NYT Slams CAR Job Loss Numbers

Edward Niedermeyer
by Edward Niedermeyer

We’ve been ringing this bell for a while now, so it’s nice to see some of the big guns in the media world back us up. The New York Times has a scathing piece on the oft-cited Center for Automotive Research study on auto industry employment today, stripping the statistics of much of their bailout-justifying clout. The Times points to two significant shortcomings in the study, the first of which is that the statistics presented by CAR account for the entire industry, including those firms which build cars here but aren’t going under. As we have argued before, these statistics prove only how vital the entire auto industry is. For Detroit to claim that these numbers are somehow indicative of the amount of jobs which will be lost if the American automakers go under is beyond misleading. In fact, if the Detroit Three fessed up to the fact that the “foreign” transplants employ more Americans than they do, you would have a good sense of how “viable and relevant” they really are.

Beyond this, the Times points out that CAR’s data is outdated, having been collected between 1998 and 2001. Many, many auto industry jobs have been lost since then, mostly from the ranks of the once-big three. In fact, as AllBusiness reports, 133k jobs were lost in 2001 alone, and since then, 70k+ annual layoffs have been the norm in this industry. And though the Times decries CAR’s ties to labor, industry and government, they cite a more recent report from the center which extrapolates that half of all jobs lost in the event of a “major contraction involving one or more of the Detroit Three automakers” would be recovered by 2011. Funny how GM and Chrysler aren’t exactly pimping that finding around Capitol (capital?) Hill.

Edward Niedermeyer
Edward Niedermeyer

More by Edward Niedermeyer

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 7 comments
  • Edward Niedermeyer Edward Niedermeyer on Nov 19, 2008

    Here's a couple of grains of salt for the last point on possible job recovery. 1- It's CAR. 2- "extrapolates" 3- It's 2011. Nobody knows what things are going to look like come 2011. Nobody. I wasn't saying the D3 execs should be flogging this stat, but it's certainly no less misleading than the stats they are currently spreading.

  • Morea Morea on Nov 20, 2008

    With all due respect to TTAC and the NYT, a five year old with an internet connection could have figured this one out.

  • Redapple2 Love the wheels
  • Redapple2 Good luck to them. They used to make great cars. 510. 240Z, Sentra SE-R. Maxima. Frontier.
  • Joe65688619 Under Ghosn they went through the same short-term bottom-line thinking that GM did in the 80s/90s, and they have not recovered say, to their heyday in the 50s and 60s in terms of market share and innovation. Poor design decisions (a CVT in their front-wheel drive "4-Door Sports Car", model overlap in a poorly performing segment (they never needed the Altima AND the Maxima...what they needed was one vehicle with different drivetrain, including hybrid, to compete with the Accord/Camry, and decontenting their vehicles: My 2012 QX56 (I know, not a Nissan, but the same holds for the Armada) had power rear windows in the cargo area that could vent, a glass hatch on the back door that could be opened separate from the whole liftgate (in such a tall vehicle, kinda essential if you have it in a garage and want to load the trunk without having to open the garage door to make room for the lift gate), a nice driver's side folding armrest, and a few other quality-of-life details absent from my 2018 QX80. In a competitive market this attention to detai is can be the differentiator that sell cars. Now they are caught in the middle of the market, competing more with Hyundai and Kia and selling discounted vehicles near the same price points, but losing money on them. They invested also invested a lot in niche platforms. The Leaf was one of the first full EVs, but never really evolved. They misjudged the market - luxury EVs are selling, small budget models not so much. Variable compression engines offering little in terms of real-world power or tech, let a lot of complexity that is leading to higher failure rates. Aside from the Z and GT-R (low volume models), not much forced induction (whether your a fan or not, look at what Honda did with the CR-V and Acura RDX - same chassis, slap a turbo on it, make it nicer inside, and now you can sell it as a semi-premium brand with higher markup). That said, I do believe they retain the technical and engineering capability to do far better. About time management realized they need to make smarter investments and understand their markets better.
  • Kwik_Shift_Pro4X Off-road fluff on vehicles that should not be off road needs to die.
  • Kwik_Shift_Pro4X Saw this posted on social media; “Just bought a 2023 Tundra with the 14" screen. Let my son borrow it for the afternoon, he connected his phone to listen to his iTunes.The next day my insurance company raised my rates and added my son to my policy. The email said that a private company showed that my son drove the vehicle. He already had his own vehicle that he was insuring.My insurance company demanded he give all his insurance info and some private info for proof. He declined for privacy reasons and my insurance cancelled my policy.These new vehicles with their tech are on condition that we give up our privacy to enter their world. It's not worth it people.”
Next