GM News: General Motors Announces Job Cuts and Plant Shutdowns in North America

[dwightlooi]

37 minutes ago, balthazar said:

Question : If Li-Ion batt costs have dropped 24% in 8 years, what EV auto has likewise dropped it's MSRP by that much or ANY amount in the same time frame?

That is unfair. If the battery is $12,000 and the vehicle is $40,000. The battery is 30% the bill of materials cost. A 24% reduction in battery costs represents a 7% reduction in vehicle costs. But, no, you won't even see that because ALL the legacy automaker's EVs from the Bolt to the Leaf to the i3 to the eGolf are being sold at a loss. Hence, the manufacturers are simply glad they are not losing as much.

Edited November 29, 2018 by dwightlooi

[dwightlooi]

1 hour ago, dfelt said:

I TOTALLY AGREE with you about the trade, we have not had free equal trade in generations, politicians have always looked out for their own self interest, not that of this country or the citizens. If they did this, we would have proper control over the craziness of gun ownership and idiots that use them to hurt innocent civilians. To correct this we need level heads with negotiation skills, not bankruptcy manipulation skills of the current leadership. 

In regards to your last paragraph, I will say that we agree to disagree on some points, I still believe you can have a free trade system that also is balanced with a fair minimum wage to get kids some work experience, not this crap living wage of San Francisco. I believe you can have a decent living standard for workers with Free Trade...

FREE TRADE = SUICIDE
--
Countries can make things or buy them from other countries. A country like the USA – with a lot of land, resources, technology and people – can make everything that we need and want. However, for many things it is cheaper to buy from other countries than to make it ourselves. This is because American workers get paid more, and because we have costly social and environmental standards. Let’s get one thing straight… it will always cost less for the USA buy rather than to make most things as long as there are countries in the world where workers make peanuts, while our social and environmental concerns are laughed at.
--
When we buy more from other countries than sell to them, it is called a TRADE DEFICIT – an outflow of wealth from our country to others. Right now that stands at about $800 billion every year – eight hundred thousand million dollars with eleven zeroes – a figure greater than we spend on defense, education and infrastructure combined. What that means is that $800 billion worth of stuff are not being made in the USA, tens of millions of workers in other countries are employed to make this stuff and tens of millions of workers in the USA are not. If we keep having a massive trade deficit, sooner or later we’ll run out of money to pay other countries for our favorite stuff.
--
With Free Trade we will continue to have massive deficits and lose the ability to make most of the things we enjoy in life. It will NEVER END until wage, social and environmental differences in the world are equalized. With Free Trade we’ll enrich developing nations and transfer to them the wealth past generations had built up in affluent nations. There is no country in existence today, or throughout the annals of history, with consistently high deficits that isn't in decline, and there isn't a country with consistent surpluses that isn't in ascension. That is why FREE TRADE IS SUICIDE!
--
Let's set aside subjective opinions on the style and methods of the Trump Administration for a minute. The fact is that it is a good thing that we renegotiated NAFTA to include the most important thing -- an elimination of low wage motivation to move production to Mexico in form of the tax free nature of automotive and auto parts imports being conditional on a $16/hr wage floor in the factories that make them. This stops the bleeding of US industry to Mexico. It is also good that we say no to China which taxes our exports 25~40% whereas we tax theirs at 2.5%, not to mention the state sponsored dumping to kill off major US industries and the exploitation of easily pirated intellectual property. The EU is next and you cannot convince me that the current agreements with the USA taxing German automobiles at 2.8% while the EU taxes ours at 10% is a reasonable deal.
--
I am not a believer in Free Trade -- not for affluent, developed, countries anyway. I am a believer in Mercantilism where the objective is not to maximize trade volume or minimize consumer goods prices, but rather to generate a trade surplus or at least achieve a net balanced in trade flow. I believe that tariffs should be high with countries with whom we have a deficit and zero with countries with whom we do not.

Edited November 29, 2018 by dwightlooi

[Drew Dowdell]

Welcome back @dwightlooi

[Cmicasa the Great]

3 hours ago, ccap41 said:

I wasn't relying strictly on CARGO volume but total volume behind the driver's seat, which includes the 2nd row of seats. 

Dude U are relying on anything U can to try and belittle a GM vehicle U haven't even seen in the metal yet..let alone driven of checked out. 

[Cmicasa the Great]

2 hours ago, dwightlooi said:

 how can you justify economic suicide in rejecting the most reliable, most (currently) available energy sources for dubiously green and exorbitant energy?

#3 is the only one I have to call U out on..  All of the aforementioned stuff aside.. how can U, even as an obvious conservative justify staying that we really shouldn't already be embracing and mass producing alternative transportation modes, moving from a 100+ year fossil fuel addiction that will eventually run out? Gas/diesel is dirty.. its inefficient.. its hot. EV is clean.. cool... and very efficient.. The efficiency is even clearly evident in the fact that its power and torque is ready from 1 RPM.. vs having to turn the engine to the 1000s to really see true power

[ccap41]

52 minutes ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

Dude U are relying on anything U can to try and belittle a GM vehicle U haven't even seen in the metal yet..let alone driven of checked out. 

Why do you take anything that isn't blind brand humping as an attempt to belittle them? 

Those are facts. There is less interior volume behind the driver's seat. That's weird to me for a vehicle this size and it's also weird to others here as well. Are they just attempting to belittle GM? Get pissy with them too.

Looking at them in person does not change facts about a vehicle. That is why they are facts. 

[A Horse With No Name]

37 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Why do you take anything that isn't blind brand humping as an attempt to belittle them? 

Those are facts. There is less interior volume behind the driver's seat. That's weird to me for a vehicle this size and it's also weird to others here as well. Are they just attempting to belittle GM? Get pissy with them too.

Looking at them in person does not change facts about a vehicle. That is why they are facts. 

Agree with you here. Although I do kind of like both the Blazer and the Aviator. I have been feeling kind of hostile (or extremely hostile, to be honest) about our domestic OEMs...both the Blazer and aviator are a breath of fresh air IMHO. 

1 hour ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

Dude U are relying on anything U can to try and belittle a GM vehicle U haven't even seen in the metal yet..let alone driven of checked out. 

He is indeed  free though not to like it for whatever reason. 
To me, I find the styling on the Blazer a major plus. 

[dwightlooi]

1 hour ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

#3 is the only one I have to call U out on..  All of the aforementioned stuff aside.. how can U, even as an obvious conservative justify staying that we really shouldn't already be embracing and mass producing alternative transportation modes, moving from a 100+ year fossil fuel addiction that will eventually run out? Gas/diesel is dirty.. its inefficient.. its hot. EV is clean.. cool... and very efficient.. The efficiency is even clearly evident in the fact that its power and torque is ready from 1 RPM.. vs having to turn the engine to the 1000s to really see true power

Because...

#1 Fossil Fuel has not run out, is not about to run out and the USA has just become the largest producer of coal, oil and gas.

#2 I have no problems with alternative energies. I do have a problem with the fraudulent claims of androgenic climate change and in subsidizing renewable alternatives that are unaffordable and which has no chance of replacing mankind's energy demands today much less in the future. At some point, fossil fuels will become sufficiently expensive that alternatives will make economic sense. That point is not today or in the forseeable decades ahead. There is no need to subsidize or accelerate that process while rejecting cheap and plentiful energy which we currently have access to!

#3 I have always said that Hybrid cars like the Prius do not make economic sense. They do not make economic sense because the premium of the hybrid drive train (~$4,500) will take about 13.5 years to recoup via the fuel savings over a comparably sized, equipped and performing ICE powered car. This is longer than the expected life of the battery, hence not one penny will be saved. If driving one makes you feel better or more popular with "green" friends, all the power to you and you should get one. But I do not want to pay taxes to subsidize your purchase.

#4 I have always said that Battery Electric is the ultimately the future for ground transportation (we'll still burn hydrocarbon combustibles in aviation, be it drilled or farmed). I defer from the tree huggers in that I see Nuclear Power as the future of electric generation, not solar, not wind and certainly not farmed Ethanol. However, I am also pointing out that TODAY the cost of the battery is equivalent to the fuel cost of a 30 mpg car over 125,000 miles; not counting the cost of electricity. I see no imperative to accelerate the adoption of battery-electric transportation, because I am not a subscriber to the Global Warming nonsense and I see no economic advantages to doing so.

[Cmicasa the Great]

32 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Why do you take anything that isn't blind brand humping as an attempt to belittle them? 

Those are facts. There is less interior volume behind the driver's seat. That's weird to me for a vehicle this size and it's also weird to others here as well. Are they just attempting to belittle GM? Get pissy with them too.

Looking at them in person does not change facts about a vehicle. That is why they are facts. 

Cause U are and have always been a hater.. But.. regardless.. its like rationale and reality completely go over your head... cargo space is measured not only lengthwise but width and HEIGHT. WTF!!! would this Blazer, sleek as a mofo in the rear (because we enthusiasts asked Chevy to make a SPORTY SUV and they did) not have a lil less room than say the upcoming Passport which is about as sporty looking as a Subaru Forester.. a possible donor to the whole design of the Honda. The Equinox also has a less Sporty (than Blazer) cargo area design. 

[A Horse With No Name]

Blazer is by far the best looking of the above vehicles. 

[ccap41]

4 minutes ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

sleek as a mofo in the rear (because we enthusiasts asked Chevy to make a SPORTY SUV and they did)

They made one LOOK sporty. They didn't actually make a sporty SUV. 

3 minutes ago, A Horse With No Name said:

Blazer is by far the best looking of the above vehicles. 

Absolutely but it should be compared to vehicles like the Grand Cherokee, Edge, 4Runner, and Murano.

[Cmicasa the Great]

1 minute ago, dwightlooi said:

Because...

#1 Fossil Fuel has not run out, is not about to run out and the USA has just become the largest producer of coal, oil and gas.

#2 I have no problems with alternative energies. I do have a problem with the fraudulent claims of androgenic climate change and in subsidizing renewable alternatives that are unaffordable and which has no chance of replacing mankind's energy demands today much less in the future. At some point, fossil fuels will become sufficiently expensive that alternatives will make economic sense. That point is not today or in the forseeable decades ahead. There is no need to subsidize or accelerate that process while rejecting cheap and plentiful energy which we currently have access to!

#3 I have always said that Hybrid cars like the Prius do not make economic sense. They do not make economic sense because the premium of the hybrid drive train (~$4,500) will take about 13.5 years to recoup via the fuel savings over a comparably sized, equipped and performing ICE powered car. This is longer than the expected life of the battery, hence not one penny will be saved. If driving one makes you feel better or more popular with "green" friends, all the power to you and you should get one. But I do not want to pay taxes to subsidize your purchase.

#4 I have always said that Battery Electric is the ultimately the future for ground transportation (we'll still burn hydrocarbon combustibles in aviation, be it drilled or farmed). I defer from the tree huggers in that I see Nuclear Power as the future of electric generation, not solar, not wind and certainly not farmed Ethanol. However, I am also pointing out that TODAY the cost of the battery is equivalent to the fuel cost of a 30 mpg car over 125,000 miles; not counting the cost of electricity. I see no imperative to accelerate the adoption of battery-electric transportation, because I am not a subscriber to the Global Warming nonsense and I see no economic advantages to doing so.

It is seriously estimated that there is about 52 years left.. that's 2070.. oil reserves left on the Planet Earth. Yes.. we have a little time base don current world population.. but what happens if population explodes again.. or there is a massive war? Why are we considering or even talking about neglecting a move into alternative propulsion systems? Furthermore.. where's the harm unless U are a lobbyist or employee of Exxon-Mobil and the like? If still If GM is the only company that breaks away from oil based cars.. which I still don't see happening for more than 20% of their line-up..  for at least another 10-15 years based on their current rate of movement.. then so be it.. U still have many other companies that will gladly continue building liquid fuel consuming ICEs.

I am no tree hugger by any means.. and wouldn't consider a f@#kin Prius if my life depended on it.. I'm a known car guy.. and high horsepower gas drinkers are my goto..  with 2 S/C V8 cars, and 2 NA V8s in my stable.. 

[Cmicasa the Great]

5 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

They made one LOOK sporty. They didn't actually make a sporty SUV. 

Far as I have heard its pretty sporty.. Strong V6 engine with over 305HP and maxing out at 4200lbs. The platform is known to be a great handler.. and even against the GC 360hp V8, which comes in at 800lbs more.. the Blazer should be able to run well against it.

5 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Absolutely but it should be compared to vehicles like the Grand Cherokee, Edge, 4Runner, and Murano.

 

[ykX]

6 minutes ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

It is seriously estimated that there is about 52 years left.. that's 2070.. oil reserves left on the Planet Earth.

That estimation was around since 90's which was 20 years ago.  By that calculation we have only 30 years left.  I think they full of crap.

However, I am all for electrics because they are much more efficient than ICE and capable of great power.   The two biggest problems are the batteries and the electricity supply.  It is been said many times that current batteries use rare earth elements that are produced with great pollution and damage to environment, and they have very limited life span and long recharge cycle.  The second issue is that our power grid is not capable to support at the moment a great increase in electric power consumption if the electric vehicles will explode and become truly mass market.

[dwightlooi]

1 hour ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

It is seriously estimated that there is about 52 years left.. that's 2070.. oil reserves left on the Planet Earth. Yes.. we have a little time base don current world population.. but what happens if population explodes again.. or there is a massive war? Why are we considering or even talking about neglecting a move into alternative propulsion systems? Furthermore.. where's the harm unless U are a lobbyist or employee of Exxon-Mobil and the like? If still If GM is the only company that breaks away from oil based cars.. which I still don't see happening for more than 20% of their line-up..  for at least another 10-15 years based on their current rate of movement.. then so be it.. U still have many other companies that will gladly continue building liquid fuel consuming ICEs.

I am no tree hugger by any means.. and wouldn't consider a f@#kin Prius if my life depended on it.. I'm a known car guy.. and high horsepower gas drinkers are my goto..  with 2 S/C V8 cars, and 2 NA V8s in my stable.. 

They were saying that 50 years ago. The fact is that the math doesn't add up. US production has doubled from 1.8 billion barrels a year to 3.6 billion a year. Yet, US oil reserves had more than DOUBLED in the last decade from 20 billion barrels to 45 billion barrels meaning that they are finding a lot more oil than they are pumping despite the doubling of production rates during the same period.

Oil will never just run out one day. That is not how it works. The way it works is that the easily to drill for reserves will be gradually depleted and more and more of the production will come from hard to get to reserves which progressively increases the price of oil and gas. This will in part be offset by advancement in technologies like hydraulic fracking, horizontal drilling and deep sea drilling. 500 years from now there will still be oil available, it'll just be stuff that is really deep in the oceans or small pockets under hills and mountains and the like. And, it'll still be drilled for for applications for in some quantity or another.

The point is that there is no need to force fuel economy or electrification on the public. If and when oil gets to and stays at about $200 a barrel or more, the alternatives will start to make sense. If there is demand for 60 mpg cars at a $20,000 premium, manufacturers will make them within one or two product cycles. If batteries are cheap enough and/or the price of gas is high enough, people will naturally adopt electric vehicles and put up with the inability to refuel in 5 minutes.

Turning your argument back on you, unless you are a beneficiary of Global Warming scams like carbon exchanges and lobbyists for corporate welfare concerns like Solar Manufacturers or Wind Turbine vendors, why will you be opposed to the natural and market driven evolution of energy sources?

[Drew Dowdell]

None of this has anything to do with people buying Traverses instead of Impalas.  The market is driving these cuts.  People don't want to drive anymore because it is such a chore. They would rather Uber or Lyft and play on their smartphone while someone else drives. 

[dwightlooi]

21 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

None of this has anything to do with people buying Traverses instead of Impalas.  The market is driving these cuts.  People don't want to drive anymore because it is such a chore. They would rather Uber or Lyft and play on their smartphone while someone else drives.  

Uber and Lyft has nothing to do with it. Uber and Lyft drivers need to buy vehicles too. There is certainly a trend towards high hip points and a vertical and upright seating position. The problem I see here is GM's over proliferation of models. There is really no justification for a Spark, a Sonic, a Cruze, a Malibu and an Impala. Unfortunately, I think they made the wrong call on the models to keep. Keeping the Cruze and the Impala for a compact and a full size would be a better bet. There is no reason the Impala has to be more expensive than the Malibu. Size doesn't really cost money. Equipment costs money.

One of the criticism I had for GM was their march towards low displacement, turbocharged engines. if fuel economy is the goal, a better approach is not the 1.4L (now 1.5L) fours. If that is the goal, a 2.5L Aktinson cammed SOHC 2-valve four will make the same 150hp / 170 lb-ft with equivalent or better mpg numbers without the cost of the turbocharger or its intercooler. Basically, what you are doing is keeping the power stroke but throwing away about 25% of the compression stroke (hence effective displacement) with late closure of the intake valves. Since you are also not going for high revs or specific output, an SOHC 2-valve head will not only cost less, but generate less frictional losses. Displacement doesn't cost money; complexity costs money. Displacement doesn't equal gas usage either; power output equals gas usage (at least when it is making power).

Edited November 29, 2018 by dwightlooi

[Cmicasa the Great]

52 minutes ago, dwightlooi said:

They were saying that 50 years ago. The fact is that the math doesn't add up. US production has doubled from 1.8 billion barrels a year to 3.6 billion a year. Yet, US oil reserves had more than DOUBLED in the last decade from 20 billion barrels to 45 billion barrels meaning that they are finding a lot more oil than they are pumping despite the doubling of production rates during the same period.

Oil will never just run out one day. That is not how it works. The way it works is that the easily to drill for reserves will be gradually depleted and more and more of the production will come from hard to get to reserves which progressively increases the price of oil and gas. This will in part be offset by advancement in technologies like hydraulic fracking, horizontal drilling and deep sea drilling. 500 years from now there will still be oil available, it'll just be stuff that is really deep in the oceans or small pockets under hills and mountains and the like. And, it'll still be drilled for for applications for in some quantity or another.

The point is that there is no need to force fuel economy or electrification on the public. If and when oil gets to and stays at about $200 a barrel or more, the alternatives will start to make sense. If there is demand for 60 mpg cars at a $20,000 premium, manufacturers will make them within one or two product cycles. If batteries are cheap enough and/or the price of gas is high enough, people will naturally adopt electric vehicles and put up with the inability to refuel in 5 minutes.

Turning your argument back on you, unless you are a beneficiary of Global Warming scams like carbon exchanges and lobbyists for corporate welfare concerns like Solar Manufacturers or Wind Turbine vendors, why will you be opposed to the natural and market driven evolution of energy sources?

I'm not opposed to any of those things for the sake of self gain.. but only a fool will argue that there is no negative aspects to continuing a reliance on fossil fuels. It could easily be argued tho that U are certainly more in league with such conservative organizations than I with any liberal ones. Like, for instance, I own plenty of firearms , and support the 2nd... but I don't need to go around announcing on a car forum that "I'm the NRA." 

Back to the negative aspects of oil.. drilling for one.. Continuous drilling leads to other problems. Its been seriously discussed by leading scientists that continuous drilling, fracking etc.. are part of the reason why we may be speeding up plate shifts in the Earths outer crust
 

[Drew Dowdell]

Just now, dwightlooi said:

Uber and Lyft has nothing to do with it. Uber and Lyft drivers need buy vehicles too. There is certainly a trend towards high hip points and a vertical and upright seating position. The problem I see here is GM's over proliferation of models. There is really no justification for a Spark, Sonic, a Cruze, a Malibu and an Impala. Unfortunately, I think they made the wrong call on the models to keep. Keeping the Cruze and the Impala for a compact and a full size would be a better bet. There is no reason the Impala has to be more expensive than the Malibu. Size doesn't really cost money. Equipment costs money.

One of the criticism I had for GM was their march towards low displacement, turbocharged engines. if fuel economy is the goal, a better approach is not the 1.4L (now 1.5L) fours. If that is the goal, a 2.5L Aktinson cammed SOHC 2-valve four will make the same 150hp / 170 lb-ft with equivalent or better mpg numbers without the cost of the turbocharger or its intercooler. Basically, what you are doing is keeping the power stroke but throwing away about 25% of the compression stroke with late closure of the intake valves. Since you are also not going for high revs or specific output, an SOHC 2-valve head will not only cost less, but generate less frictional losses. Displacement doesn't cost money; complexity costs money. Displacement doesn't equal gas usage either; power output equals gas usage (at least when it is making power).

I agree with all of what you said about displacement. I don't care for small displacement turbo engine either.

but I'm trying to keep this thread on topic.... 

Uber and Lyft drivers do need cars too... but they need fewer cars to service their customers than their customers would if each one bought a car.  

[Cmicasa the Great]

12 minutes ago, dwightlooi said:

Uber and Lyft has nothing to do with it. Uber and Lyft drivers need to buy vehicles too. There is certainly a trend towards high hip points and a vertical and upright seating position. The problem I see here is GM's over proliferation of models. There is really no justification for a Spark, a Sonic, a Cruze, a Malibu and an Impala. Unfortunately, I think they made the wrong call on the models to keep. Keeping the Cruze and the Impala for a compact and a full size would be a better bet. There is no reason the Impala has to be more expensive than the Malibu. Size doesn't really cost money. Equipment costs money.

 

OK>.. finally I can agree to some degree.. THERE NEVER WAS A JUSTIFICATION for Spark, a Sonic, a Cruze, AND VOLT, a Malibu and an Impala.. AND SS. Some one should have proposed 7 years ago that the drawing board should show a Sonic (replacement for the sub-compact Aveo) should be the book end of the car spectrum.. no Spark.. with the TRAX as a Sonic CUV. The CRUZE should have been a Cruze and a Cruze PHEV. The Malibu was fine.. and the Impala and SS should have been a singular car for all intents a Pontiac G8 CLONE (all available HP levels of the Pontiac) on Alpha-L starting in 2014 with the debut of the CTS or on Ep2Premium (XTS-LaX) with available AWD like those two models.. while for the SS model have the LGX detuned for the sake of argument to 380HP. Size cost money due to perception and maximizing profits. In truth.. the Impala, LaX, and XTS are profitable.. but not as profitable without the XTS. 

Edited November 29, 2018 by Cmicasa the Great

[David]

@dwightlooi Welcome back again,

So then we should cut off all of the $88 billion in subsidies the oil companies get here in the US and let natural market dynamics take their place and see the gas prices rise then.

https://www.politicususa.com/2015/06/09/report-shows-oil-industry-benefits-5-3-trillion-subsidies-annually.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/04/25/the-surprising-reason-that-oil-subsidies-persist-even-liberals-love-them/#112e41f53279

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html

Depending on how you want to view it, we subsidies OIL companies still, so why not electric auto's?

Benefit here is as @Drew Dowdell has pointed out in regards to Uber and Lyft.

We will not see ICE auto's go away, but there is no reason to NOT move to cleaner, quieter auto's especially for inner city use over the worst polluters, Diesel and old gas auto's.

[ocnblu]

NO REASON?  LOL

[Drew Dowdell]

But why cut ~15,000 jobs?

[David]

4 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

But why cut ~15,000 jobs?

I think this is more staging for negotiations with the UAW. GM has also since stated that most will probably get reallocated to other assembly lines where they need additional hands as they idle these plants.

I also think this is a way to force re-education of job skills and pay as GM moves towards a larger EV product line.

[dwightlooi]

2 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

I agree with all of what you said about displacement. I don't care for small displacement turbo engine either.

but I'm trying to keep this thread on topic.... 

Uber and Lyft drivers do need cars too... but they need fewer cars to service their customers than their customers would if each one bought a car.  

Actually, that is not true on two levels. #1 the total demand for vehicles have not declined. #2 the demand for passenger cars (as opposed to light trunks and SUVs) declining cannot be attributed to Uber or Lyft. The fact is that city dwellers have been major users of public transportation and taxi cabs. People who commute with cars don;t replace it with commuting with Uber or Lyft.

1 hour ago, dfelt said:

I think this is more staging for negotiations with the UAW. GM has also since stated that most will probably get reallocated to other assembly lines where they need additional hands as they idle these plants.

I also think this is a way to force re-education of job skills and pay as GM moves towards a larger EV product line.

Because the UAW contract is expiring next year in April (why do you think they are shutting down in April not now and not September or any other month? Because Mary Barra is smart and is trying to negotiate from a position of strength.

From a practical standpoint, those same plants can be building the SUVs currently being built in Mexico or is slated to be built in Mexico. Depending on tariffs and tax breaks (State Level) that may indeed become a consideration.

1 hour ago, Drew Dowdell said:

But why cut ~15,000 jobs?

Because over capacity and idle payroll costs money for no good reason?

[dwightlooi]

2 hours ago, dfelt said:

@dwightlooi Welcome back again,

So then we should cut off all of the $88 billion in subsidies the oil companies get here in the US and let natural market dynamics take their place and see the gas prices rise then.

https://www.politicususa.com/2015/06/09/report-shows-oil-industry-benefits-5-3-trillion-subsidies-annually.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/04/25/the-surprising-reason-that-oil-subsidies-persist-even-liberals-love-them/#112e41f53279

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html

Depending on how you want to view it, we subsidies OIL companies still, so why not electric auto's?

Benefit here is as @Drew Dowdell has pointed out in regards to Uber and Lyft.

We will not see ICE auto's go away, but there is no reason to NOT move to cleaner, quieter auto's especially for inner city use over the worst polluters, Diesel and old gas auto's.

Except we don't actually subsidize Oil Producers. Allowing them to depreciate their assets sooner, deduct exploration expenses or otherwise pay less taxes is not really a subsidy is it? Part of the reason is that the USA is matching the lower tax burden of foreign oil producers so as to encourage domestic production for the sake of energy independence and reduced trade deficits. You actually have to turn a profit to pay less taxes.

Put simply, there is a huge difference between me giving you a check for $100,000 and giving you the ability to pay $100,000 less taxes. In order for you to take that $100,000 in tax deductions you must actually have been earning enough money to pay more than $100,000 in taxes. It is actually your money that you earned, I am simply allowing you to keep more of it.

If you operate a hotdog stand and make $50 a day and paying $15 in taxes. I can give you a $1million tax break and you are not going to benefit by more than $15. More importantly, you need to actually make money with your hotdog stand and sell hot dogs that people actually want to eat. If you are losing $20 a day, no amount of tax credit or break do you any good!

Edited November 30, 2018 by dwightlooi

[dwightlooi]

3 hours ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

I'm not opposed to any of those things for the sake of self gain.. but only a fool will argue that there is no negative aspects to continuing a reliance on fossil fuels. It could easily be argued tho that U are certainly more in league with such conservative organizations than I with any liberal ones. Like, for instance, I own plenty of firearms , and support the 2nd... but I don't need to go around announcing on a car forum that "I'm the NRA." 

Back to the negative aspects of oil.. drilling for one.. Continuous drilling leads to other problems. Its been seriously discussed by leading scientists that continuous drilling, fracking etc.. are part of the reason why we may be speeding up plate shifts in the Earths outer crust
 

I'll say that our air quality has never been better and since I do not buy into androgenic climate change I do not see any reason to refrain from fossil fuel use or to regulate carbon emissions. Let the Europeans be the idiots. We'll reap the economic benefits of cheaper and more reliable energy. I am not convinced that we have the evidence to suggest that oil production or fracking has ANY effect on plat tectonics. In fact, I find the idea laughable. You do realize that oil wells and all the fracking are about 1 to 2 km deep, whereas continental crusts are about 40~70 km thick right?

I think they pulled that photo from my Facebook profile... I have no problems with it so I never thought to change it.

[David]

55 minutes ago, dwightlooi said:

I'll say that our air quality has never been better and since I do not buy into androgenic climate change I do not see any reason to refrain from fossil fuel use or to regulate carbon emissions. Let the Europeans be the idiots. We'll reap the economic benefits of cheaper and more reliable energy. I am not convinced that we have the evidence to suggest that oil production or fracking has ANY effect on plat tectonics. In fact, I find the idea laughable. You do realize that oil wells and all the fracking are about 1 to 2 km deep, whereas continental crusts are about 40~70 km thick right?

I think they pulled that photo from my Facebook profile... I have no problems with it so I never thought to change it.

Plenty of news and science to go with this, but while a portion of wells are shallow, there are many that are much deeper and an example is Oklahoma. No earthquakes before deep fracking and now enough study's have been done that the research does verify that fracking is causing the hundreds of earthquakes that Oklahoma is now getting.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-27/oklahoma-toughens-oil-fracking-rules-as-shale-earthquakes-climb

In regards to the Oil industry, yes they get trillions in tax breaks but they also do take subsidies. Oil industry companies here in the US took $88 billion in tax payers money and so far I have not seen any oil company such as Exxon Mobil who made who made $52 billion profit on $244 billion in sales for 2017 turn down the billions given to them by the gov. I realize that some companies get more than others and the biggest ones get the least, but plenty of countries subsidize oil / gas including the US. So in fairness we either subsidize both electric and gas auto's or we do none. 

I am fine with none. Use the money to shore up SS.

I honestly do not think GM will shrink long term in regards to their head count. They have thousands of openings in self driving to all things EV. I see no reason for those in the plants being mothballed from getting jobs at other plants or taking advantage of their retraining to get new skills and still end up working for GM or any other auto company.

[Drew Dowdell]

Try to get this back on the topic of GM cuts. 

[Cmicasa the Great]

9 hours ago, dwightlooi said:

I'll say that our air quality has never been better and since I do not buy into androgenic climate change I do not see any reason to refrain from fossil fuel use or to regulate carbon emissions. Let the Europeans be the idiots. We'll reap the economic benefits of cheaper and more reliable energy. I am not convinced that we have the evidence to suggest that oil production or fracking has ANY effect on plat tectonics. In fact, I find the idea laughable. You do realize that oil wells and all the fracking are about 1 to 2 km deep, whereas continental crusts are about 40~70 km thick right?

I think they pulled that photo from my Facebook profile... I have no problems with it so I never thought to change it.

Annnnnnnd THAT'S where I stopped. U are full of information Dwight, but unfortunately talking to U is like talking to the Saints and they don't recognize that Cowboys have Defense. U are one sided.. and that's not a true sign of knowing

[A Horse With No Name]

6 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Try to get this back on the topic of GM cuts. 

Agree. 

I actually see this as a good thing in many ways. Stop building cars you are not passionate about. GM has not been passionate about small cars in its 60 plus year history of building them.  Saturn never made a dime for them. Corvair was a public relations disaster. Cavalier seems to have been un-sexy enough to induce involuntary celibacy into every owner who bought one, save one member here who owns one and has a son.  Cobalt lacked the styling and finesse of its competition. The current Cruze falls light years behind the Mazda 3, Civic, Golf, Imprezza, and Hundai offering. 

2 minutes ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

Annnnnnnd THAT'S where I stopped. U are full of information Dwight, but unfortunately talking to U is like talking to the Saints and they don't recognize that Cowboys have Defense. U are one sided.. and that's not a true sign of knowing

Off topic again...I really like you...please...please...please tell me you are not a Dallas fan.  Please. 

[balthazar]

32 minutes ago, A Horse With No Name said:

Stop building cars you are not passionate about. GM has not been passionate about small cars in its 60 plus year history of building them.  Corvair was a public relations disaster.

There's no way one can rightfully claim GM was 'not passionate' about an air-cooled, rear-engined full line of small cars AND trucks that introduced (along with the Olds Jetfire) now-ubitquitous turbochargers (and was one of the very early bucket seat cars too) to the market, and kept being marketed another 3 years past 1 book that was published in '65 and only succumbed to a changing market (musclecars). The 3rd generation had a ton of development work going before the project was shelved, so they didn't give up in '65, either. The Corvair may be the most passionate, dedicated small car project in history.

Edited November 30, 2018 by balthazar

[riviera74]

43 minutes ago, balthazar said:

There's no way one can rightfully claim GM was 'not passionate' about an air-cooled, rear-engined full line of small cars AND trucks that introduced (along with the Olds Jetfire) now-ubitquitous turbochargers (and was one of the very early bucket seat cars too) to the market, and kept being marketed another 3 years past 1 book that was published in '65 and only succumbed to a changing market (musclecars). The 3rd generation had a ton of development work going before the project was shelved, so they didn't give up in '65, either. The Corvair may be the most passionate, dedicated small car project in history.

Assuming that was so, explain the 1971 Chevy Vega.

[Robert Hall]

5 minutes ago, riviera74 said:

Assuming that was so, explain the 1971 Chevy Vega.

Or the '62 Chevy II Nova.   It was rushed to market since the Corvair wasn't cutting it, is what I've read.  The Corvair was an expensive failure for GM.  

Edited November 30, 2018 by Robert Hall

[ykX]

The fact that you guys talk about last "good" GM small cars from 60s and 70s says a lot.

At least Ford had Focus, Fiesta, Mondeo in Europe.

[David]

7 minutes ago, ykX said:

The fact that you guys talk about last "good" GM small cars from 60s and 70s says a lot.

At least Ford had Focus, Fiesta, Mondeo in Europe.

Do not forget their best one yet, the 1991 Escort GT, that was the best Ford built as it was Built by Mazda for Ford. Insurance industry went to task over the GT Pocket Rocket. That was a solid reliable long last car. Ford has gone down hill ever since they stopped that car and decided to build their crappy replacement.

[Cmicasa the Great]

1 hour ago, A Horse With No Name said:

Agree. 

I actually see this as a good thing in many ways. Stop building cars you are not passionate about. GM has not been passionate about small cars in its 60 plus year history of building them.  Saturn never made a dime for them. Corvair was a public relations disaster. Cavalier seems to have been un-sexy enough to induce involuntary celibacy into every owner who bought one, save one member here who owns one and has a son.  Cobalt lacked the styling and finesse of its competition. The current Cruze falls light years behind the Mazda 3, Civic, Golf, Imprezza, and Hundai offering. 

Off topic again...I really like you...please...please...please tell me you are not a Dallas fan.  Please. 

Me? I'm loyal to one.. 

[Robert Hall]

5 minutes ago, dfelt said:

Do not forget their best one yet, the 1991 Escort GT, that was the best Ford built as it was Built by Mazda for Ford. Insurance industry went to task over the GT Pocket Rocket. That was a solid reliable long last car. Ford has gone down hill ever since they stopped that car and decided to build their crappy replacement.

The performance versions of the current Focus and Fiesta (ST, RS) were highly regarded.   

[David]

I think GM not only knows what is best for them, but is doing the right thing in mothballing low utilization plants, moving where needed assembly line workers and reducing the thick layer of management so that they can be more reactive to the market.

One thing that the Tech industry has shown us is that the largest companies die if they stay fat and thick with mgmt and slow changing manufacturing. This is something DC does not understand.

GM should not have more than 8 or 9 levels from the assembly line worker to the CEO.

Dell Technology now as the biggest tech company now in the world, to stay nimble, they need thin mgmt. and lean manufacturing along with nibble engineering to quickly change to market conditions and I love knowing there is only 4 levels between me a worker bee Engineer and our CEO Micheal Dell.

GM will benefit big time with reduced white collar levels and faster nimble assembly on a global platform that does not require additional assembly sites to build the products.

I see problems coming for the German brands as they are fat with union labor, assembly plants that are under utilized and a socialist environment that will hinder change.

GM will be the American auto company along with Asians that will change to the market dynamics and survive.

I hope Ford survives, but I do not see it in it's current form. They have hard times ahead.

GM did the right things now!

5 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

The performance versions of the current Focus and Fiesta (ST, RS) were highly regarded.   

Yes they are highly regarded, but they also have some serious power train issues.

[Cmicasa the Great]

Corvair was awesome.. Especially the Spyder. Either way.. The Cobalt SS is still a car to run.. And my daughter's Cruze has been awesome and looks great. While I am cool with the current looks of the Cruze.. Her Cruze is much "sexier" and GM could have continued with the look for another 5. Hell the Verano's turbo power train would have fixed a lot of perception problems in it not having an SS model. 

[Robert Hall]

20 minutes ago, ykX said:

The fact that you guys talk about last "good" GM small cars from 60s and 70s says a lot.

At least Ford had Focus, Fiesta, Mondeo in Europe.

Yeah, with GM pretty much any small car they have had since the 70s has been unrelentingly mediocre...the Vega, the '80s-90s J-cars, etc.. the Cruze may have been decent, but it didn't seem to catch on in the market. 

Edited November 30, 2018 by Robert Hall

[David]

1 minute ago, Robert Hall said:

the Cruze may have been decent, but it didn't seem to catch on in the market. 

I truly believe auto's like the Cruze never had a chance with the poor marketing that GM has done for auto's. 

They seem to as is now clear with Cadillac advertise the hell out of a single auto. XT4 and then I doubt in a year we will hear anything about it. Mercedes-Benz and Kia coping them seems to understand the need to market the family of auto's and point out the performance, family hauler, date night, etc. cars in the family and start and end with an overview of the whole family of choices.

Why does GM not get this, XT4 can be the highlight, but why not show off the full family of CUV/SUV and give them all some lime light.

[frogger]

47 minutes ago, dfelt said:

Do not forget their best one yet, the 1991 Escort GT, that was the best Ford built as it was Built by Mazda for Ford. Insurance industry went to task over the GT Pocket Rocket. That was a solid reliable long last car. Ford has gone down hill ever since they stopped that car and decided to build their crappy replacement. 

I remember thinking how refined my driving instructor's Mazda 323 felt compared to my dad's Ciera in the late 80's.

 

[ccap41]

2 hours ago, A Horse With No Name said:

Off topic again...I really like you...please...please...please tell me you are not a Dallas fan.  Please. 

And I thought we butt heads on Ford... I'm a Dallas fan. 

[David]

1 minute ago, ccap41 said:

And I thought we butt heads on Ford... I'm a Dallas fan. 

@A Horse With No Name

So guys these things always come in 3's. Ford, Football and ??????????

Please we gotta know what your third disagreement is!  

[ccap41]

46 minutes ago, dfelt said:

Yes they are highly regarded, but they also have some serious power train issues.

What powertrain issues has the Fiesta ST had?  Or Focus ST? 

[David]

Just now, ccap41 said:

What powertrain issues has the Fiesta ST had?  Or Focus ST? 

Transmission issues from what I have read and gasket issues. As long as the gaskets are holding and the transmission has not gone loony the cars seem to drive well according to what I have read on forums and in the media.

[ccap41]

Just now, dfelt said:

Transmission issues from what I have read and gasket issues. As long as the gaskets are holding and the transmission has not gone loony the cars seem to drive well according to what I have read on forums and in the media.

The transmission issues were not on the ST cars and the gasket issue was RS only. 

[David]

3 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

The transmission issues were not on the ST cars and the gasket issue was RS only. 

OK, that is good to know, things can get confused on the various forums on how people post, so if that was it, then that is good to know.

Currently this forum where members have the Fiesta ST seem to have clutch issues, front mount inter-cooler issues and interior noises / rattles.

https://www.fiestast.org/forum/fiesta-st-discussions/4117-what-common-problems-issues-new-fiesta-st.html

Of course according to this site: http://www.fordproblems.com/models/fiesta/

Fiesta owners are having the most trouble with the transmission (52%), interior (8%), and the engine (7%).

Glad I do not have the Focus as it seems to have plenty of Transmission issues for the 2018 model year and there are lawsuit websites setup already.

http://2018fordfocustransmissionproblems.com/

Anyways, I hope that this helps secure GM's long term life as I think the plant closing and headcount reduction is the right thing to do. Ford should be doing this faster too as they really need to address that debt issue.

[ccap41]

14 minutes ago, dfelt said:

OK, that is good to know, things can get confused on the various forums on how people post, so if that was it, then that is good to know.

Currently this forum where members have the Fiesta ST seem to have clutch issues, front mount inter-cooler issues and interior noises / rattles.

Do you want me to go to any forum for any car and LOOK for issues? 

I could probably find issues with your Escalade if I went to a forum and looked for them. 

Yes, Ford is taking care of the buyers of past models, at least. They extended the warranty, if the issue isn't fixed after three visits to a dealership they buy it back, they cover towing and repairs on it.. big fck up to let it get to that point.