Hmm... GM takes a look at future prospects of costlier gas, smaller families, more eco-aware consumers, declining employment rates, and foreign manufacturers shifting production to smaller and more efficient vehicles; their answer is to keep building the same ol' battle tanksoldstermobiles gas hogs. And then they wonder why they're getting spanked.
Once upon a time, long long ago, the North American auto industry was a leader in innovation... or so my Dad tells me. I don't see much evidence of that in my lifetime, and said lifetime includes the Moon landings.
-- Steve does think that ever-escalating union demands have their share of the blame, but the biggest portion goes to a management style that shuns short-term losses (from changing lines) that would act to generate long-term profits and favours management by quarter instead.
I was thinking more along the lines of 15%, myself. (Seriously, though, the pension fund requirements are turning out to be fairly steep... dunno if that's bad planning, poor management of the fund, or if GM was seriously outmaneuvered at the bargaining table one day.)
-- Steve does agree that it's far from the major cause, in any case.
This news is more like 20 years old isn't it? Heck my dad had an 83 Toyota Celica that lasted him through most of the 90's. Between Honda and Toyota's lines of cars, they pretty much got the market cornered for fuel-efficient, reliable, and even reasonably powerful cars. The new NON-hybrid civics get over 40 miles per gallon.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-04-24 05:31 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-04-24 05:47 pm (UTC)battle tanksoldstermobilesgas hogs. And then they wonder why they're getting spanked.Once upon a time, long long ago, the North American auto industry was a leader in innovation... or so my Dad tells me. I don't see much evidence of that in my lifetime, and said lifetime includes the Moon landings.
-- Steve does think that ever-escalating union demands have their share of the blame, but the biggest portion goes to a management style that shuns short-term losses (from changing lines) that would act to generate long-term profits and favours management by quarter instead.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-04-24 08:23 pm (UTC)Maybe, but I'd bet we'd differ on what their share is. I'd give 'em less than 10%.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-04-24 08:55 pm (UTC)-- Steve does agree that it's far from the major cause, in any case.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-04-24 05:50 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-04-25 04:57 am (UTC)