Quote:
|
Originally Posted by crockett
Ummm isn't that where "benefits" come in? What is it these unions are always demanding? More Pay, More Benefits. ie--health care and 401k's and all that shit that costs companies a arm and a leg..
The same shit as the airlines are always going bankrupt.
|
Strangely enough, other companies,
like Toyota, offer health and other benefits. More than GM, in some cases. I'd suspect less than GM in others.
Even that said, GM would still be plenty profitable if they'd simply make cars that weren't crap. Cars that people wanted to buy.
This image, culled from a recent edition of
The Economist, says it all:
You can't go from 45% of the market to 25% and not feel the pinch... and it's not for being priced out of the market: GM cars are often the least pricey of their respective styles, often several thousand less than foreign counterparts. People buy the foreign cars (which is a misnomer, as 90% of those cars and their parts are produced domestically) because they last longer, drive better, have better fuel economy and retain blue book value far in excess of the 'big 3'.
Union wages and benefits and such are probably not helping the situation any, but laying the blame on unions for GM's complete lack of competence is just scapegoating. GM should have focused on producing a superior vehicle instead of counting on "hot dogs, baseball and GM" jingoist marketting.
