Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-15-2009, 03:10 AM
 
2,661 posts, read 2,898,999 times
Reputation: 366

Advertisements

Some people get so excited about bad news.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-15-2009, 03:20 AM
 
Location: London UK & Florida USA
7,923 posts, read 8,832,510 times
Reputation: 2059
One of the biggest financial commitments that these companies have is providing health care to past and present employees. Anyone asking why a UHC is needed in America should watch American Companies going bust because of the old antiquated and extremely expensive Health structure in America. This is the tip of the iceberg.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2009, 05:38 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,001,245 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by compJockey View Post
Some people get so excited about bad news.
Only a fool ignores it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2009, 05:41 AM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
4,897 posts, read 8,304,014 times
Reputation: 1911
Quote:
Originally Posted by ViewFromThePeak View Post
Yep, more voodoo Keynesian retard witchdoctoring at work.

Next on chopping block: 2,600 GM dealers - May. 14, 2009
What the hell does this have to do with John Maynard Keynes? Every single post you make is wost then the last and it has become abundantly clear that you haven't a clue what you are talking about when it comes to economics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2009, 05:42 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,001,245 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by OC Investor2 View Post
I read somewhere that the avg. dealership employees 46 people. 46 x 3400 dealers = 156,400 jobs lost at dealerships during the restructure of GM & ChryCo. Chrysler & GM combined have approximately 180K employees on the payroll. So we paid something like $40B tax dollar to save 180K jobs while flushing 156k jobs down the toilet.

What did we get for our money again?
You forgot the tens of billions flushed down the toilet in lost investors equity in GM alone since obama has been elected.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2009, 05:49 AM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
4,897 posts, read 8,304,014 times
Reputation: 1911
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
And how is the auto industry supposed to make a comeback ? Internet sales perhaps and you take a "virtual" drive in your new car ?
The problem is there are a lot more dealerships for the domestics then the foreign makers due to most of these dealerships being decades old and being licensed when the domestics had 90% of the domestic sales to themselves. The automakers are contractually obligated to provide each with training, financing of stock, grants to support advertising, etc... This creates a lot of additional overhead for the automakers as well as making competition cut throat between dealers selling the same line of cars. This means most of the domestics' dealerships tend to do much lower volumes of business and have a hard time competing against the much less numerous but higher volume dealerships the foreign makers have.

Call it the Walmart effect or just economies of scale but it means there is going to be consolidation and rationalization of the dealership networks. That way the surviving retail operations are more competitive and the automaker has less of a burden supporting that network. We're going to see fewer but much larger dealerships just like over the last 40 years the mom and pop stores have given away to the big box stores.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2009, 06:08 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,001,245 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oerdin View Post
The problem is there are a lot more dealerships for the domestics then the foreign makers due to most of these dealerships being decades old and being licensed when the domestics had 90% of the domestic sales to themselves. The automakers are contractually obligated to provide each with training, financing of stock, grants to support advertising, etc...
I used to work at a large dealership, was never provided "training" but you bring up some interesting costs that I havent thought about. The question is, without dealerships around to help cover some of the costs like advertising, arent they pretty much cutting their throats and increasing advertising costs? (while Chrysler cuts advertising cost on top of this).

The financing of the cars is an accounts receivable from the dealers to the car companies, not an expense. Yes, they have to front the money, and then send the cars to the dealerships, but the dealerships essentially "rent" the cars until they are sold. I'm not sure this is not going to do anything but be harmful. Cutting out your sales channel would be like Coke pulling their inventory from stadiums, fast food joints, and the grocery stores and trying to sell direct..

What this appears to be is car dealerships cutting the fat, lowering the value, turning it over to the unions, who can then build the businesses back up. Payback for support at the taxpayers and investors expense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2009, 06:35 AM
 
Location: Charlotte, NC
3,564 posts, read 5,507,606 times
Reputation: 1497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta Planter View Post
I'll stick with my trusty Volvos, thank you. At 282K, the 82 is just getting broke in. And the 73 is being overhauled as I type. My 81 Chevy pickup, well, it's gold in my book.

Haha yeah. I'll stick with my Land ROver with 183,000 miles on it as long as possible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2009, 06:40 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,478 posts, read 59,660,138 times
Reputation: 24861
I posted this on the New Mexico forum:

"Too bad dealers could not have just stocked sample cars and only took delivery of cars they had already sold. That would have cut the dealers and manufacturers overhead considerably because it would change from a build to stock to a build on demand system. That would minimize inventory stocking and financial costs. It might have let really small "underperforming" (Lord, I really hate corporate crap speak) small town dealers maintain their franchise and make a living selling used cars while providing a useful service to the local community. Cutting dealers now is really destroying Chrysler’s future because these dealers will soon be cutting a deal with Honda et. al.

The thing that killed the auto industry was counting on making money off the loans while letting quality craftsmanship slip into the clunker category while charging luxury prices. The industry has been charging too much for too many years. I have heard that Chevy can build a ‘Vette for 10 grand and charge 80. I wonder how much it costs to build a Chevette." GregW

As I said above, why does a dealer have to stock more than a sample of the cars produced. Modern assembly line can produce on demand so why produce to storage? Why not have buyers come in and select a car, put down some money and wait a week for delivery? It seems to me that would cut a lot of waste out of the system.

FWIW - We have not bought a new car from a name brand dealer since 1974 when we bought a SAAB 99. I have not had my cars worked on by a dealer since then. I have bought used cars from individuals and had them maintained and repaired at independent shops at lower costs. As much as I would like to drive a new car, I will not buy what I cannot afford to own and maintain.

added for CPF - My '92 Buick Roadmaster Wagon is going on 190K and the '96 Subaru Outback is nearly 166,000. With new tires on the Buick I would take either on a cross country trip without expecting any problems.


Last edited by GregW; 05-15-2009 at 06:43 AM.. Reason: added line of text
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2009, 06:42 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,001,245 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW View Post
I posted this on the New Mexico forum:

"Too bad dealers could not have just stocked sample cars and only took delivery of cars they had already sold. That would have cut the dealers and manufacturers overhead considerably because it would change from a build to stock to a build on demand system. That would minimize inventory stocking and financial costs. It might have let really small "underperforming" (Lord, I really hate corporate crap speak) small town dealers maintain their franchise and make a living selling used cars while providing a useful service to the local community. Cutting dealers now is really destroying Chrysler’s future because these dealers will soon be cutting a deal with Honda et. al.

The thing that killed the auto industry was counting on making money off the loans while letting quality craftsmanship slip into the clunker category while charging luxury prices. The industry has been charging too much for too many years. I have heard that Chevy can build a ‘Vette for 10 grand and charge 80. I wonder how much it costs to build a Chevette." GregW

As I said above, why does a dealer have to stock more than a sample of the cars produced. Modern assembly line can produce on demand so why produce to storage? Why not have buyers come in and select a car, put down some money and wait a week for delivery? It seems to me that would cut a lot of waste out of the system.

FWIW - We have not bought a new car from a name brand dealer since 1974 when we bought a SAAB 99. I have not had my cars worked on by a dealer since then. I have bought used cars from individuals and had them maintained and repaired at independent shops at lower costs. As much as I would like to drive a new car, I will not buy what I cannot afford to own and maintain.

Americans are very much a now industry. If I'm paying $30,000 for a car, I want it now. I dont want to wait 30 days for it..

I agree with you in idealogy though, when I used to sell cars, the dealership I worked with got in an argument with me because the customer wanted a "color" that they didnt have. Dealerships argument, customer doesnt know what color they want, color doesnt matter.. and we should just ignore the request. This was some time ago, but I'm sure things havent changed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:41 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top