Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GM Is Now Detroit’s Smallest Auto-Making Employer

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 125 posts

Re: GM Is Now Detroit’s Smallest Auto-Making Employer

#81

Post by cityzen »

manfredo wrote: post #58
dreamcompiler wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Henry Ford built cars, he knew that the people making his cars were also buying his cars. That mantra was thrown out in the 80s. The new mantra was "make sure the people making the stuff are poorer than the people buying the stuff, and you [shareholders and executives] can pocket the extra profit margin." The flaw in this theory is obvious: Eventually you run out of poor people willing to build things they thems…

Were that the case, we'd see a prevalence of people unable to afford cars. This is not the case. The cost of an automobile is an even smaller fraction of an average person's disposable income than it was during Henry Ford's day. And this isn't considering the fact that a modern car is far safer, more comfortable, more fuel efficient, and just broadly way better than a model T. American workers are too highly paid to…

I think the only American workers that are paid too highly for manufacturing jobs to thrive in the US are folks like this:

As Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at GENERAL MOTORS CO, Mary T. Barra made $21,870,450 in total compensation. Of this total $2,100,000 was received as a salary, $4,452,000 was received as a bonus, $3,425,006 was received in stock options, $11,081,760 was awarded as stock and $811,684 came from other types of compensation. This information is according to proxy statements filed for the 2018 fiscal year.

Re: GM Is Now Detroit’s Smallest Auto-Making Employer

#82

Post by dsfyu404ed »

sharkweek wrote: post #10
AmVess wrote: post #8

They are pushing production and engineering to anywhere not the USA, so this trend of having fewer workers isn't going to stop until all that's left of GM is the headquarters. I'm not Chicken-Littling either. This trend has been many decades in the making, and it only has one logical endpoint. I was looking at their trucks, and left the showroom when I saw one that had 45% domestic content. I bought a truck that had…

As someone in the market for a truck, why specifically USA and not somewhere else? I’m looking at the Toyota Tacoma as my number one choice, but this is not a strongly held desire if there is something better.

>I’m looking at the Toyota Tacoma as my number one choice, but this is not a strongly held desire if there is something better.

Something better for what?

A Dodge Dakota or an old Ranger (the ones not based on the global platform) are far superior if your goal is to overload the piss out of them without hurting the truck.

You'd probably enjoy your time in a new truck far more though.

Re: GM Is Now Detroit’s Smallest Auto-Making Employer

#83

Post by jtdev »

manfredo wrote: post #58
dreamcompiler wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Henry Ford built cars, he knew that the people making his cars were also buying his cars. That mantra was thrown out in the 80s. The new mantra was "make sure the people making the stuff are poorer than the people buying the stuff, and you [shareholders and executives] can pocket the extra profit margin." The flaw in this theory is obvious: Eventually you run out of poor people willing to build things they thems…

Were that the case, we'd see a prevalence of people unable to afford cars. This is not the case. The cost of an automobile is an even smaller fraction of an average person's disposable income than it was during Henry Ford's day. And this isn't considering the fact that a modern car is far safer, more comfortable, more fuel efficient, and just broadly way better than a model T. American workers are too highly paid to…

> The cost of an automobile is an even smaller fraction of an average person's disposable income than it was during Henry Ford's day.

I seriously doubt that... at $50,000+ for a new pickup, and $35,000+ for a new car? And used vehicles are still quite expensive as well (unless you buy an absolute pile of junk).

Financing terms keep stretching longer to keep the appearance of an affordable monthly payment, but many Americans have become wary of the overall cost of a vehicle, which is by no means low today.

Re: GM Is Now Detroit’s Smallest Auto-Making Employer

#84

Post by zip1234 »

stankal wrote: post #23
wcunning wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oooph, as someone in the automotive industry, I would avoid that thing like the plague. Have you checked the recall for going through the car wash causing that truck to light on fire[0]? One burned down at my neighborhood convenience store a couple of weeks ago... I would much much much more readily trust the engineering of GM on trucks, but that's probably only meaningful if you actually intend to tow something. I h…

2015 Silverado owner, my first “American” car. Got it new, now have 75k miles on it. Went with an American brand because of “they know trucks”. So far, replaced catalytic converter, have a driver seat that shifts when I turn right (quoted $800 to fix), have a touch screen that works when it wants and goes crazy switching between views on its own (dealer said they can replace it for $1000, but the new one may start do…

As a counterpoint I have a 2011 Silverado that has never had an issue. I've had to replace normal wear/tear items over the course of 125k miles but that is it. The build quality on Ford/Chevy/Dodge/Toyota is all pretty good these days.

Re: GM Is Now Detroit’s Smallest Auto-Making Employer

#85

Post by 24gttghh »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #76
nolok wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is literally a war named after the Hilux because it was such a combination of cheap and super reliable despite the terrible conditions that it’s what all the local warlords used. There is a top gear episode where they roll over one with a monster truck several times and it refuses to stop working. Toyota doesn’t need any lessons from us manufacturers about reliability.

I'm really tired of this "hurr-durr Hilux indestructible" meme. They used it because they were there and available. In areas with limited supply chain infrastructure there is very much a network effect when it comes to machines that need a pretty substantial supply chain. It would have been the S10 war or the Ranger war had GM or Ford been the dominant manufacturer in that region. Toyota does not make cars that are m…

Okay, drop a building on a Ford Ranger and clear the rubble away and try to drive it away after. That is, after you've drowned it in the ocean and set it on fire.

https://www.drivingline.com/articles/top-gear-tries-to-kill-...

Re: GM Is Now Detroit’s Smallest Auto-Making Employer

#86

Post by 24gttghh »

wcunning wrote: post #18
AmVess wrote: post #8

They are pushing production and engineering to anywhere not the USA, so this trend of having fewer workers isn't going to stop until all that's left of GM is the headquarters. I'm not Chicken-Littling either. This trend has been many decades in the making, and it only has one logical endpoint. I was looking at their trucks, and left the showroom when I saw one that had 45% domestic content. I bought a truck that had…

Oooph, as someone in the automotive industry, I would avoid that thing like the plague. Have you checked the recall for going through the car wash causing that truck to light on fire[0]? One burned down at my neighborhood convenience store a couple of weeks ago... I would much much much more readily trust the engineering of GM on trucks, but that's probably only meaningful if you actually intend to tow something. I h…

>Honda says it has received no reports of fires, crashes, or injuries related to this issue.

Got any evidence one of those has actually caught on fire in a car wash?

Re: GM Is Now Detroit’s Smallest Auto-Making Employer

#87

Post by vgoh1 »

Wow, Chrysler has made quite the turn-around, I just noticed from that chart. 10 years ago, I expected them to be out of business by now with their low reliability (which I believe is still one of the lowest). Chrysler has a pretty terrible reputation, but their minivans have a good reputation (I know, I own one with 90k miles, and it's an amazing value and has been very reliable). The Jeep brand is killing it, lots of die hard fans of the nameplate. They also made a good move rebranding Dodge Rams to just Ram.

Re: GM Is Now Detroit’s Smallest Auto-Making Employer

#88

Post by grecy »

manfredo wrote: post #58
dreamcompiler wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Henry Ford built cars, he knew that the people making his cars were also buying his cars. That mantra was thrown out in the 80s. The new mantra was "make sure the people making the stuff are poorer than the people buying the stuff, and you [shareholders and executives] can pocket the extra profit margin." The flaw in this theory is obvious: Eventually you run out of poor people willing to build things they thems…

Were that the case, we'd see a prevalence of people unable to afford cars. This is not the case. The cost of an automobile is an even smaller fraction of an average person's disposable income than it was during Henry Ford's day. And this isn't considering the fact that a modern car is far safer, more comfortable, more fuel efficient, and just broadly way better than a model T. American workers are too highly paid to…

> Were that the case, we'd see a prevalence of people unable to afford cars.

Actually, I'd say that is precisely the case. The vast majority of cars in the US are bought on credit, which means people can't actually afford a car, they can only afford to borrow money to pay for a car for a few years, then get out of that one and move onto another one.

The massive, massive majority of vehicles are not owned by the person driving it, they're owned by banks.

Re: GM Is Now Detroit’s Smallest Auto-Making Employer

#89

Post by ModsCtrlideas »

fordworker234 wrote: post #56
dreamcompiler wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Henry Ford built cars, he knew that the people making his cars were also buying his cars. That mantra was thrown out in the 80s. The new mantra was "make sure the people making the stuff are poorer than the people buying the stuff, and you [shareholders and executives] can pocket the extra profit margin." The flaw in this theory is obvious: Eventually you run out of poor people willing to build things they thems…

This is ridiculous. Ford pays very high salaries compared to the rest of Detroit and most of America. The interns are paid $23 per hour for instance. https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Ford-Motor-Company-Detroit-...

Ford offered me 83k as a 5 year engineer, 2 years contract.

GM offered me 110k.

And after 8 years, Nissan at 120k.

Ford pays the worst for engineering

Re: GM Is Now Detroit’s Smallest Auto-Making Employer

#90

Post by MrGilbert »

manfredo wrote: post #58
dreamcompiler wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Henry Ford built cars, he knew that the people making his cars were also buying his cars. That mantra was thrown out in the 80s. The new mantra was "make sure the people making the stuff are poorer than the people buying the stuff, and you [shareholders and executives] can pocket the extra profit margin." The flaw in this theory is obvious: Eventually you run out of poor people willing to build things they thems…

Were that the case, we'd see a prevalence of people unable to afford cars. This is not the case. The cost of an automobile is an even smaller fraction of an average person's disposable income than it was during Henry Ford's day. And this isn't considering the fact that a modern car is far safer, more comfortable, more fuel efficient, and just broadly way better than a model T. American workers are too highly paid to…

So, let's compare the automotive industry then. I might be mistaken, but I'll try my best. And yes - I totally ignore taxes, healthcare, and anything else - which might be important, so... take it with a grain of salt.

In the year 1916, Henry Ford lowered the price of the Model T to 345 USD[1]. Using an inflation calculator[2], this tranlates to roughly 8120 US-$. At the same time, Ford raised the salary to 5 US-$ per day[1]. That makes 160 US-$ per Month (calculating with 4 x 5 days). Using the same calculator as in[2], we end up with a value of 3766 US-$. So a Model T costs 2.5 months of labour for an average worker.

Fast forward 2019 - the avarage salary is maybe 40k US-$ a year for an automotive worker?[3] So, using the same reference as above, this would translate to 166 US-$ per day, and 3320 US-$ per month.

Now, what's the successor of the Model T nowadays? I don't know - so I followed the "successor" links in the Model T wiki article[4], and ended up at the Ford Fusion. Ford says, it's starting at 23.170 US-$[5]. That's 7 months worth of labour for an average worker. So, yes - compared to 1916, it's 2.5 times more expensive.

I'm surprised.

[1] https://www.fomcc.de/t.htm (German page, sorry)

[2] http://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1916?amount=345

[3] https://www1.salary.com/Automotive-salaries.html

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Model_T

[5] https://shop.ford.com/build/fusion (I used 10005 as postal code, cause I'm not from the US)

Post reply on HN