Behind the Scenes @ Chrysler Dealers [Archive] - Women's Cycling Discussion Forums

View Full Version : Behind the Scenes @ Chrysler Dealers

flash

05-29-2009, 07:01 AM

We've all heard about Chrysler's decisions to (quickly!) close selected dealers across the country, and while we've thought "that's sad", and "the economy doesn't need this right now", and other such things, most of us don't have a clue how dealers & manufacturers interact, so it's hard to understand who benefits or is hurt & how.

Think you've read enough? Consider this: How would you feel about being told that a business (or a portion of a business) that you had purchased, invested in (time & money), and made successful was being shifted to a competitor, without any form of compensation? And, oh yes, the inventory on your lot (which you have already paid for) cannot be returned & can no longer be sold as new, under the terms of the closures?

A friend forwarded this information to me (see below; (1) Letter from a Dodge dealer; (2) Memo with key points & gov't contact info; (3) Letter from a Jeep Dealer), and I would like to pass it on to you. I found it eyeopening, in terms of understanding the financial side of acquiring, maintaining, and losing a "car brand" dealership. Please take a moment to read the information below, and if you are concerned by what you see, please take one more minute to share your thoughts with the government representatives and agencies shown below. Thank you!
==================================================
May 19, 2009
Letter from a Dodge dealer
letter to the editor
My name is George C. Joseph. I am the sole owner of Sunshine Dodge-Isuzu, a family owned and operated business in Melbourne, Florida. My family bought and paid for this automobile franchise 35 years ago in 1974. I am the second generation to manage this business.
We currently employ 50+ people and before the economic slowdown we employed over 70 local people. We are active in the community and the local chamber of commerce. We deal with several dozen local vendors on a day to day basis and many more during a month. All depend on our business for part of their livelihood. We are financially strong with great respect in the market place and community. We have strong local presence and stability.

I work every day the store is open, nine to ten hours a day. I know most of our customers and all our employees. Sunshine Dodge is my life.

On Thursday, May 14, 2009 I was notified that my Dodge franchise, that we purchased, will be taken away from my family on June 9, 2009 without compensation and given to another dealer at no cost to them. My new vehicle inventory consists of 125 vehicles with a financed balance of 3 million dollars. This inventory becomes impossible to sell with no factory incentives beyond June 9, 2009. Without the Dodge franchise we can no longer sell a new Dodge as "new," nor will we be able to do any warranty service work. Additionally, my Dodge parts inventory, (approximately $300,000.) is virtually worthless without the ability to perform warranty service. There is no offer from Chrysler to buy back the vehicles or parts inventory.

Our facility was recently totally renovated at Chrysler's insistence, incurring a multi-million dollar debt in the form of a mortgage at Sun Trust Bank.

HOW IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CAN THIS HAPPEN?

THIS IS A PRIVATE BUSINESS NOT A GOVERNMENT ENTITY

This is beyond imagination! My business is being stolen from me through NO FAULT OF OUR OWN. We did NOTHING wrong.

This atrocity will most likely force my family into bankruptcy. This will also cause our 50+ employees to be unemployed. How will they provide for their families? This is a total economic disaster.

HOW CAN THIS HAPPEN IN A FREE MARKET ECONOMY IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

I beseech your help, and look forward to your reply. Thank you.

Sincerely,

George C. Joseph
President & Owner
Sunshine Dodge-Isuzu

========================================================
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: ALL PARTICIPATING AFFECTED DEALERS
FROM: THE COMMITTEE OF CHRYSLER AFFECTED DEALERS
DATE: MAY 23, 2009
________________________________________________________________
URGENT ACTION REQUIRED
In light of the fast-moving events of the past week, as well as critical hearings scheduled to take place before the Bankruptcy Court in the upcoming week, please read carefully the following bulletin from Committee of Chrysler Affected Dealers (the “Committee”).
I. CONTACT YOUR GOVERNMENT AND REPRESENTATIVES
• The Committee urgently requests that ALL Affected Dealers and your families, employees, customers, friends and others, contact by email, telephone or fax all of the parties listed below and urge them to support the Committee in its efforts on behalf of the Affected Dealers. Everyone needs to demand that the rights of the Affected Dealers be protected and enforced and that Chrysler’s efforts to terminate dealer franchises be stopped immediately.

• For your convenience, we have included certain suggested “talking points” as well as some relevant contact information. Specifically, your elected leaders and representatives need to be made aware of the following key points impacting not only the Affected Dealers, but all 50 States, the local communities and consumers served by the Affected Dealers and the economy in general:

o “Right-sizing” (Chrysler’s term for closing dealerships) is a deceptively benign term for an act which will have devastating and wholly unnecessary consequences. With a lifetime of work spent building our businesses, and with our life savings invested in them, we, the Affected Dealers, will be robbed of our businesses and financially ruined. Our dealership employees and their families are facing financial ruin as well. As any community organizer will tell you, local community budgets will suffer, as will the local charities. The actions by Chrysler are unfair and unwarranted. The criteria by which Chrysler determined who would survive and who would not are murky at best, and to effectively end our businesses on essentially three weeks’ notice is a callous and reckless act without regard to the toll of human and financial wreckage that is left behind.

o Reducing the number of dealers does not in any way save Chrysler money. It costs them money. Moreover, the dealers, not Chrysler, have put untold amounts of our own money into these dealerships. For Chrysler to successfully come out of bankruptcy, it will depend on a large distribution network to purchase and sell its vehicles. The dealers are really Chrysler’s biggest customers. The more customers, the more sales. If a bigger dealer knows there are not a lot of dealers with whom to compete, competition suffers, and the consumer loses.

o Chrysler, with the approval of the U.S. Government and the Auto Task Force, is asking the Bankruptcy Court to ignore the laws of all 50 states that were enacted to protect us, the dealers, from termination without compensation, a blatant and utter disregard for both the law and the well being of those they were enacted to protect.

o Instead of allowing the free market to determine which dealers survive, Chrysler and the Government are effectively playing the roles of judge, jury and executioner, and these unwarranted terminations are going to unjustifiably destroy businesses and exact a high personal toll on not only businesses, but also individuals who may be forced into personal bankruptcy as a result.

Below please find contact information and website links for many of those who need to be contacted in order to enable the collective voice of the Affected Dealers to be heard -- the Committee urges you to act TODAY by contacting your elected representatives and others to explain how devastating Chrysler’s actions will be for dealer and their families, employees and communities:

• President Obama and Vice President Biden:

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
Fax: (202) 456-2461
Email: www.whitehouse.gov/contact

• Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner:

Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20220
General Information: (202) 622-2000
Fax: (202) 622-6415
Email: timothy.geithner@do.treas.gov

• Labor Secretary Hilda Solis:

U.S. Department of Labor
200 Constitution Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20210
(202) 693-6000
National Toll-Free Contact Center. Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time by calling, 1-866-4-USA-DOL, TTY: 1-877-889-5627

• Automotive Task Force:

Matthew Feldman, counsel to the Automotive Task Force
Email: matthew.feldman@do.treas.gov

• U.S. Senate:

Locate your U.S. Senators at:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

• U.S. House of Representatives:

Locate your U.S. House Representative at:
https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

• Locate your Governor at:

www.usa.gov/Contact/Governors.shtml

• Locate your State Attorney General at:

www.naag.org

=============================================
From: Amy Krone <>
Date: May 27, 2009 12:53:37 PM GMT-04:00
To: senator@stabenow.senate.gov
Subject: Chrysler Dealer Closures

May 27, 2009

Dear Senator Stabenow,

I am writing to you to request your help in urging the President to stop Chrysler’s efforts to terminate dealerships and to revisit the Chrysler plan. I do not believe that what is occurring is what our Government intended, and I do not believe that the Auto Task Force made its decisions with full and accurate information at its disposal. A huge injustice is taking place under the guise of cost cutting to save Chrysler and GM, and it is happening far too quickly to have been well researched.

Chrysler is using this unprecedented point in history and the cover of bankruptcy to push a corporate agenda that has nothing to do with making them a stronger company or reducing their expense structure. They have long wanted to merge their three brands under one roof compelling dealers to build them separate facilities and have worked diligently for the past 10 or more years to do so.

Please look hard at Chrysler’s argument that dealers cost them money. It is not true. Reducing the number of dealers does not in any way save Chrysler money. It costs them money. Were it up to manufacturers there would be even more dealers – hence state franchise laws. Dealers are their biggest customers. Dealers purchase their vehicles and parts. The more dealers they have, the more customers they have, and for Chrysler to successfully come out of bankruptcy, it will depend on a large distribution network to purchase and sell its vehicles. Dealers own their own buildings, rent the manufacturer signs, rent the manufacturer computer systems, pay for training (most of which is web-based so the more dealers they have paying for it, the more the manufacturers’ development expenses are defrayed), pay for marketing materials and brochures, purchase their own special tools, and pay their own people. The manufacturer makes money if a dealer never retails even one vehicle to a customer. Manufacturers hold no stake in dealership companies or facilities and pass on to dealers all of the expenses involved in conducting business with them, and even mark the expenses up for profit.

The personnel Chrysler claims to need more of in order to serve more dealers are often telephone reps whose job it is to sell product to dealers (cars, parts, etc.). They are not essential personnel, as dealers use the computer systems they pay for in order to place these orders themselves as they need product. They are the equivalent of commissioned sales representatives. If asked, the manufacturers could not ever show you any evidence that dealers cost them money. When Chrysler was in dire financial trouble they asked dealers to order cars in order to keep the factory going and the company solvent. Many dealers assisted them. Dealers have played absolutely no role in Chrysler’s current problems – the fault does not lie with the dealers. The only people hurt by fewer dealers will be the customers, who will have fewer options and, with less competition, will pay more for the product and the employees of the many small businesses that will be forced to downsize or close.
This closure of dealerships, if allowed, will cause the loss of tens of thousands of jobs due to the downsizing or shuttering of many small businesses (dealers). And it will save Chrysler and GM nothing in terms of costs. It will have allowed Chrysler to shift franchises from one dealer to another in order to force construction of their facilities. Chrysler knows that closing points is not in their best interest. They are working under this guise to keep the same representation they have always had – just shifting ownership from two or three individuals to one. In the process closing businesses and costing jobs; stealing franchises that dealers paid for and operated profitably and giving them to someone else without any payment or legal recourse.

Chrysler, with the approval of the U. S. Government and the Auto Task Force is asking the bankruptcy court to ignore the laws of all 50 states that were enacted to protect dealers from termination without compensation, a blatant and utter disregard for both the law and the well-being of those they were enacted to protect.

What is occurring is wrong. Instead of allowing the free-market to determine which dealers survive, Chrysler and the Government are effectively playing the roles of judge, jury, and executioner, and these unwarranted terminations are going to unjustifiably harm or destroy small businesses and exact a high personal toll on individuals, as well.

“Right-sizing” is a deceptively benign term for an act that will have devastating and wholly unnecessary consequences. Taking franchises owned by dealers, who have purchased these franchises, spent a lifetime of work building these businesses, invested life savings in them, and operated them profitably and giving them to someone else or closing them altogether without having to work within the law to do so is simply theft. Dealers will be robbed of their businesses and, in many cases, financially ruined. Many of the employees that will necessarily be laid off will face financial ruin, as well. Ultimately, with the closure of 789 Chrysler dealers, many small businesses will be harmed, tens of thousands of jobs will be cut, small business owners will have seen their companies stolen from them and given to someone else and Chrysler will not have saved a dime. The actions by Chrysler are unfair and unwarranted, and the criteria by which Chrysler determined who would survive and who would not are murky at best.

To effectively end small businesses on essentially three weeks’ notice is a callous and reckless act. The speed at which this “right-sizing” is being attempted further suggests that Chrysler knows its actions are wrong and is hoping to enact them before the Government realizes the mistake and stops the action.

Please protect our rights. Please stop this from happening at speed, without some due diligence being performed before decisions of this magnitude are finalized. The stakes are too huge and too important and the effects too devastating and far-reaching to be rushed into. The fact that laws could be set aside and it could occur at all is unbelievable in our country. The fact that dealers, small business owners, could then be left with the huge financial liability of product that they no longer have the franchise to sell is unfathomable. How can there be any argument at all for terminating a small business that is profitable, pays its taxes, and creates jobs and pays for its own existence? Additionally, how can there be any argument for then giving that business to someone else? Finally, how can there be any justification for taking that business, giving it to someone else, and not paying a dime for its value?

Please protect us from having the franchise we paid for and operate profitably taken from us without reason, without payment, and without any legal oversight or recourse and for no valid business purpose. Please protect the thousands of dealership employees who will lose their jobs needlessly and without changing the cost structure of Chrysler or GM in the slightest. Please take the time to deeply delve into these issues before closing small businesses across the country for no valid reason.

I know the administration is supportive of small business, and I am certain that if the facts were understood this would not be allowed. Please do not let these companies misrepresent the facts and use this terrible situation to push agendas that have nothing to do with bankruptcy, costs, or their own viability. Please do not let them take advantage of this window in time where laws are suspended in order to take these grossly unjust actions that could never, ever have been legally undertaken.

Finally, I know it is probably hard to find thirty free minutes in your day, but the link below to Greta Van Susteren’s interview of car dealer Jack Fitzgerald is very informative. She interviewed a long-time auto dealer who did a great job illustrating the facts and outlining the true situation. Even though you may wonder if Mr. Fitzgerald and I are a bit biased as we are both dealers who have had our franchises slated for termination by Chrysler, I hope you will take the time to watch this interview – it is well worth it, and I believe the views and facts he espouses would be supported by dealers throughout our country, whether or not they are on the list to be terminated as dealers.

The link is:
http://gretawire.foxnews.com/2009/05/20/the-full-interview-with-jack-fitzgerald/

Thank you very much, Senator, for taking the time to consider my request.

Sincerely,

Amy Hayes Krone
General Manager/Owner
Orrin B. Hayes, Inc. Jeep-Mazda-Mercedes-Benz
Kalamazoo, MI

beccaB

05-29-2009, 07:37 AM

What I want to know is- why would a person want to drive 45 minutes away to purchase a Chrysler if the corporation has closed the local dealership? I live in Jackson, and I am not going to go to Lansing or Ann Arbor to buy a vehicle. I thought the small town dealerships were supposed to stay open.The small towns are where the people live who drive Chryslers and Dodges. This is a very bad decision on the part of the government and/or the corporation.

Irulan

05-29-2009, 08:12 AM

I'm curious, does your family own a dealership or do you work for one?

I'd like to see an analysis of the franchise contracts. These kinds of actions cannot be a total surprise.

I think that if a franchise owner is truly surprised by all of this they are living with their heads in the sand. They have been sellling a brand that has been on it's way down for years. How could they not be aware that the quality ratings on Chrylser are very low? That oil is going up, not down? That perceived climate issues are affecting the kinds of cars people buy?

Any business person with good sense would be looking 5-10-20 years down the line and perhaps think to themselves, "you know, I bet we can't sell Hummers and large SUVs forever. What are our options"? Or perhaps, "you know, this company is just not profitable". Or " you know, Chrysler vehicles are consistently in bottom rankings of Consumer Reports quality", maybe we should look at selling the dealership before it gets really bad.

I agree that lots of people losing their jobs is really unfortunate, incredibly unfortunate. But the market also needs correction. There are very few companies that can sell an inappropriate product and carry lots of debt on their own, and survive.

I'll put my flameproof undies on now.

Biciclista

05-29-2009, 08:27 AM

Irulan, I agree with you. I've been driving a 1991 Honda for 10 years now because car manufacturers couldn't be bothered to produce a car with gas mileage as good as I'm getting unless they could charge a fortune for it (Like a Prius).
Why buy a new car if the old one runs well and gets better gas mileage? I've seen a slight movement towards producing more efficient cars in the last couple years...
Only in the USA do we say "the government ought to do something about this - about every little thing"
and then say "cut government spending!!" or "this is socialism" when we the people mention that health care for all would be good for our children.

you just can't have it both ways. Why didn't Chrysler come up with cute little low gas mileage vehicle? WHY on earth did they put so much advertising and funds into HUMMERS? is that not the most repulsive recreation vehicle ever made? I see people driving it to and from work every day, stopped on the freeway, belching carbon dioxide, monoxide and whatever else, with one little tiny person inside. Kind of makes me sick.

So, yes, I think it's sad that car dealers are getting the shaft from Manufacturers, but if it's illegal, there will be a class action law suit and the lawyers will win and the dealers will get some satisfaction.

Irulan

05-29-2009, 08:54 AM

I bought a new car last year. What I really wanted was a cute, high mileage WAGON, not too spendy, nice trim level. Right. Remember the old Corrola and Civic wagons? I was really hoping for an updated version but I ended up having to "settle". I'll spare you all the detaills; I've listed them in other threads.

flash

05-29-2009, 08:58 AM

Hiya! Great question. No, I don't work for or have any affiliation (family, business interest, etc.) with auto manufacturers or dealers.

My interest / concern here surrounds the decision & the way it is implemented. As I see it, IF the rushed & forced closures ARE illegal, then a class action suit and a court decision delivered years from now doesn't help anyone (dealers, communities, etc.).

Love the heated discussion ... this is going to be an interesting one :)

PamNY

05-29-2009, 09:16 AM

"Chrysler is able under bankruptcy to cancel franchise agreements with its dealers" at least according to this (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/01/business/01primer.html) primer in the New York Times.

A lot has been written about this; if you Google "Chrysler bankruptcy dealership contract" or similar you will find it. My amateur understanding is that bankruptcy changes things, and contracts or franchise agreements that Chrysler had with dealerships (or anyone else) can and probably will be altered by the bankruptcy court.

Pam

Tri Girl

05-29-2009, 09:34 AM

Irulan- I'll have to put my fireproof undies on with you here. Biciclista- you have it dead on: you can't have it both ways. Govt. bail us out, but then that's socialism, but we can't survive without govt. intervention. Which is it?

I have absolutely NO sympathy for the large car manufacturers. They've done this to themselves with years of so-so cars and their refusal to make cares more efficient. This is the life cycle of business: you produce crappy products- you go out of business. Then they complain and want govt. money, but when the govt. makes them be accountable and wants them to show what they'll do with our money (ahem: unlike the first 750 billion given out last fall), they just decide to go into bankruptcy and put thousands out of work. They are selfish and irresponsible. They are crooks and cowards. When UAW make anywhere from $60-80/hr (from diff. things I've read), and CEO's make billions- they have put themselves in this position.

OTOH: I have tremendous sympathy for the hundreds of small dealerships that are being disenfranchised and put under by the big corp. They are the ones who will hurt. Their communities will hurt. It's unfair for the small dealerships, and it pains me to see a family business go under because of a corrupt/irresponsible larger corporation.

tulip

05-29-2009, 09:38 AM

In my former job, I had to travel alot and rent alot of cars. I found the Chryslers to be by far the most comfortable of rental cars (the Chevy Impala is the WORST). However, I would never buy one. The two smaller cars by Chrysler are/were the Dodge Neon, which was/is a cheap little piece of cr*p, and the Pontiac Vibe, which isn't so bad because it's actually a Toyota Matrix. I actually considered buying on a few years back when I had to buy a car.

Like Irulan, I wanted a small, efficient wagon, and the pickin's were slim. Toyota Matrix/Pontiac Vibe fit the bill, as did the Mazda 3, VW Jetta Wagon, and VW Rabbit. The Honda Fit had not yet come out in the US at the time. I ended up with the VW Rabbit and I'm oh-so-pleased with it, although there's no excuse for it not being a hybrid diesel. Lucky for me, I work from home and don't drive too much.

With the exception of the Vibe, none of the American car companies made any car that I would consider even considering to buy. Not one.

While I don't wish misfortune on anyone, the dealers were part of the problem. Only the lawyers and accountants will end up winners in this ordeal, although maybe we'll end up with some of the very fuel-efficient and much-better-than-the-70s hatchbacks that Fiat has to offer.

Biciclista

05-29-2009, 09:45 AM

Tri Girl

05-29-2009, 10:13 AM

PS UAW workers don't make 60-80 an hour

According to the Indianapolis Star:
Base wages average about $28 an hour. GM officials say the average reaches $39.68 an hour, including base pay, cost-of-living adjustments, night-shift premiums, overtime, holiday and vacation pay. Health-care, pension and other benefits average another $33.58 an hour, GM says. - September 26, 2007 UNITED AUTO WORKERS OFF THE JOB, Striking back at globalization. By Ted Evanoff

Thank you for proving me wrong. I had read late last year an article online stating that they made that type of money. It was on a major news website (can't remember which one). I had false information.
Ok- so the CEO's are the ones I can be hateful toward with their outrageous salaries now. ;)
I'm glad you posted that.

Irulan

05-29-2009, 10:38 AM

Biciclista

05-29-2009, 11:32 AM

Thank you for proving me wrong. I had read late last year an article online stating that they made that type of money. It was on a major news website (can't remember which one). I had false information.
Ok- so the CEO's are the ones I can be hateful toward with their outrageous salaries now. ;)
I'm glad you posted that.

It's the same way where I work. Our factory workers are demonized by the press for demanding health benefits and cost of living pay raises, but the execs are getting salaries in the millions coupled by bonuses and dividends. These guys just do NOT do that much more for the company to make them worth 100 of me.

smilingcat

05-29-2009, 11:36 AM

Well for what its worth, Chrysler bankrupcy seems to have hit a snag. The disenfranchised dealers are making abig stink. Indiana state pension is making a big stink.

When the CEO was asked about the cost saving by scuttling nearly 800? dealers, the CEO had no clue. A very bad answer.

What's really amazing to me is that Toyota has managed to squirrel away over $110 billion into the bank. I knew they were scrooge and I really hate their kind of corporate culture but you do have to wonder how Toyota manages to have a big fat piggy bank while GM is in debt to the tune of $60billion.

And why do GM, FORD and Chrysler insists on building the dinasours? The big three had to be dragged, kicking and screaming to install collapsable steering column, safety glass for windows, seat belts, airbags, catalytic converter... Other manufacturers just said ok.

And frankly, the design shop for the big three have no vision of design. Look at the Itallians, Germans, Scandanvians, English and even Japanese. Japanese perspective of the world is so different than the western culture so you would think that their design would not appeal to us ... but the Japanese have set up a design house here in California and staffed by Californians who have the california vision. Why doesn't the big three follow suit.

As for the dealers who are getting the raw end of the deal, I really do feel bad for them. And at the same time, don't you think they should have been paying attention to their sole source, Chyrsler and its financial status and thought about an exit strategy...

In bankrupcy, interested parties get the short end of the stick. Dealers are getting it big time. Very sad.

I'm thinking of my own exit strategy, I've taken nearly 20% pay cut. And will be expecting to see more lay offs. I also see mandatory shutdown days without pay over the July 4 holiday (2 weeks), labor day (2 weeks), Thanksgiving (2 weeks) and maybe all of december. Our balance sheet is looking very weak. Our bookings and potential bookings are just not there. Our book to bill ratio is well under 1.0 (company is shrinking/losing business). Things are not happening. I have no program to manage :( I have become a burden to the company not an asset. At my age this is very bad. Rather than waiting, I'm doing something about it.

my mortgate has less than 9 years left. But I may refi for 30 years to reduce monthly mortgage in case I lose my job. Reduce my monthly burn-rate reduce monthly burn rate in excess $1500/month.
not taking any vacation. Accrue as much as possible so that it gives me additional money when I do lose my job.
maintain my zero balance on credit card. I have a COSTCO AMEX, and have Visa as a backup.
have stocked up so we have maybe 6 month supply of food ... If I lose my job, we can live off our stored supply for that long without having to go shopping. just minimal shopping.
digging up my business contacts and renewing them. But then again we are all in the same boat.
thinking of alternate path. Rent my house out and move to a cheaper locale. positive cash flow on my house.
or sell my house and take early retirement.

yes bit worried.

Mr. Bloom

05-29-2009, 03:25 PM

I've not read all the posts...but there's more to it. Being in banking for 25 years, I do know many dealers in the industry affected by this.

First: The franchise agreement is cancelable. Period. Always has been...and the dealers knew it when they "bought" (better word is "were granted") it.

Second: Factors affecting the choices: CUSTOMER SERVICE ratings, volume, conformity to brand requirements, focus (are they multibrand or single), etc.

Third: Chyrsler has ONLY FOUR MODELS in their '09 line up. This is no longer a full brand company...and hasn't been for years.

Fourth: Any car dealer worth their salt started reducing inventory MONTHS ago. The fact that this guy has 125 on his lot strikes me as contrary to sound business judgement in the current environment...unless he is a high volume/high customer satisfaction dealer...and if he was...he wouldn't have gotten the ax.

My heart's not bleeding (and I'm generally a compassionate person...)

PS UAW workers don't make 60-80 an hour

According to the Indianapolis Star:
Base wages average about $28 an hour. GM officials say the average reaches $39.68 an hour, including base pay, cost-of-living adjustments, night-shift premiums, overtime, holiday and vacation pay. Health-care, pension and other benefits average another $33.58 an hour, GM says. - September 26, 2007 UNITED AUTO WORKERS OFF THE JOB, Striking back at globalization. By Ted Evanoff

Ah, but Mimi, don't forget the "Job Bank" as well.

Eden

05-29-2009, 05:23 PM

PS UAW workers don't make 60-80 an hour

According to the Indianapolis Star:
Base wages average about $28 an hour. GM officials say the average reaches $39.68 an hour, including base pay, cost-of-living adjustments, night-shift premiums, overtime, holiday and vacation pay. Health-care, pension and other benefits average another $33.58 an hour, GM says. - September 26, 2007 UNITED AUTO WORKERS OFF THE JOB, Striking back at globalization. By Ted Evanoff

umm 28 + 33 does equal 61, so its not so off base, but from what I understand there is a bit of misinformation out there that comes from the auto makers.... who often quote the average salary of their employees based on their salaries, their benefits and the benefits that they are still paying retirees.

myjas

05-29-2009, 07:23 PM

I am UAW here and do not make 60-80 an hour. That figure is with benefits and anything else companies have to pay for us.

beth h

05-30-2009, 08:14 AM

While I think that thousands of autoworkers losing their jobs is awful, I can't pretend I'm shocked about any of this.

We all have the ability to make choices in our lives: how and where to live and what to do for a living, and how we get around.

I have lived car-free for nearly 20 years. I have watched the high cost of driving continue to be subsidized (and therefore largely camouflaged) by government. Instead I would prefer that the government began subsidizing mass transit, mixed-income housing and job re-training, smart-growth and urban density, and smaller, more localized economies of scale for everyone. We don't need McMansions OR McCars. What we DO need is more community, and perhaps the beginning of the end of car culture is key to developing that for everyone.

We saw (or should have seen) this collapse coming for decades. Those of us who already live closer to the ground simply won't have as far to fall. Those who fall farther will need more help to adapt. Instead of putting off the inevitable, let's help those who are falling learn the new skills and mindset they'll need to help them transition to a simpler, more localized life that the end of car culture really means. Teach community gardening; barter; scavenging, recycling/repurposing and creating as alternatives to constant consumerism. Teach the laid-off auto workers new skills and put them to work rebuilding our crumbling inner cities and improving transit-bike-pedestrian travel in them. Elevate teachers to their rightful place of respect and rebuild the schools as smaller, leaner, more independently-functioning institutions that answer to their local communities. Utilize parent-teacher-COMMUNITY partnerships to give our kids the skills they'll REALLY need to adapt to a changing world: creative, independent thinking, conflict resolution and teamwork, and the ability -- and WILLINGNESS -- to live on less.

Meanwhile, the powers-that-be at the Big Three get NO sympathy from me. The bloated, consumerist way of life their industry represents is part of the past, not the future.

ilima

05-31-2009, 11:31 PM

From stories I've heard and read dealers were placed under very heavy pressure to buy a bunch of inventory in recent months. And it was implied that this would ensure that the dealership would not be axed.

Something smells really rotten about the way Chrysler executives operated.

I hope that those dealerships sue over broken verbal contracts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/23/business/23dealers.html?ref=business

http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/autos/article1005012.ece

http://www.bradenton.com/business/story/1465372.html

And just a general comment about wages because it's been mentioned several times on the thread. The $60-80 per hour that's been floating around the media is how much the big three are paying in total towards worker costs divided by the total number of active workers. That includes retirement, health care, etc.

Importantly, all the benefits and healthcare costs of retirees go into this number that's made to sound like active (not retired) workers are making a ton of money. friend of mine is from Detroit and her grandfather is a retired autoworker. She remarked that he's been retired for longer than he worked. I'm sure there are more retired autoworkers in Detroit than there are active workers.

People are living longer and as they get older their health care costs are going to go up. The Japanese companies haven't been in the US that long, so they don't have that many retired workers, so that's why their costs per worker appear lower. In reality, the pay at Japanese-owned factories is only a couple of bucks an hour less than the UAW-Detroit hourly wage averages (e.g. $26 vs. $28 an hour). A good illustration of how healthcare costs are really dragging this country down.

Some links about the mythical $70/hour UAW worker:

http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200812150003

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=1026e955-541c-4aa6-bcf2-56dfc3323682

Tri Girl

06-01-2009, 07:40 AM

All employers pad your salary with benefits and all. I really make about 5K more than I bring home in benefits, but it's not what I make.

I'm jealous no matter if it's $28 or $60. As a teacher, I only make $18/hr once it's all averaged out for 40 hrs a week over a 10 month school year (it would be less if I actually figured in how many hours I work a week because it's definitely more than 40). ;)

But I know there are people out there that would be jealous of my $18/hr so I don't complain. We all chose our line of work and think we should make more than we do, right? :)

TxDoc

06-01-2009, 08:44 AM

First: The franchise agreement is cancelable. Period. Always has been...and the dealers knew it when they "bought" (better word is "were granted") it.

Second: Factors affecting the choices: CUSTOMER SERVICE ratings, volume, conformity to brand requirements, focus (are they multibrand or single), etc.

Third: Chyrsler has ONLY FOUR MODELS in their '09 line up. This is no longer a full brand company...and hasn't been for years.

Fourth: Any car dealer worth their salt started reducing inventory MONTHS ago. The fact that this guy has 125 on his lot strikes me as contrary to sound business judgement in the current environment...unless he is a high volume/high customer satisfaction dealer...and if he was...he wouldn't have gotten the ax.

My heart's not bleeding (and I'm generally a compassionate person...)

Yep, +1, I am with Mr. Silver here.
And by the way, I currently do drive a Chrysler, which I am very happy with regardless that it gulps down a gallon for like 17 miles!

Mr. Bloom

06-01-2009, 07:28 PM

I am UAW here and do not make 60-80 an hour. That figure is with benefits and anything else companies have to pay for us.

myjas, it all counts.
I'm an executive officer in my company and last year, the value of my compensation was 90% salary and 10% benefits (bonus was $0 because it is tied to a high level of profitability even though my workload has never been heavier)...and on top of that:
- between copays and premiums, I pay most of my health coverage
- there is NO PENSION or Retiree Health Care to look forward to
- I'm paid the same whether I work 40 hours/week or 60 hours/week...and the latter is more the norm...and
- I never get to turn it off because when you have employees and families relying on you to make good decisions for everyone's mutual benefit and security, well, you care and wind up being on 24 hour call.

Don't misunderstand, I'm not complaining, but I'm simply pointing out that it is the entire package that creates value, not just the hourly wage...

ilima

06-01-2009, 07:58 PM

myjas, it all counts.
I'm an executive officer in my company and last year, the value of my compensation was 90% salary and 10% benefits (bonus was $0 because it is tied to a high level of profitability even though my workload has never been heavier)...and on top of that:
- between copays and premiums, I pay most of my health coverage
- there is NO PENSION or Retiree Health Care to look forward to
- I'm paid the same whether I work 40 hours/week or 60 hours/week...and the latter is more the norm...and
- I never get to turn it off because when you have employees and families relying on you to make good decisions for everyone's mutual benefit and security, well, you care and wind up being on 24 hour call.

Don't misunderstand, I'm not complaining, but I'm simply pointing out that it is the entire package that creates value, not just the hourly wage...

Even factoring in bennies, active workers aren't getting that much. The $60-80 was a bogus number that has been repeated over and over.

smilingcat

06-01-2009, 09:34 PM

Well I am not sure what the total compensation the hourly workers get. Yest there are hidden cost that employees do not see nor understand.

But I don't think this is the whole problem at the big three. I have other gripes about the big three. and we should not focus on the hourly workers total compensation. That is NOT ALL THE PROBLEM. Don't blame wholely on the hourly workers!

Poor management.
A. Failed to upgrade their production facility while the rest of the world continuously upgraded the factory. VW group, even Porche, the Koreans and the Japanese have made tremendous strides in factory operation.

B. Not keeping up with the trend and changes in style, taste and features. Why is it that the big three have to bring back old dead models as new?

C. Failing to adopt new technology that consumers demand.

D. lack of vision of where things are headed. We started the car industry we are the leaders!! That's what they want to think. WRONG!! Europeans and the Japanese are so far ahead in all areas, the big three need to go learn from them. Case in point CAFE standard. its a pretty much a laughing stock for US. By the time we get there in 2012 was it? the Europeans and the Japanese are already surpassing those numbers. And they will be past 40MPG. Europeans have a higher MPG than even the Japanese.

D. biggest failure is failure to meet customer expectation. Quality, reliability.

----------

Back when Honda introduced the Honda CVCC, I had a chance to ask one of the engineers at **** an interesting question. "What do you think of the stratified cumbustion system being developed and used by Honda? They claim they do not need a catalytic converter to meet the emission standard." The reply I got was "Well young lady, you are blah blah blah... Its lot more complicated problem than you could possibly understand. blah blah blah..." I thought he was full of it, so patronizing. I saw some released CVCC engine data performance. Oh it didn't help I'm Japanese. BTW, honda CVCC did not use a catalytic converter nor an air pump and still met the emission standards back in the '70s. The cost saving of not having the converter allowed them to sell the car at much lower price point than Chrysler, GM or Ford. Why do you think they were so popular. It also helped too that they went after a market segment ignored by the big three, WOMEN. And they cleaned up.

State of the art cars without doubt is the formula one grand prix cars. Not NASCARS not INDY cars. INDY cars are bigger than the Formula cars. The technology in the formula race cars are unbelievable. Lotus in UK, Ferrai from Italy, Jaguar, Merceds, BMW, Honda and even Toyota are all involved. Not GM nor Chrysler. Because they are not up to snuff.

Lotus have the best active suspension system. They sell their development system to GM to help GM develop better suspension systems.

Honda's engine development is by far the best of the group. The race engines are equipped with all sorts of sensors to gather performance data and transmitted via satellite to Honda headquarters at each and every race, real time as the race progress. Aerodynamics of the cars, computer sequenced gear shifting, computer sequenced engine control and gear shifting from standing start (both outlawed in formula racing), active anti lock control, active traction control are all far more advanced than anything GM or Chrysler can do or know how to do. The carbon-carbon braking system technology is beyond the means for GM and Chrysler. BMW, Ferrai, McLaren, ... all have years of experience with it. The pads and the rotors of these brake run just fine at 800-1000F. They are so hot they glow with bright orange color.

Oh Audi is also heavily involved too. The classification of their race cars keeps changing Proto 1 and 2... the cars you see in LeMans 24 hour race. yeahhhh those cars can hit over 240MPH. Jaguar XJ220 AVERAGED 208MPH speed at a race track in Belgium (failed to meet the 220MPH design goal) . And that was a "production" car you could buy for cool $1USD million. And yes you can drive that car legally on American street up to 3000 miles per year. DOT limit on super cars (other restictions apply).

And why can't GM and Chrysler do this. Is it the failure of the workers? no. Failure is complacency on the management and failure to recognize the technological advancement being made on the cars and FACTORY OPERATION. Even a simple concept as "just in time production". They simply did not keep up. The upper management should all be replaced!! And the corporate culture NEEDS A MAJOR OVERHAUL. NEVER UNDERESTIMATE YOUR COMPETITION OR BE SO D&^% DISMISSIVE!!

Sorry for being long winded. It just irks me to no end to simply blame the hourly workers. They do what they are told and do it well. Buf if the marching order is well...

Mr. Bloom

06-02-2009, 12:36 AM

That is NOT ALL THE PROBLEM. Don't blame wholely on the hourly workers!

You're right and I was wrong to imply that in my forceful response.

ilima

06-02-2009, 12:50 AM

It's been suggested that the US's domination of the auto market for many decades from the 1950s onward was largely the product of the manufacturing abilities of Japan and Germany being decimated by WWII.

My parents bought their first Japanese car (a Toyota Corolla) in 1980. It had front wheel drive, which was good for driving in the snow, and it got good gas mileage because it was small. These were two things you just couldn't get in a US-made automobile at the time.

You are right, smilingcat, that the problems with Detroit start at the top, not at the bottom with the workers. I don't think it's wrong for people to expect decent wages and benefits for an honest day's work. When I was growing up a blue-collar worker could buy a house in a good school district and provide a nice but not extravagant lifestyle for his family. That's the way it should be and we shouldn't be hatin' on Detroit autoworkers for expecting that.

andtckrtoo

06-02-2009, 06:18 AM

I've long been a BUY AMERICAN enthusiast for cars. I've had GMC's, Jeeps, Dodge's, Chrysler... (I love cars). Our daughter went to college and wanted a Honda Accord (used, of course). The car had 56k miles on it, she's driven it for 2 years now (it has 75k on it - and those were not easy miles - she's 20) and it is still going strong. We never have to worry about her breaking down somewhere because it's a Honda.

A few years before DD got the Honda, we bought a new 2004 GMC Envoy. By the time we had 40k miles on it, we had to replace the gas gauge (and yes, we did run out of gas on a late Friday night because of the faulty gauge - not a fun night), a power window, a transmission, and the brakes - and 2 batteries.

We now have a used Lexus RX350 (DH's car - he likes SUV's - but this one gets better gas mileage than the Envoy ever did), and a used Honda Accord Hybrid (which is more of a sports car than a true Hybrid, but I still get better gas mileage and I have a ton of power!). I don't have to buy new because I know the car will still last no matter how it was driven. So I get more car for the same price and it lasts longer.

It will take me A LOT to go back to an American car.

Forget the worker's salaries. The reason the Big 3 are doing so poorly is because their cars are not quality. When I can have a car with 100k miles (a friend finally traded her Subaru when it had 250,000 HARD miles on it - she climbs 14,000 foot mountains and that car took her up a lot of those - she hated to do it because it still ran well, but she decided it was time) on it that is still going strong and is very reliable, why would I buy a car that will fall apart before it hits 40k miles?

shootingstar

06-02-2009, 06:45 AM

Tuckervill

06-02-2009, 09:10 AM

The car had 56k miles on it, she's driven it for 2 years now (it has 75k on it - and those were not easy miles - she's 20) and it is still going strong.

That's nuthin'. Especially for a Honda. I have a '07 Honda Element with 76k miles on it already. :eek:

When we buy trucks, we buy Fords. Everything else has been Toyota or Honda. I will never buy a GM, Chrysler or Ford car. I just like the intuitive nature of the design of the Hondas.

I think it's interesting that Ford is not in the news like GM and Chrysler are. What are they doing right?

Karen

Irulan

06-02-2009, 09:23 AM

I think it's interesting that Ford is not in the news like GM and Chrysler are. What are they doing right?

Karen

They have cash reserves for starters, and the Fusion is doing very well esp. in Europe. There is more, but that is all my pea brain can remember at the moment.

laura*

06-02-2009, 09:28 AM

I think it's interesting that Ford is not in the news like GM and Chrysler are. What are they doing right?

When they saw the writing on the wall, they got rid of the foreign brands they had acquired (Land Rover, and etc.). They've also reduced their stake in Mazda to free up some cash. And of course they only have their three domestic brands.

I don't know what difference it makes, but they've kept on cranking out low frills Rangers while everyone else went to bigger "compact" trucks.

andtckrtoo

06-02-2009, 11:25 AM

I think it's interesting that Ford is not in the news like GM and Chrysler are. What are they doing right?
Karen

Actually a lot of their new cars are being marketed as being as reliable as a Honda or Toyota and from what I see and hear, they are not far off the mark. I think Ford was able to move more quickly than GMC or Chrysler - they saw the writing on the wall and made the changes needed to keep themselves afloat. They turned down any aid from the government, and seem to be doing well.

papaver

06-02-2009, 12:29 PM

Well, in Europe when people buy eco friendly cars (like the smaller fords) the governments give them discounts on the car. So lately Ford sells well in Europe.

Brands like chrysler just don't sell in Europe. Why? Well we pay 7,6 dollars per gallon gasoline ...

GLC1968

06-02-2009, 01:29 PM

I was just listening to a GM worker who was interviewed on NPR this morning. He said that he was sad that the factory that he'd worked in for the past 30-something years was closing and that he'd always imagined that his children would work there one day. He said that he partially blamed the executives but that he also blamed his friends and neighbors. He said it wasn't right that they'd be collecting a GM pension but buying non-GM cars like Toyotas and Hondas.

I was listening to this as I was sitting in my Toyota (after having been a Jeep buyer most of my life) and I had to laugh. If any American company could have offered me what I got when I bought my Matrix 5 years ago, I would have been happy to buy it. We are no prophets - but 5 years ago we traded in our gas-guzzling Jeep Unlimited for the Matrix and I'm so glad we did. 75K miles later, it's still running beautifully and I'm proud to recommend our dealer to anyone who asks because they provide amazing service and pricing. Who can say that about an american car company?

It's really too bad that it's come to this, but people seem to be so slow to change unless forced to. I'm sorry for all those people who are losing jobs and suffering, but this change is necessary. This economy is bloated. Things need to scale back and if that has to start with car companies, ultimately, it's probably a good thing even if it's going to be painful getting to that point.

ilima

06-02-2009, 01:38 PM

Canada is helping GM with the bail-out..supposedly to assist in their pension. Whatever. It's alot of taxpayers' moolah $.

Canada has a lot of factories that while not GM owned supply the Big 3 automakers with parts. There would be a catastrophic domino effect were any or all of the Big 3 American automakers were to suddenly and irreversibly collapse. Ripples would go through the entire American and Canadian economies.

I heard an analysis on the radio last night. I think I was listening to Marketplace. The analyst suggested that GM et al. are probably not going to be around 10 or 20 years from now. But the bailout will allow people to transition out of the the business slowly, hopefully preventing an utter catastrophe.

ilima

06-02-2009, 01:41 PM

75K miles later, it's still running beautifully

My current Honda has 80K miles and I feel like she's just getting broken in. I traded my last Honda after 140K problem-free miles (I even still had the original clutch) and I'm sure I could have gotten many, many more.

Geonz

06-02-2009, 02:21 PM

I, too, have sympathy... but I also have sympathy for all the folks who've struggled in our society. Sold my car two years ago Saturday, tho' I did appreciate the rental that got me up the mountain to lil' brothers wedding Saturday.
Cockamamie consumerism ... don't know where it will go. I, too, have cut back ... tho' somehow I have not gotten a garden in, as I did last year. Fortuantely our farmer's market will have sprouted ones and it doesnt' hurt to support those local folks - perhaps creating our own micro-economies (oh, yes, I haven't been in a wal-mart in rather a while, either) and enjoying living slower ...

Mr. Bloom

06-03-2009, 03:32 AM

It will take me A LOT to go back to an American car.

Me too, with a couple exceptions:
- Ford's quality has been decent
- Buick may be boring (because of infrequent model changes), but as a result their quality has been outstanding (and I believe they're one of the biggest selling brands in China).

Here's a comparison, excluding tires, Last Year:
- I spent about $700 in maintenance on my '97 Lexus with 150,000 miles
- I spent a few hundred $ on Silver's '98 Toyota Siena with 140,000 miles
- I spent about $2,000 on SilverDaughter's '95 Jeep with 120,000 miles (that was previously owned and maintained by Silver's engineer uncle...)

I'm part of a generation that Detroit totally lost due to quality issues in the 70's and 80's.

Eden

06-03-2009, 06:58 AM

Technically I guess I own a GM car. We have a Saturn, but from 1997, so way before they were officially rolled back into GM. I love my car. It's been reliable and low maintenance the entire time we've owned it. Would I buy another.... probably not.... they've stopped making them in Tennessee (moved the factory to Mexico in 07), stopped using plastic body panels and basically turned them into just another GM.... Most of the reasons we bought the car in the first place are gone.

If I had to buy another car tomorrow I'd probably look at Smart (though it is seriously disappointing that you cannot get the 80 mpg diesel version here) or Volkswagon. Until American manufacturers catch up and make safe, attractive small cars that get good gas mileage they will likely continue to suffer.

Crankin

06-03-2009, 07:29 AM

I agree totally with Mr. S' last statement. The last American car I had was in 1980. Since then I've had a Mazda, Subaru, Toyota, Volvo, and BMW. I had the Volvo for 9 years, with only one major repair thingy, that was covered by a warranty. The reason I got rid of it was well, some 90 year old guy crashed into my DH while he was driving it, but also, it was before you could get AWD in their models. I would have kept that car forever, but once we moved here, I needed the AWD. I would say the best car I had, mechanically was the Toyota Fourunner. However, I was sick of SUVs/mini vans/wagons, so after 6 years I traded it for the BMW sedan. When I got that car six years ago, I had very little choice of smaller sedans with AWD. I wanted to go back to a Japanese car, but my only choice was a Subaru, which I didn't like at all. My car gets OK mileage, nothing great, but I love it. I will probably keep it for 2-3 more years, and then who knows. I hope Toyota comes out with a small sedan with AWD, so I can get what I want and get up my driveway in the winter.
I don't feel bad for GM at all. Yes, I feel badly for people losing their jobs, but everyone should have seen the writing on the wall. Our world has changed and today, there are very few jobs you can get, that pay the money/benefits they were making, without higher education of some kind. The guy who said he "thought his kids would be working there," is an example of what I mean. What kid, today, can graduate from high school and think they are going to get that kind of job? Of course, in the end, it's the leaders' fault that they were not visionary enough to start designing low mileage, small cars when they needed to. When I think of GM, I think of my grandfather, who bough a new Buick or Chevy every 2 years. Ugh!

GLC1968

06-03-2009, 08:16 AM

I was driving to work this morning and snickering to myself. I took our 'farm truck' because DH needed the car.

It's a 1987 Dodge Dakota and it's got 194K miles on it. Runs like a champ. We bought it last summer for $1K, put maybe $100 in random parts into it, and we've used this truck for some serious heavy duty work (well heavier than a small pickup like this should do) and it's doing extremely well.

GM sucks at making cars (for the most part) but they sure know how to build a truck.

It makes me think that if the American public hadn't gotten so greedy and into the 'bigger is better' mindset, then GM wouldn't be half as bad off. I never understood why people who lived in the American south needed big huge 4X4 SUV's (unless for work/farm). Why do soccer mom's need SUV's when station wagons worked as well? This auto industry mess isn't solely the responsiblity of the automakers - the public sent them down this stupid road and then, when gas got expensive, demanded something that they couldn't deliver. If people had thought about conservation long before it hurt their bank accounts, things might have been different.

Blueberry

06-03-2009, 08:48 AM

GM sucks at making cars (for the most part) but they sure know how to build a truck.

It makes me think that if the American public hadn't gotten so greedy and into the 'bigger is better' mindset, then GM wouldn't be half as bad off. I never understood why people who lived in the American south needed big huge 4X4 SUV's (unless for work/farm). Why do soccer mom's need SUV's when station wagons worked as well? This auto industry mess isn't solely the responsiblity of the automakers - the public sent them down this stupid road and then, when gas got expensive, demanded something that they couldn't deliver. If people had thought about conservation long before it hurt their bank accounts, things might have been different.

I think the fault lies in both places. Yes, the car manufacturers sold people what people wanted. However, the car manufacturers never thought about the fact that people might not always want the same thing...The writing was on the wall a long time ago that demand for SUV's wouldn't stay as high when gas prices went up. Which we all knew they would.

We have a Volvo, a VW and a Honda. The Honda is the only one I would buy again (our Volvo is awesome, but they are not as safe now that they're owned by Ford). The VW has had problem after problem after problem. I've averaged more than 1k a year in repair bills on it (not under warranty), I've had it since it was new, and it's always been dealer maintained.

CA

GLC1968

06-03-2009, 09:23 AM

I think the fault lies in both places. Yes, the car manufacturers sold people what people wanted. However, the car manufacturers never thought about the fact that people might not always want the same thing...The writing was on the wall a long time ago that demand for SUV's wouldn't stay as high when gas prices went up. Which we all knew they would.

Yes, absolutely. They could have at least been working on creating a 'mix' of cars to meet both needs or for the eventual transition. But, they make a lot more money on an SUV than they do on a car - so business/stockholders dictate that the bulk of their business needed to be SUV's. It would be the rare, ballsy buisiness man (who would risk his job), to say in the face of huge profits "hang on people, we need to scale back and make more of the smaller, more efficient, less profitable cars just 'in case' the price of gas exceeds $3.50 a gallon in the next year." Hind sight is 20/20, right?

Again, I'm not letting them off the hook - they made their bed and now they have to lie in it...but it's actually quite easy to see how it happened. And again, if the American public would have learned to start conserving BEFORE they had to due to prices, then a lot of this would have been avoided.

Biciclista

06-03-2009, 10:17 AM

one of the more ironic aspects of this conversations is that American auto makers sell cars to Europe. but they're not the same cars they sell us!

they sell smaller more efficient cars to Europeans and sell the gas hogs to us.

here's one of them:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_37/b4099060491065.htm
The 65 mpg Ford the U.S. Can't Have
Ford's Fiesta ECOnetic gets an astonishing 65 mpg, but the carmaker can't afford to sell it in the U.S.
http://images.businessweek.com/story/08/600/0904_mz_ecocar.jpg

The ECOnetic will go on sale in Europe in November

By David Kiley
This Issue
magazine cover

September 15, 2008

If ever there was a car made for the times, this would seem to be it: a sporty subcompact that seats five, offers a navigation system, and gets a whopping 65 miles to the gallon. Oh yes, and the car is made by Ford Motor (F), known widely for lumbering gas hogs.

OakLeaf

06-03-2009, 10:27 AM

Of course all this is really a secondary conversation to the car-reliant culture as a whole. Gas hogs would be a lot less objectionable if no one needed or wanted to drive more than a couple of days a month.

GLC1968

06-03-2009, 10:31 AM

Ford's Fiesta ECOnetic gets an astonishing 65 mpg, but the carmaker can't afford to sell it in the U.S.

And there is the jist of the problem - they can't make as much money if they sell these cars here.

And a year ago, Toyota was losing money on the Prius. Go figure.

Americans will pay top dollar for a big shiny SUV that says "look at me, I can afford this"...but there is no way (at least a year ago) that they'd pay it for a Ford Fiesta.

papaver

06-03-2009, 10:38 AM

And there is the jist of the problem - they can't make as much money if they sell these cars here.

And a year ago, Toyota was losing money on the Prius. Go figure.

Americans will pay top dollar for a big shiny SUV that says "look at me, I can afford this"...but there is no way (at least a year ago) that they'd pay it for a Ford Fiesta.

Oh they will if they'll have to pay as much for gas as we Europeans do.

smilingcat

06-03-2009, 11:34 AM

Papaver,

True to a point. Culturally we are very different than the Europeans or the Asians.

We are society of never satisfied. Not satisfied/not big enough. MacMansion is not being big enough. For a family of four, do you need a 5 or 6 bedroom house with 3 bathrooms or more? And does it have to have over 6,000(557sq meter)-10,000 sq. feet(929sq meter) house?

Not big enough with Big SUVs. Cadillac Escalade (6,800 pounds/almost 3100kilos), Chevy Tahoe (6,500pounds) Ford Expedition (5800pound/2600kilos). Three guys at my office are driving around in Ford F350 4wd, Chevy 3500, and another is driving a F250 4WD. They live in the city. And they don't care about the gas milage being 6-8MPG. (about 2.4km/liter). When the boys get a new truck or high end sports car, they all have to go out and lust over it. :rolleyes: and compare against their own truck or car. Yup another set drives a modified Audi R4 (his blown his engine like two or three times already). Another two drives a corvette, My new boss who took over control of this division drives a Bentley continental GT. And in the same building where we lease out part of the building to another business, guys there are driving Merceds AMG looks very fast. And yet another Bentley continental GT. :rolleyes: Even a tech who can't afford an expensive car is driving around in a Hummer H2. Didn't say a word to the guy. What is the point???

They do complain about the gas price but the way they drive you would neve know. Hard acceleration. sporty group likes to hit 60MPH in around 4 seconds from standing still. Truck group is not much better. And hard braking too. They don't think they are driving all that hard.

Culturally, we Americans never have enough of anything.Sad :( And we also have a very short memory and attension span. Hybrid car sales I heard was down 87% since the peak of last year. I think this number is not corrected for the overall downturn of the economy. Still, our economy hasn't dropped that much. It just goes to show you that we may talk about conservation and saving gas... but our action says something else.

Speaking of which, gas price is climbing again. It's almost $3.00 gallon for the 87 octane (regular) here in California. And bike theft in my area is way up :mad: I keep my bikes in my bedroom.

bmccasland

06-03-2009, 11:54 AM

7rider

06-03-2009, 12:23 PM

True to a point. Culturally we are very different than the Europeans or the Asians.

<snip>

Not big enough with Big SUVs. Cadillac Escalade (6,800 pounds/almost 3100kilos), Chevy Tahoe (6,500pounds) Ford Expedition (5800pound/2600kilos). Three guys at my office are driving around in Ford F350 4wd, Chevy 3500, and another is driving a F250 4WD. They live in the city. And they don't care about the gas milage being 6-8MPG. (about 2.4km/liter). When the boys get a new truck or high end sports car, they all have to go out and lust over it. :rolleyes: and compare against their own truck or car. Yup another set drives a modified Audi R4 (his blown his engine like two or three times already). Another two drives a corvette, My new boss who took over control of this division drives a Bentley 8. And in the same building where we lease out part of the building to another business, guys there are driving Merceds AMG looks very fast. And yet another Bentley 8. :rolleyes: Even a tech who can't afford an expensive car is driving around in a Hummer H2. Didn't say a word to the guy. What is the point???

<snip>

Culturally, we Americans never have enough of anything.

<snip>

Okay. First... I admit to not following this thread at all.
Generally, I agree with what you are saying.

But...
I saw this and what leaped out at me (other than "What's a Bently 8?" I looked at their website and there is no such car...the "Bently 8L (liter)" was I think from the 1930's...(from a 5-second Google search) which would be pretty cool to see driving around, in all honesty.)....is that...not to defend American consumerism, but 3 of those gas guzzling behemoths you mention are not American cars.
I don't think Americans - or American car manufacturers - have a monopoly on building or buying completly pointless vehicles.
One of my DH's favorite shows on t.v. is Top Gear (http://www.topgear.com/us/the_show/) - a British show that glamorizes and highlights ultra-fast, hardly economic, sports cars. Most of those cars are European...or Japanese (in fact, they hate American cars). The things they do to and with cars would freeze a greenie's heart. (That said, the show IS hysterically funny).
And, no, I don't think there is any reason to drive an F350 or a Hummer in a city.
Oh...the other thing that leaped out is that your co-workers are NOT representative of what the "average American" drives...by a long shot. :eek:

Crankin

06-03-2009, 12:45 PM

Well, my DH has a Lexus SUV; the big one, not the soccer mom car. We use it for lots of hauling, taking bikes, canoe, etc. He does not want to get rid of it. Last year, just when gas prices started going up, he bought a Miyata, to satisfy his testosterone urges, but seriously, it gets 30 mpg. He drives it from March to November, but he also commutes to work a lot of days in the summer, so the SUV stays parked most of the time. I can't complain, since he paid for it in full, even though nobody needs 2 cars... we are actually spending much less for gas, since he got the Miyata, even though we have 3 cars.
I also think we just drive a lot less than a lot of people.

shootingstar

06-03-2009, 12:49 PM

I think we're too far away from the memories of the people who grew up during the Depression. My grandparents, now all deceased, were of the "waste not, want not" OR "make do or do without" generation. I'll be 50 this year and I have some of that frugalness, but I certainly don't see it in the new college grads that are interning in my office. These "kids" would be equivalent to the adult greatgrandchildren or great-great grandchildren of Depression Era adults - just too far away - it's ancient history to them.

The make do or do without Depression era thinking..is not something big among the younger generations, unless they are financially strapped.

Next generations seem to need not just reasons of poverty, but ADDITIONAL motivators to change their choices how to consume responsibly..but still look be accepted by their social peer group.

I'm not knocking powerful motivators of environmental protection, healthy whole food sources..but merely just the philosophy of living within one's own means with long term frugality can be a tough call for many people. It does require a different pacing of one's lifestyle...and more time planning, scheduling and grouping tasks/errands together for 1 trip. It is a major change for some people, like yahoos hard accelerating their cars for no real emergency. But after awhile, the change becomes part of one's being.

Sad thing, some of the developing countries are inching towards aping the North American consumerist, car-oriented lifestyle. They view cars and whole ball of our wax, as higher status, "better" living.

That's some culture among the boys there, smilingcat. For some reason, I don't hear much about cars with the men I've worked with over the years. Maybe they didn't want to talk about such with a car-clueless like myself.

smilingcat

06-03-2009, 01:49 PM

(other than "What's a Bently 8?" I looked at their website and there is no such car...the "Bently 8L (liter)" was I think from the 1930's...(from a 5-second Google search) which would be pretty cool to see driving around, in all honesty.)....
And, no, I don't think there is any reason to drive an F350 or a Hummer in a city.
Oh...the other thing that leaped out is that your co-workers are NOT representative of what the "average American" drives...by a long shot. :eek:

I thought that's what the guys called it. so I looked it up. It's a Bentley continental GT?? The emblem looked like an 8 in the middle. I guess its "B" and not an "8". And checking on the spec. I think that's what it is cause the boys were talking about having a 500+ hp engine.

true these boys are not the average American drivers per se. I understand technology not model names of cars.

beth h

06-03-2009, 02:00 PM

I heard an analysis on the radio last night. I think I was listening to Marketplace. The analyst suggested that GM et al. are probably not going to be around 10 or 20 years from now. But the bailout will allow people to transition out of the the business slowly, hopefully preventing an utter catastrophe.

How many people, given the "option" of transitioning slowly out of the way of life the car industry helps to feed, would choose to change? I don't have the same level of faith as the government I guess. Change of this sort will eventually have to be forced -- and enforced -- in order to take hold.

Tuckervill

06-03-2009, 02:27 PM

true these boys are not the average American drivers per se. I understand technology not model names of cars.

I think their mindset is average among MEN, but not our entire society. The fact that they have big or fast cars just means they have the means to do so, more than the average guy. I don't like being brushed with that broad swipe of us being a consumerist society. Many of us are not, and many of us are young people, too.

Two things I was reminded of. I recently rented a Ford Escape for 2 weeks because my Element got wrecked and was in the body shop. The Escape has a mpg indicator and you can monitor the way you drive and how it affects the gas mileage. Through my normal driving, I raised the average mpg from 19.8 to 22.3 over 981 miles that I had it. I don't do jackrabbit stops or scream up to stop lights. I imagine that the first 1,000 miles on that car were driven by people who don't care how much gas they're burning. I drive the way I do BECAUSE I care about how much gas I buy.

My husband drives a Ford F150 extended cab, and the reason he does is because, at 6'7" and legs like a giraffe, he fits in so few cars comfortably. There are literally health issues with his hips because of his height, and so it is very important that he be comfortable when driving. Even still, he drives without his shoes on anything longer than 20 minutes, so he can have that extra inch of legroom. I WISH it was a 4WD because we do use the truck for everything yard and camping related, and 4WD is handy in certain situations.

Another thing: Since gas prices went so far down, people just went back to their old habits again. I know I started driving "to town" more often, whereas before I was very careful about combining trips.

Karen

shootingstar

06-03-2009, 03:36 PM

I think their mindset is average among MEN, but not our entire society. The fact that they have big or fast cars just means they have the means to do so, more than the average guy. I don't like being brushed with that broad swipe of us being a consumerist society. Many of us are not, and many of us are young people, too.

No doubt you try to be less consumerist. Wouldn't take remarks too personally.

And frugality is relative. I benchmark my frugality (even my university student years as most frugal), against my parents where mother washed plastic bags and hung them on laundry line outdoors to re-use them several times.

They raised 5 children in 1 bedroom apartment in southern ontario before scraping money for lst house when child #6 was still in momma's womb. Gettin' way too crowded. I still have memories of looking at our backyard after we moved into rundown house (price was a steal)..overgrown with weeds and beer bottles from former occupants.

I know that many TE members still can't believe that I have been car-free for huge chunks of life..no wonder: Being car-free is a tad pale compared to other frugalities.

Mr. Bloom

06-03-2009, 03:54 PM

Oh they will if they'll have to pay as much for gas as we Europeans do.

papa, I struggle with some of the American/European comparisons:

- we drive more, because we're more spread out
- because we're so spread out, rapid transit across regions is way too expensive to build

- one might argue that Canada is big and has more available, but remember that almost all of Canada's population lives in the southern 50 miles of the country...it might as well be Chile
Off topic:
- our cellular is weaker, because we have so much land mass
- we don't speak languages because most of us have to travel a long way to regularly encounter someone who doesn't speak English...

Give us $10/gallon gas, and we still only afford rapid transit in the big cities...I'm confident that we'll get there...but it's a much bigger investment for us because of our sheer size.

Perspective: The US is 309x bigger than Belgium by land area, but only 27x bigger by population. We'd have to tax everyone 10 times more to build the same infrastructure (and taxes are un-American;))

Crankin

06-03-2009, 04:57 PM

Shooting Star, my mom washed out bags, too. And labeled everything in the freezer, etc. She did not have to, but I think she learned this from *her* mom, who was a young mother in the depression. My mom was born in 1929, a week after the crash of the stock market.
It's funny, some things I am very frugal or conscious of (buying real food, cooking good meals, how much I am driving), but other things I want convenience. I take the train or commuter rail to my grad classes, as not only can I not bear to fight the traffic and bad drivers in Cambridge, but I won't pay for parking, or be continually worried I have to run out and put more money in the meter. I'd rather pay the mass transit. The university reimburses me for parking at the train garage, as it's seen as helping the parking situation and when I take the commuter rail, the local grocery store lets us park there for free. I've ridden my bike to the commuter rail station a few times and even got lights, etc., but now, the schedule to come home does not fit my schedule.
Well, I had a car free day, today, because I skipped my group ride that was meeting too far away, for a ride that didn't thrill me. Since I have to drive to that same area tomorrow for a meeting, I am glad.

tulip

06-03-2009, 05:19 PM

papa, I struggle with some of the American/European comparisons:

- we drive more, because we're more spread out
- because we're so spread out, rapid transit across regions is way too expensive to build

- one might argue that Canada is big and has more available, but remember that almost all of Canada's population lives in the southern 50 miles of the country...it might as well be Chile
Off topic:
- our cellular is weaker, because we have so much land mass
- we don't speak languages because most of us have to travel a long way to regularly encounter someone who doesn't speak English...

Give us $10/gallon gas, and we still only afford rapid transit in the big cities...I'm confident that we'll get there...but it's a much bigger investment for us because of our sheer size.

Perspective: The US is 309x bigger than Belgium by land area, but only 27x bigger by population. We'd have to tax everyone 10 times more to build the same infrastructure (and taxes are un-American;))

If you take Europe as a whole, instead of small countries, the land mass is the same-ish (okay well, it's bigger anyways). Of course Belgium is smaller than the US. But it it still possible to go from Sweden to southern Spain or Italy by a relatively efficient and effective train system. Yes, it could use improvement, but it is possible. Try that here. Nope.

There are many, many areas of Europe that are very rural and require a car for the people who live there. Those cars tend to be small, fuel efficient little things. I have rarely seen pickup trucks in my years in Europe. But when those people have to go long distances, they are able to catch a train pretty close by that is efficient, on time, and relatively affordable to get where they need to go. Amtrak is none of those.

Language--uh, I hear Spanish everyday. There's no excuse for not learning Spanish if you live in the US these days. Period.

There's a whole lot that the US can adapt from Europe. I don't buy the excuse that we're so different. If we wanted to do it, if the will was there, we would find a way. Highway subsidies could be transferred to rail, etc. But the will is not there, so it won't happen.

In the meantime, I drive my small car that is not as fuel efficient as the same model in Europe. Why?? It's the same &$*#(*$ car! No safety feature differences, the exact same car except for the mileage. I rented on in France last year. It was great because everything was in the same place. I just didn't have to stop at the gas station so much.

Biciclista

06-03-2009, 05:21 PM

I sure wouldn't put the blame for all these high powered cars on MEN. I've been honked at plenty of times by WOMEN in large SUV's with heavy feet.
And half of my bike club was taken out by a 5 foot tall woman driving a 4x4 pickup truck.

And when gas prices go up, if it hurts bad enough, habits will change.
It's the rare fool in Italy who drives a large car today.
But it's "unamerican" to suggest that we'd be better off with higher fuel prices.

Mr. Bloom

06-03-2009, 06:34 PM

If you take Europe as a whole, instead of small countries, the land mass is the same-ish (okay well, it's bigger anyways).

You're right...and the population is about 750,000,000 - more than twice the density of the US.

I really agree with you...for instance, I love the EL in chicago and the Metro in DC, but why can't LA have better mass transit...they have the density...or Dallas, or Houston...but overall, the majority of our land mass lacks the density...and the dense areas are too far apart...

smilingcat

06-03-2009, 09:13 PM

I love the EL in chicago and the Metro in DC, but why can't LA have better mass transit...they have the density...or Dallas, or Houston...

Way back when, LA did have a very good trolly system. Some large companies bought out the trolly system and shut it down so they could sell more... That is if you believe the history according some "historians". Not sure who to believe these days.

Only reason I brought up the kind of cars seen in my company parking lot was a bit of thread drift. Drift was along the line of is it fair to completely blame the big three. Afterall, if the buyers don't buy into the idea or if the buyers don't demand, would they have manufactured these monster cars? At times the argument of why detroit built all these monster cars seem like a chicken and an egg question. Did the buyers demand it or detroit created the demand through sexy advertisement. ???:confused:

Dear Tuckerville,

if my post came across as "painting the canvass with wide brush/broad stroke", it was not meant to be. There are other regular cars in our parking lot. Honda Accord, small pkup, older jeep... The point I wanted to make is that there are segments of our society where consumerism has run amock. The technician who bought the hummer said that he bought it because the sales person and the finance person at the dealer assured him that he could afford the car. OKAY he said. :eek: AND HAS DETROIT BEEN FEEDING ON THIS OUT OF CONTROL CONSUMERISM? The guy who owns the Audi RS4 or is it R4 also is the same one who owns one of the corvettes. He also owns a vintage car. He is single and in his 40's and real motorhead if there ever was one. He was replacing a radiator for his vintage car in the parking lot one day during lunch hour. And the another motor head drives a BMW M3 with modified suspension system. He also races cars. Again single and in his early 40's. no not your typical guy.

The question is: are Detroit feeding on these people and creating a demand by making it look sexy or making it look as though you made in the game of life where winning is determined by the toys you have acquired? And has the general public bought it hook line and sinker on the ad campaign?

Or did Detroit's failing partially due to the demand of the public with desire for the behemouth cars and failing to see the complete picture? In other words, Detroit was led to the behemouth cars by the demand of the public and failing to see the rest?

on side note: if you mention global warming to my co-workers, they will laugh at you and will become beligerent toward you and belittle your intelligence. They and I have agreed to disagree. It's an off limit topic.

Dear 7 rider,
Very good point that the three cars I listed were foreign cars. They are not immune either. The difference is they didn't put all their eggs in one basket like the big three. In all honesty though, I really don't have a clue on the MPG rating of those cars. just knowing how they drive, it can't be good. One brags the fact that his low profile tires last less than 15,000miles and proud of it. At $250-$300 per tire its mighty expensive. Again the number is what they told me. Or was it just bravado on their part?

oh one more thing:
Yes both my parents are Japanese and I may have been born there. But my home is here. My livlihood is here. In Japan, I am a gaijin literal translation is outside person. I am a foreigner in Japan. I have no desire to make mockery of our society. It is my home too.

papaver

06-03-2009, 11:40 PM

Perspective: The US is 309x bigger than Belgium by land area, but only 27x bigger by population. We'd have to tax everyone 10 times more to build the same infrastructure (and taxes are un-American;))

I know that people in the US or Canada just can't live whithout a car, that is just impossible. That's why I find it bizarre that American car companies just don't ( or hardly, or just too late) invest in cars that don't use as much gas.

It seems to me like it's a more a status thing than anything else. Because of my work I nearly live in my car. I look at two things when I buy a car: how much it uses and safety. I drive a Renault Mégane and it uses 4,1l diesel/100 km and it still is a powerful fast car.

Oh and I pay 62% taxes on my income. :(

crazycanuck

06-04-2009, 01:43 AM

There is no way we could live without a vehicle. If we want to travel anywhere in Aust you do realize how big this place is... There are two ways to get around in the rest of Western Australia..Drive or fly. I'm not flying as i'd rather see WA from the ground in a reliable vehicle!!!

I wanted to suggest to my mom (yay she's comin for a visit!!! :)) taking the train from Sydney to Perth but then saw the price :eek:. Umm no, cheaper to drive!!! I hate being ripped off by train companies. Urugh..don't even mention Via rail in Canada :mad:

I trust Toyota to make a reliable vehicle. Ian says it's funny that i'm the short chick(with a speed fetish hidden somewhere) driving a Hilux.

I'm a fan of Top Gear but wouldn't want to drive some of the cool vehicles they test.

Mr. Bloom

06-04-2009, 02:21 AM

papa: I understand and apologize for missing your very good points....and for misunderstanding the extent of your taxation:eek:

smilingcat

06-04-2009, 08:34 AM

papa: I understand and apologize for missing your very good points....and for misunderstanding the extent of your taxation:eek:

But it all evens out in the end. ;) Funny it works like that. We may not pay 62% in tax or 90% tax, but is her livelihood any better or worse than ours? Does she have less 'toys" than you or me? We may not pay the tax man but I'm sure papaver does not pay huge out of the pocket medical insuance/bill. In place of tax man, we pay the insurance company.

smilingcat

Grog

06-04-2009, 09:06 AM

But it all evens out in the end. ;) Funny it works like that. We may not pay 62% in tax or 90% tax, but is her livelihood any better or worse than ours? Does she have less 'toys" than you or me? We may not pay the tax man but I'm sure papaver does not pay huge out of the pocket medical insuance/bill. In place of tax man, we pay the insurance company.

smilingcat

Exactly what I was thinking...

And there's quite a bit less people in jail in Belgium....... (Just checked the data: 88 per 100,000 population versus 107 in Canada and 725 in the USA in 2004.) (This is worse than I thought.) (This is a secondary use of OECD data, found on Swivel: http://www.swivel.com/data_columns/show/2499139) (I'm really amazed.)

papaver

06-04-2009, 10:17 AM

What do we have in return? Well lets see:

Free transportation (train/tram/bus) for children and pensioners.
Free education, exept for university students, that costs +/- 600 €/year.
If a doctor comes at my home in the middle of the night during the weekends it costs me 10 € max (we have to pay more but our almost free insurance pays most of it back within a week).
When it comes to healthcare we have a thing called 'maximum invoice', especially for people who are sick for longer periods. That's to make sure that no one becomes poor because they are sick.
Last year i've stayed in a hospital for about 9 days. I had to pay about 100€ in total.
If you have a baby, the mother gets 3 months leave (fully paid) and the father 10 days (but that will change - as from next year the parents can choose who stays at home).
If you get fired you get 90% of your salary the first year, after that you'll have a minimum (around 1250 usd)
We have a thing called 'the right to have a home', so even when you have no income (which really doesn't exist in Belgium) you still will be given a home. Of course there are still homeless people but that's mostly because of alcohol problems and people who don't want help (those people exist too).
When you're sick, the first week your salary will be fully paid by your employer, after that you'll be paid 90% of your salary by the state.
Because I'm self employed my healthcare insurance (full coverage) costs me 600 euro's (whole family) per year, as an employee it's less than 100 €/year.
And of course there is our pension, and that too is 90% of what you earned the last year you worked (but there's a maximum on that, same for when you're sick or fired).
And there's lots more. That's why I really don't mind that I have to pay that much taxes. I love the fact that when the going gets tough, you'll be looked after.

another positive thing, say when you're fired and you don't find a job within 3 months you'll get guidance (to find a new job) or you can study again (for free and you'll keep 90% of your salary or a maximum of 1900 USD, I think it is).

And still people dare to complain...

OakLeaf

06-04-2009, 11:30 AM

I might mention the #1 drain on the US economy, but that would be "political"....

It might not be practical to build lots of passenger capacity to go from, say, Cheyenne, WY, to Pierre, SD, but that's not where most of the driving in the USA happens, anyhow. There's no practical or monetary reason at all why we couldn't RE-build the local and regional commuter transit systems that even small communities had 100 years ago.

shootingstar

06-04-2009, 11:43 AM

It might not be practical to build lots of passenger capacity to go from, say, Cheyenne, WY, to Pierre, SD, but that's not where most of the driving in the USA happens, anyhow. There's no practical or monetary reason at all why we couldn't RE-build the local and regional commuter transit systems that even small communities had 100 years ago.

Good point, even when Canada is huge (even larger than the U.S.). Majority of people are not driving every day 100 kms. either 1 way or even a round trip.

So let's extrapolate into the future, when boomers get frail...and with our present disgust of some frail seniors who shouldn't be driving a car, how will this burgeoning population get around? AFter all, the aging population don't all have children, and not all have adult children who care about them so much, they will be around /want to chauffer around aging parents for appointments.

Many people when they age, are still quite healthy..they just aren't as alert enough to drive anymore. What is the transportation solution for this???

shootingstar

06-04-2009, 12:20 PM

Not sure I got my facts straight, but apparently in Germany there is an annual tax..to own a car.

In my last job, there were alot of German ex-pats on staff. I had one working in my dept. That's what she told me...amongst many other things about life, taxation, benefits in Germany.

She worked for the national rail company in Germany for a few years. She did tell me of some company/line mergers that were occurring there.

papaver

06-04-2009, 12:22 PM

Many people when they age, are still quite healthy..they just aren't as alert enough to drive anymore. What is the transportation solution for this???

That's a difficult one indeed. I saw a bbc reportage not too long ago about elderly people driving their cars for the very last time. Some were happy to live without their cars, but there was one lady who was really bitter getting older and the fear of getting isolated was obvious. My father is a horrible chauffeur, so they do most of their shopping by bycicle. Luckily the supermarkets are not far away, but I can't see them doing this in ten years or so. We'll have to think of an alternative...

papaver

06-04-2009, 12:22 PM

ny biker

06-04-2009, 12:43 PM

We pay a car tax in Virginia. It's based on the value of the car. I think they have the same thing in Connecticut.

shootingstar

06-04-2009, 01:01 PM

yep, we have that one too... and the smaller the car the less you pay.

Yes, I recall that was true for Germany also.

What is the annual car tax for you NY?

tulip

06-04-2009, 01:47 PM

Yes, I recall that was true for Germany also.

What is the annual car tax for you NY?

It depends on the city or county tax rate. It's a personal property tax, but I think it's the only piece of personal property that they tax. They should just call it a car tax. There's the calculation of the tax and then there's a "Car Tax Relief" that cuts in in about half.

My bill is $3.70 per $100. My car is assessed at almost $13k. My total tax is almost $500, but with that relief thing, it's cut about in half.

It's based on the value of the car, not the fuel efficiency or the number of miles you drive. So if I had a 1983 Buick Regal that got 12 mpg, I'd be charged alot less than my 2007 VW Rabbit that gets 33 mpg and that I drive less than 10k miles per year.

ny biker

06-04-2009, 02:05 PM

It's kind of complicated, because a while back they state passed a personal property tax relief law which lowered the payments by providing discounts, and each local government has some leeway in setting the tax rates by deciding how to apply the discounts. Here in Arlington, for the fiscal year that just started the rates are:

- $0 for the first $3000 of value
- $5 per $100 of assessed value between $3000 and $20,000, with a 43% discount deducted from that amount
- $5 per $100 of assessed value over $20,000

And to encourage people to buy hybrids, Arlington gives a 90% discount for the first $20,000 of value for qualifying clean fuel vehicles. For the past 2 years, this discount was 100%, so this will be the first year that I have to pay any tax on my 2007 Prius.

Trek420

06-04-2009, 02:05 PM

Way back when, LA did have a very good trolly system. Some large companies bought out the trolly system and shut it down so they could sell more... That is if you believe the history according some "historians". Not sure who to believe these days.

Same here. We had the Key System, a network of electric trains before BART that went almost anywhere and everywhere. The system was "killed off" by the tire industry promoting busses and cars according to "historians" and elder locals I've talked to including my folks.

I found some cute posters of the era in a used book store promoting how busses and cars would revolutionize transportation here. These show happy people driving to work.

Wish they could see my hour long 20 mile commute. :mad: Thank G** for BART.

http://www.oaklandmagazine.com/media/Oakland-Magazine/January-2008/When-Trains-Ruled-the-East-Bay/