale

[benbradley]

It's not like the CEOs don't take way more than their fair share.
That's always been a nebulous phrase, "fair share."
I do think that the UAW has made some errors in their demands, and that auto worker pay has gotten a bit high; however, we do need entry level jobs that allow a person/ family to live above poverty. Retail doesn't provide that.
I'm not sure what makes a job provide that, other than someone doing it is worth the company paying for it.
But at the same time, I can't overlook the double-standard where CEOs get bzillions, plus stock options, etc, while they lay off workers-- bonuses for cutting staff? This to me seems wrong. I think the captain should sacrifice himself for the good of the crew (to a reasonable end.) And a company that's failing shouldn't be paying out. So long as the average CEO pay is more than 300 times* (http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/26/business/fi-execpay26) the rate of the average worker, I'm going to be displeased with the situation and feel that the demands of the worker are not entirely out of line.
Okay, so at least here's a solid upper figure for fair share. No executive or other top-earner should make more that 300 times what the average worker makes.

This would be interesting to apply to pro sports teams - either the star athetes' salaries would be restricted, or (in order to pay a star what another team might pay) it would be a boon to the low-paid ticket takers and peanut-and-beer sellers, whose salaries get raised to 1/300th of the 30-million-dollar-per-year star! ;)

[Clair Dickson]

Oh, believe me, I think the money paid to athletes is absurd. I don't think anyone needs millions and millions of dollars a year. Especially while people on the bottom of that same company are being shafted and denied at every turn. But I also think that a society is only as strong as it's weakest member, and our poor in this country (or more specifically the working poor) are in some of the worst situations for an industrial and so-called civilized nation. We refuse to pay living wages, don't provide access to education, and then criticize people for not having the ability to ascend the socio-economic ladder. In the meantime, the ones at the top are lying, cheating, stealing, and being rewarded for damaging companies and spending company money like it's going burning a hole in their pockets.

Many companies can get away with the wages they pay because they know people will still fill the jobs. Or, they can send the jobs oversees where making a dollar a day is great. Wal-Mart always has applicants from people who need to work (and who don't just want to be on welfare). Wal-Mart *could* afford to pay better, but the easiest way to increase profits is to cut wages. And they know there will always be unskilled, and sometimes desperate, people who just need a job. Some money coming in will always be better than none. I worked at a Wal-mart like store for 11 years-- the more money I made, the more I was told that I was expendable. There were managers who were outright hostile-- sales per man hour would be MUCH better if they got rid of the $10 an hour employee and replaced it with a minimum wage worker.

Companies have no reason to pay more... other than infusing the market with increased buying power (you know, creating a buyer for your products/services.) Henry Ford apparently realized that by paying his workers more he got better workers and also a built-in market of people who could afford to buy his cars. The more that companies cut from the bottom, while fattening up the top, they are damaging the purchasing power of the masses.

[rubarbb]

Everyone bitc..s about the amount of money the top executives make, but if you were in their shoes would you turn down the money? I think not... I know I wouldn't... :D

[KTC]

Everyone bitc..s about the amount of money the top executives make, but if you were in their shoes would you turn down the money? I think not... I know I wouldn't... :D

This thread has been dead since mid-December.

[Hang of Thursdays]

Another flaw I see in the idea of removing management is the bank bailout. Again, no one demanded any of those guys step down. Why has the auto industry been asked so many things (as they should have) but the banks were just handed a free check? Most of these banks didn't exactly have a plan to fix things either. (well as far as I know, it's impossible to tell for sure since no one asked them first.)

Getting it wrong the first time doesn't excuse getting it wrong the second time. Though that doesn't appear to be an issue for them.

[MattW]

They will continue to get it wrong until they get it right, or elections force them to stop trying.

[astonwest]

This thread has been dead since mid-December.
What's funny is that one of those companies is dead, one is going bankrupt, and the other seems to be doing perfectly fine...all since mid-December.

[Bird of Prey]

The poster's hysterical. However, it wasn't because American cars were shitty that people didn't want to buy them. When gas was cheap, there was quite a demand for that pillar of conspicuous consumption: the Hummer. Americans are still driving their enormous gas-guzzlers down the road, albeit when gas hit 4 bucks a gallon, those drivers were grumbling. But did those drivers care about fuel efficiency as it related to environmental impact?? Nope.

In truth, the car companies got caught - not by a change in consumer desire - but by the cost of running that desire. But gas prices have receded. Now, people aren't buying those SUVs because they can't afford new cars, not because they wouldn't love to have another monster tooling down the road.

Edit: speaking of which: I really like being home.

[dclary]

Simplest answer: Every american car has to factor the costs of providing for the well-being of every retired autoworker in america into its price. Foreign-made cars generally don't. On a dollar-by-dollar basis, a foreign car will always give more value than an american-made car for this reason.

When Americans began bargain shopping, the costs of supporting the union label killed Detroit.