By on November 27, 2018

General Motors Renaissance Center

The big news this week is General Motors’ decision to cull its lineup, closing plants and sacking about 15 percent of its North American workforce in the process. According to Chief Executive Officer Mary Barra, GM’s official reasons for doing so are all part of its grand plan to transition to a company focused on electric vehicles and self-driving cars.

While we harbor a vague suspicion that the automaker is actually trying to prepare itself for an incoming economic downturn, leaving itself with plenty of financial wiggle room, GM currently enjoys relatively healthy profits (thank you, truck sales) and a lofty share price. In fact, GM shares rose nearly 5 percent after it announced the shuttering of several plants in the U.S. and Canada, cutting as many as 14,800 jobs.

Unfortunately, GM’s investors seem to be the only group that’s pleased with the decision. Everyone else appears to be absolutely furious. 

President Donald Trump, who campaigned on the promise of keeping jobs in America, said he had spoken to Barra via phone ahead of GM’s Monday announcement. During their discussion, Trump said he expressed his displeasure with the decision, noting that General Motors owes the United States for saving it during the Great Recession, and urged her to open up another plant in the Midwest to mitigate job losses in the region.

However, he sounded less cordial in a later interview with The Wall Street Journal. “They better damn well open a new plant there very quickly,” Trump said. “I told them, ‘You’re playing around with the wrong person.'”

Trump was far from alone in his condemnation of General Motors. According to Bloomberg, members from both parties criticized the company’s plan to cut its workforce, citing government aid the company has received over the last decade — everything from the 2009 federal bailout of the auto industry to the $1.5 trillion tax cut that went into effect in late 2017.

“The company reaped a massive tax break from last year’s GOP tax bill and failed to invest that money in American jobs,” Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown tweeted, describing GM’s move “corporate greed at its worst.”

Arno Hill, mayor of Lordstown, Ohio (where GM intends to stop production of the Chevrolet Cruze next year), said the mood in the small town was less than chipper. “I will say I’m not the happiest guy in town,” Hill said in a phone interview with Bloomberg. He added he was hopeful that General Motors would eventually use the facility to assemble a new product. “They said they were ceasing production, not shuttering.”

Jim Graham, the former president of the United Automobile Workers local that covers employees at the Lordstown plant, called the announcement “depressing.” Meanwhile, Representative Tim Ryan, a Democrat whose district includes Lordstown, said he would pursue congressional hearings over how GM spent billions of dollars in tax cuts.

“The American people deserve to know if the tax cuts they paid for are being used to inflate corporate profits at the expense of their economic security and the survival of American workers,” Ryan wrote in a letter to leaders of the House Ways and Means Committee.

Some who supported those cuts have even turned on the automaker. Senator Rob Portman, a Republican from Ohio who endorsed corporate tax cuts last year as a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee, said he was “deeply frustrated with General Motors’ decision.”

However, not everyone is ready to bite the head off of the company. Steve Rattner, head of former President Barack Obama’s auto task force (which facilitated the GM and Chrysler bailouts), said the automaker’s announcement shouldn’t be confused as violation of the bailout agreement. From his point of view, the industry has changed immensely since 2009 and companies need to be able to evolve and adapt.

“No, I don’t think these violate the 2009 agreement, in part because we always made clear that GM should be free to run its business in the ordinary course,” Rattner said. “It’s important for GM to be free to adjust its business accordingly.”

Officially, that’s exactly what General Motors is doing. Its autonomous and electric vehicle development programs have been costly. But its new revenue streams, many of which are heavily dependent upon connectivity and new tech, haven’t had sufficient time to make up the difference — assuming they will. In the interim, the company’s restructuring aims to save about $6 billion.

“The actions we are taking today continue our transformation to be highly agile, resilient and profitable, while giving us the flexibility to invest in the future,” GM’s Barra explained.

Is it sketchy? Maybe a little, but corporations are rarely worried about anything other than their bottom line. General Motors can’t offer anyone a job if it folds. However, the issue that has everyone’s feathers so ruffled seems to stem from the manufacturer not yet being in dire straits. Of course, even though the left and right seem to be largely in agreement on this, it hasn’t stopped like-minded individuals from participating in political feuds.

Not One Penny, a progressive campaign launched specifically to oppose any Republican plan that serves to approve tax cuts on corporations or the very wealthy, has estimated GM saved at least $500 million last December. “General Motors’ decision to gut its workforce epitomizes the bad corporate behavior Republicans in Congress have incentivized for generations,” said spokesman Ryan Thomas. “Instead of using its massive tax savings to increase employee wages or invest in its workforce, GM is shuttering plants and cutting jobs to increase profits and further enrich shareholders.”

[Image: General Motors]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

81 Comments on “Everyone Who’s Not a Shareholder Is Reportedly Angry Over GM’s Decision to Slash Jobs...”


  • avatar

    Trump many on the left held their nose and voted for you to rectify these short term corporate decisions that are crippling America. It is time to force Bara’s hand. Don’t let her get away with this transgression.

    • 0 avatar
      dukeisduke

      Yes, the government should take over the automakers and tell them what to build. LADA 2011s for everyone!

      • 0 avatar
        vehic1

        The government’s bigly cheese is trying to tell states what pollution they cannot regulate, and how much more coal and fossil-fuel pollution cancer and emphysema for everyone!

      • 0 avatar
        DAC17

        Or maybe all the Trumpians could move to France, where the government basically doesn’t allow layoffs. Oops, they have an unemployment rate of about 10%…. Or we could mandate that people keep buying sedans. Neither one sounds too good to me.

    • 0 avatar
      87 Morgan

      Hold up a sec, Akear.

      Every other thread on this site regarding the GM closings you have taken every opportunity to trash the product that GM offers. So, now you want them to continue making the same product you claim is trash?

      I am terribly confused as to your position on this matter. Should GM continue to manufacture cars that it seems pretty much no one, other than rental car companies or corporate fleet managers, wants to purchase? If so, how will you react when the corporation needs another bailout because they have stacks of cars on the ground that can’t be moved without massive incentives that will cost billions?

      Based on your posts on other threads, I would think nothing short of a full GM closure would suffice for you.

  • avatar
    dukeisduke

    Basically. They’re doing what it takes to keep the company going. Buyers don’t want sedans, so they’re going to stop building them. Or at least not build as many.

  • avatar

    the Amish have it right. get a horse.

    • 0 avatar
      JoDa

      A horse is approximately 4X more expensive than a Corolla :)

    • 0 avatar
      CaddyDaddy

      This is exactly what the right leaning free marketeers were screaming when the “Bailouts” took place during the Bush/Obama uni-party era. Socialize losses and privatize profits. I will never forget the commenters on this site and you know who your are and are still here, ranted up and down how the whole country faced imminent death if we did not bail out GM and Chrysler and the Big Banks. Furthermore, those who did not adhere to this ideology were said to be economic neanderthals.

      Fast forward 2018. Same old dinosaur GM producing even more crap. GM cars are essentially Chinese assembled knock down kits whose wonky electronics, bean counted under-engineered internal mechanical parts and hide from the truth killer safety equipment still thinking lingers on within the top floors of Ren-Cen. A “managed – decline” with those at the top feeding off the demise of an American Institution.

      GM should have gone through a proper Bankruptcy with assets sold off to the highest bidder. However, if that happend the dems would have lost a huge funding mechanism and the Neo con Repubs would have lost their ace in the whole manufacturing infrastructure to build the material for the next fake enemy / war.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        I feel the same way. The market decided that in 2008.

        Bailouts, handouts and nationalization were ill-advised then, and here we are again.

        A streamlined GM is better, yes, but that should have been done in 2009 at the first re-organization, And there were plenty of ttac’s B&B who said so at that time.

      • 0 avatar
        Halftruth

        Totally agree with CaddyDaddy here. GM should have gone through the bankruptcy and taken its lumps. On the other hand, at least they are trying to adapt. It would be foolish to expect GM (or any other automaker) to continue to produce products that are not selling. Would we prefer they continue making sedans and then taking another bailout?

        I think not. The times are a-changin’..

        • 0 avatar
          PrincipalDan

          Yes GM bankruptcy should have been a true bankruptcy.

          At least then assets would have been auctioned off and we would see what the market wanted.

          If a bunch of venture capitalists had wanted to buy the factory where the Sky and Solstice were being produced and make another generation the could have bid at auction (as an example.)

      • 0 avatar
        portico

        Only one car made in China for Buick, the Envision. Facts are tricky things.

      • 0 avatar
        jacob_coulter

        Exactly, should have had a real bankruptcy instead of the whole sleazy UAW handout.

        GM just bided their time, came out with some half ass “green cars” and promises of keeping jobs, made sure to make a female CEO from human resources (snort) to virtue signal, then just moved everything to China when they had an opening.

        Even if your okay with the bailouts, Chinese outsourcing, screwing over the taxpayers that bailed them out, etc. GM has been making junk for a while and i’m amazed there’s still suckers that line up and buy them.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          I’m not an expert but that bankruptcy probably would have been a liquidation, which dot gov wanted to avoid hence bailouts.

        • 0 avatar
          carguy67

          “GM has been making junk for a while and i’m amazed there’s still suckers that line up and buy them.”

          but But BUT … J. D. Power!!!

        • 0 avatar
          formula m

          Donald’s “HUGE” tax cuts as per the article were $500 million per month in savings for GM.
          500M x 12 months = $6 Billion

          GM pockets $6 Billion that Donald thought up to give them, while GM thinks of ways to save up to replace the $6 Billion that was suddenly up for grabs

  • avatar
    DEVILLE88

    Sounds more like the bimbo running GM is just trying to strike a blow for feminists by doing the opposite of what OUR President wants…….save jobs!

    • 0 avatar
      mjg82

      Yes, save the jobs from the attractive but empty-headed young willing sex object running GM. Grab her, Mr. President!

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      Decisions of this magnitude are not solely made by executives such as Mrs. Barra.

    • 0 avatar
      Maymar

      And surely the uptick in GM’s stock yesterday was nothing more than SJW virtue signaling, right? All good leftists know they’ve gotta put their money (earned mostly in Soros-funded protests) in GM stock to show their support.

      /s

    • 0 avatar
      orenwolf

      bigoted misogyny aside, if Trump supporters wanted to “Save” these jobs, they’d be out buying these cars that are being cancelled.

      Instead, they did what most people feel free to do: Buy what they want. And what they wanted wasn’t what GM was making.

      Let’s hope GM is better at fixing that end of the equation in the future, and at the same time, perhaps the electorate will learn their lesson – tax cuts do NOT necessarily lead to more money for workers, or more jobs, no matter how much corporate-lobbied politicians might like to convince them otherwise.

  • avatar
    redgolf

    I well know what the workers are going to be going through, some will retire (with a buyout) some will stay put and hope for the best, others will take a transfer to another plant/state (when there are openings). I went through 2 plant closings at Dana and 3 plants for GM! the last being Saturn in Tn. we were told Saturn was going to be a 100 year old company with NO layoffs, fortunately by the time we went back to being exclusively GM and losing our Chevy Traverse line to Michigan I had enough time in to retire. what a relief that was! finally after 40 + years in the auto plants (from 1968 – 2011) I had reached retirement! hang in there workers and don’t be afraid to go where the jobs are.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    “No, I don’t think these violate the 2009 agreement, in part because we always made clear that GM should be free to run its business in the ordinary course,” Rattner said. “It’s important for GM to be free to adjust its business accordingly.”

    This is exactly right.

    The bailout was 10 years ago. I didn’t support it, but it’s history now.

    However, there should be accountability for corporate welfare deals, but I don’t know if any are still in effect for these plants.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      Ms Barra’s first and foremost obligation is to GM shareholders. Everything else is secondary. Yes, even the tax payers that bailed out GM, because the gov’ts were foolish to do so.

      It would have been better for GM if they had made stuff that people would actually buy, but they didn’t.

      This is the flip side of that supply/demand coin.

      • 0 avatar
        mfrank

        Agreed. Ms Barra’s doing a wonderful job as CEO of GM. Ditching Opel and Vauxhall was the right move. Chopping cars like Ford and Chrysler is another great move. GM is now a more focused company giving customers in the US and China what they want.

      • 0 avatar
        Guitar man

        No, Mary Barra legal fiduciary duty is to the company as a whole (shareholders, employees and creditors) NOT to shareholders alone.

      • 0 avatar
        orenwolf

        “Ms Barra’s first and foremost obligation is to GM shareholders. Everything else is secondary.”

        Very much this. GM brass has a legally binding responsibility to create shareholder value as their top priority.

        Somehow folks became convinced that would never clash with jobs or social responsibility. I’m not sure how that came to be, but this is an example of why that’s a very naive viewpoint.

        If you want/expect businesses to do what’s right for the public, rather than just what’s right for investors, then a much larger change is necessary. Be it a change to what type A corporations are responsible for, accountability requirements for tax breaks, what have you.

        But as long as you have politicians voted in on platforms of “more business at any cost”, then no-strings-attached tax breaks and less regulation is what you’ll get instead. And, as always, it’s the worker and the public-at-large who will suffer while priority investors get their due, because the law literally requires it to be that way.

    • 0 avatar
      Erikstrawn

      This is why government shouldn’t make shady tax deals on the basis of, “They said the tax cuts would create jobs.”

      • 0 avatar
        orenwolf

        “This is why government shouldn’t make shady tax deals on the basis of, “They said the tax cuts would create jobs.””

        Yep.

        Now, if the electorate could just remember that long enough for it to matter..

  • avatar
    Kendahl

    The complaint is that GM isn’t using its tax cut to pay for work management believes the company doesn’t need. I can’t see how it will benefit from increasing the number of unsold vehicles stored in parking lots.

  • avatar
    vehic1

    So makers like Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Hyundai, Subaru, Kia, VW, and Mazda still make non-luxury-priced sedans; since those preferring sedans haven’t exactly dropped to zero, these co.’s will get that business. Seems the jury’s out on whether 100% of buyers will soon favor only trucks or crossovers; a sales drop isn’t proof positive that any trend will continue, forever and ever, amen.

    Is there some magical reason that, for example, an S/CUV (Nissan Kicks?) can be profitable, but not a similarly-priced Versa or Sentra?

  • avatar
    gasser

    GM should be free to run its business according to its own strategy?? Fine, then GM and any other large companies should be free to go out of business according to their own strategies. The government should not use tax money to bail out GM, Chrysler or the banks. If you want to live via unfettered capitalism, you should be resigned to die by unfettered capitalism. Meanwhile corporate profits are at an all time high and most government (state and federal) revenues are funded by personal income taxes. Let us return to the Eisenhower era of higher corporate taxes to fund government programs, like infrastructure, health and education. If corporations import from other nations where they have significantly lower tax structures, lets use the tariff there. Or lets switch to a national VAT tax to level the playing field. Workers should not be taxed to allow shareholders to profit. All profits need to be taxed for societal purposes.

  • avatar
    Arthur Dailey

    1) Why can Toyota, Honda, Mercedes, BMW, etc all still manufacture and sell sedans? Even FCA still makes something on its 300/Charger siblings. So why can’t GM?
    2) The ‘trickle down’ theory of economics is again proven to be a charade. Cut corporate taxes and what happens? Bigger executive bonuses, greater dividends to shareholders and higher stock prices.
    3) The only way to return manufacturing to 1st world nations is through tariffs. However global corporations vehemently oppose tariffs. As do free market capitalists. So despite all the rhetoric, we will continue to see more trade agreements.
    4) The bail-out is old news. During a massive recession it helped to retain/maintain much needed jobs. GM’s executives and engineers however do not appear to have become that much smarter or more efficient/effective since then. Additionally the governments of the USA and Canada should have held at least some of their shares, thereby retaining spots on the Board and some influence on corporate decisions. Like VW, where the government of Lower Saxony retains 20% of voting rights in the corporation.

    • 0 avatar
      CoastieLenn

      The thing with Nissan, Toyota, Honda- their volume sedans of 5 years ago (Altima, Camry, Accord respectively) are losing near double digit percentages year over year while their CUV offerings (Rogue, RAV4, CRV) are now considered the highest selling names under that brands umbrella.

      Even VW’s volume Jetta is almost being surpassed by the Tiguan. BMW’s X3 is gaining market share where their 3 series is losing it.

      • 0 avatar
        CoastieLenn

        Current YTD sales on the 3 series is barely over 38k while the X3 is nearly 48k. VW Jetta is at 71k YTD while the Tiguan is at 87k.

        GM/Ford are simply cutting those models that they recognize are sliding. Just wait, it won’t be long before just about every brand- aside from niche market vehicles, all but abandon (or at the very least drastically reduce) sedans in the U.S.

    • 0 avatar
      87 Morgan

      Why can Toyota, Honda, Mercedes, BMW, etc all still manufacture and sell sedans? Even FCA still makes something on its 300/Charger siblings. So why can’t GM?

      Arthur, while they above still manufacture them lets not kid ourselves into thinking they sell them. We see the numbers on this site monthly of the sedan death watch. GM was always at the bottom of the heap, they are culling the herd. I am certain that within the next 12-18 months the above will be doing the same.

      My predictions (not that anyone cares) for the future sedan offerings:
      Toyota: Corolla & Camry ~Yaris, Prius, Mirai, Avalon Gone
      Honda: Civic & Accord ~ Insight, Clarity, Fit Gone
      BMW: 3 Series 5 Series 7 Series ~ 2, 4, 6, 8, I3, I8 Z4 Gone
      Mercedes: E Class and S Class ~ all other coupe and sedan cars gone

      FCA: Fiat etal: Gone

      In the end GM cut 6 and Toyota will cut 4, perhaps five if you count the BRZ, which I am fairly certain they drop like a hot potato. Will we blast Toyota when they do the same?

      • 0 avatar
        afedaken

        I can’t see the Prius disappearing. It’s a halo model of sorts and there will always be some virtue signaling to be had. The small price gap between the Avalon and the Lexus ES however could easily remove the Avalon from the lineup.

      • 0 avatar
        Arthur Dailey

        Please see today’s posting re sedan sales figures.

        Honda and Toyota sedans generally sell in the USA, double the number of GM sedans in the same segment.

    • 0 avatar
      brn

      Toyota, Honda, Mercedes, and BMW are also able to charge a lot more than US manufacturers. As others have stated, they’re all shifting to SUVs as well.

      Sedans don’t sell and that makes me sad.

      Agree with your other points.

    • 0 avatar
      ect

      Arthur, technology is killing manufacturing jobs, not trade. According to US government data, US manufacturing output has doubled (in constant dollars) since NAFTA was signed, while direct manufacturing employment has declined by 1/3. Manufacturing is increasingly automated, which wipes out many low and unskilled jobs, replacing a small number of them with jobs that require post secondary technical or engineering education. That’s reality, and it’s not going away.

      We’ve been proving since at least 1846 that tariffs kill jobs and reduce prosperity. Smoots-Hawley, for example, wasn’t exactly a roaring success…

      I do agree with you on “trickle-down”. Perversely, GM’s top executives may well get bigger bonuses for closing these plants – in most public companies, bonuses are tied to operating or pre-tax profits, excluding extraordinary items. So, they get credit for reduced labour and other costs, and no penalty for the costs associated with implementing the shutdown and related layoffs. Sweet deal!

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        I have to tell you, I’m all for more automation, more robotics, more tech.

        I love going places where we use tech to order our food, drinks, whatever. No more temperamental human interaction. Love it!

        Automated assembly of cars? Let’s have more of it! One less thing to worry about, the human factor.

        • 0 avatar
          formula m

          High-deserter-cat is just begging for a robot to be developed quickly enough to save his last shred of dignity before he has the very “human interaction” of paying someone to wipe his old decrepit backside multiple times a day

          • 0 avatar
            redgolf

            Highdesertcat – Mr. Roboto – “you’re wondering who I am, machine or mannequin, with parts made in Japan, I am the modern man”!

    • 0 avatar
      Scoutdude

      Chrysler can still make money on the LX cars because some of the tooling and design is 20+ years old. GM and Ford are choosing to not introduce replacements for current models because they don’t believe sales will be there long enough to recover the investment in designing new versions.

  • avatar
    ward3138

    Oh that Mark Reuss had been selected for CEO. With him they may have had a chance. This crazy decision makes it guilt free for me to buy my first vehicle not built by GM. I wish GM every success in the Chinese market. I will buy a 65% US content Highlander made in the South. I’ve been waiting for GM to build a Volt-based CUV or SUV but no, they care more about money from trucks than quality, customer loyalty, and listening to what people want. How hard would it have been to scale up the Bolt even? Sad. And with all this bad news they give no real info on future vehicles. So I guess all the Voltec vehicles they promised over the next couple of years are out now too. My Dad spent 30 years at Olds and this would have been very hard on him were he here today. Say what you want about Wagner but he took care of the workers as GM went down in 08′-09′

  • avatar
    Oberkanone

    GM ending production of low profit, low volume models. Applause
    GM not having replacement products that buyers will pay a profit for. Booo!

  • avatar
    Syke

    My frustration on this situation isn’t the lost jobs, or government bailouts, or keeping the stock price up, or the (maybe) misuse of money . . . . . .

    It’s that fact that once again, like they’ve repeatedly done since at least 1990 (you can probably show evidence for up to ten years earlier) that every time General Motors has found itself in a tight spot, it’s sole tactic is to get smaller, drop product, and back up. I swear, it’s the only corporate philosophy they know. And they have an inability to come up with anything excellent enough to compete with the other big guns in the industry. You know, come up with vehicles that’ll make people want to look elsewhere than Toyota and Honda.

    Yes, they’re putting big money into a far future technology – while hamstringing themselves in the present and near future by taking the most conservative position possible. How many times have they done this in the past: drop product and markets to chase only what’s absolutely hot right now, seemingly with damned little thought of what are they going to do if the market changes again?

    And couple that with the big bet totally being placed on a technology that we’re not sure if it’s going to work at all, or, at least, will work anywhere other than limited access divided highways?

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      Well put.

    • 0 avatar
      SixspeedSi

      Yes, good products are a huge part to this, but I believe GM has more of a brand image problem than a product problem. Most of the vehicles on the chopping block are decent vehicles. Top of class? No, but a lot of the segment leaders sell based off of the brand image.

      Current GM’s problem with selling cars roots back to old GM. They manufactured bad, cheap, unreliable cars and that image has loomed over GM til this day. Ask someone about their 1990 Civic and they’ll most likely have positive words. A 1990 Cavalier? Not so much. Current GM products are actually pretty competitive, but their image holds them down tremendously. It doesn’t effect them as much in the hot CUV, SUV, & Truck segments.

      • 0 avatar
        Syke

        Can’t disagree with your statement. I wonder how the Chevrolet Volt would have sold if you could have given it a three word name where the first two words were “Toyota” and “Prius”.

        Same car, just a different image in the eyes of the consumer. It’s why I can understand letting the Cruze go. In the “C” class, if it isn’t a Corolla or a Civic, you’re better off not spending the development money.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          Given that there is a Prius plug-in, and it’s been a bust sales-wise, I think your question answers itself. No one, not even Toyota, has really succeeded with plug-in hybrids. I think the tech was too expensive to begin with, and with pure EVs improving, it just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

        • 0 avatar
          mechimike

          Tell Mazda that about the 3.

  • avatar
    JoDa

    It just makes no sense for any company to manufacture in government-back labor union regions. Even right-to-work states can turn on any given election cycle. I suspect the UAW and Unifor will continue to force production to Mexico.

  • avatar
    Asdf

    What’s currently happening is just a symptom of GM’s long predicted transformation into a Chinese automaker. Of course there won’t be any need for American plants or workers when the transition is complete. Trump may be able slow down the transition just a tad, but even he won’t be able to stop GM from eventually becoming Chinese Government Motors.

    • 0 avatar
      gosteelerz

      Seeing as how just about all durable goods are manufactured in low wage nations, automobiles will get there eventually. We are swimming against the current trying to prevent this.

      As a Canadian I can only hope our government will learn from this experience the next time the situation presents itself. I pray we don’t end up being on the hook to finance the pension fund sometime down the road.

  • avatar
    gosteelerz

    Seeing as how just about all durable goods are manufactured in low wage nations, automobiles will get there eventually. We are swimming against the current trying to prevent this.

    As a Canadian I can only hope our government will learn from this experience the next time the situation presents itself. I pray we don’t end up being on the hook to finance the pension fund sometime down the road.

  • avatar
    el scotto

    Things people look to GM for excellence: Corvettes, Camaros, Suburbans, Silverados and anythng else GM builds that’s Body On Frame (BOF). Things people DO NOT look to GM for excellence: Boring Cars, Toyotas & Hondas; Mediocre Cars, Hyundai/Kia; Luxury Cars, Mercedes & Lexus; Weird Cars, Subaru. Apologies if I forgot your non-GM brand. GM still believes it’s 1965 and all they gotta do is get you in a Chevy and move you right up Sloan’s marketing ladder. The Japanese and the Europeans smashed that corporate marketing ladder in the 1970s and Hyundai/Kai getting their acts together just added gasoline and matches to the kindling. GM never, ever cared to build small cars and the Japanese flat out kicked their butts in that process. Through serendipity, the GM brass left the Bowling Green plant, the Suburban group, and the Silverado group alone and (thankfully) unbothered by corporate brainstorms. Corvettes, Suburbans, and Silverado make GM money by the truckload (pun intended) by virtue of their soundness. A four cylinder Silverado may be evidence of trying rebuild in some “Corporate’s New Shining Plan” a small but solid and world-wide respected foundation. Sorry bout the rambling.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    I don’t disagree with cutting unprofitable or low profit products like cars but I don’t want the Government to bail out any auto company or any company in the future. If a business is too big to fail then maybe it should be allowed to fail. I wish GM and Ford success in their en-devours but I do not want to pay for their failures. Next time we should let the Chinese rescue GM since more of GM’s future production is going to China along with the vehicle sales. I own GM made vehicles and don’t have any issues with them but there are plenty of other manufacturers with competitive products. I don’t have any problems buying a vehicle produced by a Japanese or South Korean manufacturer especially if it is made in the USA. My wife has a CRV which is very good.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    I am not going to dwell on the bailouts, what is done is done. I just don’t want an encore. Again I don’t disagree with eliminating unprofitable products but I don’t want to bailout anymore failing companies. Chrysler under Iaccoca did pay back their Government loan in full early but not this last time. If it happens again then let China buy GM and FCA. I would say the same thing if Ford fails as well.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      Jeff,
      Fair comment. If you recall I saw this coming years ago. The US Big 3 are not competitive globally. They are only afloat in the US because no other country globally manufactures cheap large pickups and pickup based SUVs. Contrary to what many consider, if other nations had large pickups and cheap large SUVs the Big 3 would not exist today.

      The Big 3 had better hope the Chicken Tax and other technical import barriers remain.

      I fear the Big 3 are now in a fragile position and will realise a slow death, like Ford and GMH (Again Big 3) in Australia encountered.

      One thing many on this site don’t realise the US auto manufacturers recieve more handouts than any other country. They recieve 2.5 times the Germans who are second. So the Trump import tariffs are a joke and lie.

      It took 30 years to wean the Aussie auto manufacturers off of handouts. The US is in the same boat.

  • avatar

    GM’s Board is full of Globalists. read about them… SES members, Kissinger & Associates. dig and discover. Mary Barra is a puppet obeying orders. GM has products that would sell just fine were it not for the destructive marketing and corporate interference. these layoffs are economic warfare targeting Trump’s base.

    they want us “Useless Eaters” sharing autonomous electrics, and that’s damn well what will happen.

  • avatar

    Just to add another voice to what many have already said – adjusting what they make to take advantage of what the buying public appears to want is not an inappropriate step for GM to take. Forcing GM to manufacture vehicles few are wanting to purchase – as implied by the current administration’s “urging” and other’s comments – is stupid in more ways than one.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • FormerFF: In addition to the dealer fee, they also charge the buyer what the county charges them for registration....
  • JimZ: nice 2014 Cherokee.
  • teddyc73: Ugly rear end.
  • SCE to AUX: Agreed on all points. That’s terrible fuel economy on the Kona, and the Tucson is the better value.
  • FormerFF: I had to do one of those last Thanksgiving after my daughter’s flight was canceled. I left the office...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States