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

111–120 of 125 posts

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

#111

Post by cr0sh »

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…

> I bought a truck that had the most USA content...a Honda Ridgeline.

Hate to break it to you - but you didn't buy a truck. You bought something shaped like a truck. I personally don't know if I could trust it doing actual truck jobs, if I needed it for that. I don't know how well it would fare if I took it off-road on some of the trails I've been on that can easily break regular pickups and jeeps.

Just something about it being a unibody car-like construction that makes me cringe. Then again, I know there've been other pickups built like this in the past (I know that various manufacturers have experimented with this); plus, the Jeep Cherokee has (almost?) always been of a similar construction (not sure if unibody - but it doesn't have a ladder-frame chassis, but rather front and rear subframes) - and it's known for it's off-road prowess.

Part of my concern on the Ridgeline, also, is that Honda isn't exactly known for its pickup trucks (at least here in the USA), unlike other Japanese brands still on the market - but that's just bias on my part.

That said, I think we're likely to see more unibody pickups along the way, and maybe the engineering of the Ridgeline will help lead that direction. There are advantages to it; I'm just biased toward ladder-frame as that's what I've always considered a real truck to use...

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

#112

Post by cr0sh »

sh-run wrote: post #47
sharkweek wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 absolutely love my Tacoma. It's a 2009 4dr TRD Sport with 164,000 miles. I have no desire to 'upgrade' to something newer. My only regret is getting the short bed, I sleep in the back a few times a year and it'd be nice to not need to sleep in the diagonal. The people I know who own the 3rd gen Tacomas seem to like them just as much as I like mine.

> My only regret is getting the short bed

This is exactly opposite for me - I want a pickup that is "short bed, standard cab" - I want a small pickup - like the original Ranger/Mazda B3000.

Sadly, due to CAFE rules I can't get that any more.

Now - what I (and many others) lusted after was something Jeep showed off as a concept vehicle: It was a short-bed version of their new Gladiator pickup.

Probably the only way that I might - might - give up my TJ. Damn, that thing looked so sweet. But again, they probably couldn't build it because of CAFE rules. So if you want the Gladiator, you have to get the 4-door. I don't like 4-door vehicles, I have no need for one. I want a 2-door pickup, standard cab, short bed - nothing less.

Either that, or give me one of these - another vehicle I can't own:

http://oxgvt.com/

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

#113

Post by cr0sh »

bitexploder wrote: post #46
sharkweek wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a fan of Ford trucks myself, drive a F150 for off-roading. Tacoma and Jeep Wrangler out here in CO are extremely popular and have great reputations. The build quality on Ford stuff is fine. I think the recommendation for Ranger is solid, but I am not sure if it is better. If you are really serious about off-roading full sized trucks are not ideal (too wide/long).

From what I can gather - and this is mere speculation on my part - the new Ranger is merely a version of the 1990s F150 dressed up.

Compare the size of an early 90s F150 with that of today's new Ranger, and you'll see what I mean (while you're at it, compare the sizes of an early 90s F250 with today's F150).

I honestly think (I have no proof) that what Ford did was kill off the Ranger (ie - stop rebadging them from Mazda), because of CAFE rule changes, but then they found that even the F150 was too small, too. So they moved the F250 down a notch (it became the 150), and maybe the 350 too (it became the 250). I'm not sure about higher numbers; most people never bought anything bigger than the 350, at least on the consumer end (I have seen some "consumer" 450s and 750s on the road - but they are very rare).

Then people clamor for the Ranger (have you ever tried to find an original Ford Ranger that is in normal condition, in good repair, and hasn't been "pre-runnered"? Not easy - and when you do, it ain't cheap, either - wish I never gave up my 94) - so they dig out the old F150 - which is smaller than today's F150, dress it up and tada: "new Ranger!"

Again - this is just my impression; I'm not sure of the truth or facts or anything.

I'll tell you where Ford also made a mistake: They announced a "mini-Raptor" - but afaik, it was only released in Australia (and I think it had a diesel engine option to boot!). Gah!

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

#114

Post by xeromal »

cr0sh wrote: post #111
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…

> I bought a truck that had the most USA content...a Honda Ridgeline. Hate to break it to you - but you didn't buy a truck. You bought something shaped like a truck. I personally don't know if I could trust it doing actual truck jobs, if I needed it for that. I don't know how well it would fare if I took it off-road on some of the trails I've been on that can easily break regular pickups and jeeps. Just something abo…

hahaha. I hate both the ridgeline and the avalanche. It's a car with a truck body.

Body on frame construction is a dying art and it makes me pretty sad. I love that my 4runner is still built strong.

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

#115

Post by cr0sh »

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…

> have a driver seat that shifts when I turn right (quoted $800 to fix)

Of anything on that list - I'd get this one fixed. I mean, if it's doing that - what's to say you'll be surprised one day it failing causing you to have an accident? Or it not working correctly in an accident.

You might look into what it would take for a custom shop to replace the seats with something else - even something from another vehicle. Manual controls, etc. Something that would be safer. Might be a lot cheaper than getting it "fixed" (which might just fail again in the future).

I once was in the market looking for a used 2-door Tahoe (not easy to find). I ended up finding one that I was going to test drive; looked like a real sweet ride. But then I did some research on the vehicle - it seems that for that particular model, there was an issue on the driver's side seat, where a bracket would fail, usually on acceleration (like an on-ramp for a freeway), and the seat would fall backward. There was never a recall for it. I considered the thought of having something custom done to fix it, but for something like that, I just noped out of it (good thing, too, as I ended up finding what I really wanted - a 1999 Isuzu VehiCROSS - which, while somewhat of a money-pit, I love).

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

#116

Post by ousta »

dreamcompiler wrote: post #50
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…

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…

he actually lost this battle while he was alive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.

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

#117

Post by devonkim »

manfredo wrote: post #101
grecy wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 perso…

Here's some quick math. The price of a model T in 1908 was $825 or $850 (google results vary). The median annual income was between $450 and $525 (again, sources vary). So a Model T cost 1.6 to 1.7 times the median income of a US worker. For a car that had no air conditioning, no radio, no airbags, and a top speed of 45 mph. Near the end of the production run (mid-late 20s) the cost of the model T had gone down by ov…

Almost all the price-market comparisons from decades ago forget utility value of monetary and the shifting of disposable income for non-essential goods and services. Houses then cost the equivalent today of perhaps $80k as well. A better comparison may be around disposable income though which at the national average household income of about $70k to be a safe $15k, so cars should be about $20k. Except new car sale prices nowadays are about $30k and yet we know that most people making $70k for a family of four probably aren’t going around getting a new car.

Elizabeth Warren’s paper from a decade or two ago did a fair job doing some pricing comparisons of the day to turn of the century American household microeconomics and demonstrated the primary change in the past 100 years was the additional cost of a second bathroom.

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

#118

Post by manfredo »

devonkim wrote: post #117
manfredo wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's some quick math. The price of a model T in 1908 was $825 or $850 (google results vary). The median annual income was between $450 and $525 (again, sources vary). So a Model T cost 1.6 to 1.7 times the median income of a US worker. For a car that had no air conditioning, no radio, no airbags, and a top speed of 45 mph. Near the end of the production run (mid-late 20s) the cost of the model T had gone down by ov…

Almost all the price-market comparisons from decades ago forget utility value of monetary and the shifting of disposable income for non-essential goods and services. Houses then cost the equivalent today of perhaps $80k as well. A better comparison may be around disposable income though which at the national average household income of about $70k to be a safe $15k, so cars should be about $20k. Except new car sale pr…

And what was the disposable income in 1908 when the median us income was $500. If buying a $30k car is out of reach for a family making $70k a year, then I find it exceedingly hard to believe that a family making $500 in 1908 would be able to afford an $800 car.

Microeconomic comparisons are very easy to tweak to achieve a conclusion determined a priori. Some goods and services like electronics, air travel, communication, and transport become orders of magnitude cheaper over the course of the 20th century. Others like healthcare and housing on average get more expensive, especially in the latter half of the 20th century. If you want to show lowering costs of living, weight the model towards the former. If you want to show a higher cost of living, weight the model towards the latter.

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

#119

Post by perl4ever »

stochastic_monk wrote: post #44
perl4ever wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Number 1 hit for "F-150 recalls": "Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2018 Ford Expedition, F-150, and Lincoln Navigator vehicles equipped with 3.5L GTDI V6 engines. These vehicles have high pressure fuel pump assemblies with welds that can fracture, which may cause an oil or fuel leak." That said, I don't own a pickup from any manufacturer.

I lost count of how many recalls there were for my Ford Focus, including one for my transmission software after 4 trips to my dealer to report a problem they wouldn’t fix. I would strongly recommend avoiding Ford products.

The thing is, even though I've pretty much always owned a car with a foreign nameplate, I really like most of the domestic cars I've driven. Most Fords look attractive to me, Chevys are getting better lookswise, and most of the time the suspension tuning in domestic cars seems better than I'm used to in Japanese vehicles. I drove a Chevy Sonic once, which is, I believe basically a Korean car, and the sort of car often described as a "shitbox", but I was amazingly planted when going over bumpy pavement at high speed, unlike, say, Hondas that I've driven that feel like they want to skitter off the road.

But there's always been a dealbreaker. Frequently the transmission. I mean, even before it was fully verified that the DCT in the Focus was a disaster, I certainly expected it to have problems and never understood why they would take the risk on a low-end car. People always blame "bean counters" for automotive failures, but it seems (based on my imagination as an outsider) like it's more an unhealthy intersection of cost-cutting and engineers that want to be daring.

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

#120

Post by AnthonyMouse »

bumby wrote: post #74
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference between automation and outsourcing is that automation can actually save domestic jobs. Labor costs are lower in other countries and that is likely to continue, so for US workers to stay competitive they need to be more productive and justify the higher compensation. Which is what automation does -- you get more cars for the same number of labor hours, justifying the higher wages. That means you get a c…

I follow your point, but I'm not sure the research or my personal experience proves that to be true. In some cases, automation leads to net job growth (e.g., there are more bank tellers now than before the invention of ATMs), but I think that is the exception rather than the rule. Especially in manufacturing, automation absolutely guts jobs. A line that was run by dozens can be run by a just a couple. The balance is…

The point isn't that all markets work like that, it's that it can, in a way that outsourcing can't. Even if outsourcing results in lower prices which increase demand, the additional jobs then go to the country the jobs were outsourced to, not to the original country.

You're also looking at the overall market rather than a single company or country. If you automate before your competitors, the result is that you can produce onions for 20% the original price because you need 20% as many workers per kilo of onions. Even if people buy exactly the same total number of onions at the lower price, they now buy 25 times as many from your company and your country because you have the best price on the world market, so you hire five times as many domestic workers.

If other countries do the same thing then you're back to parity and everyone requires 20% as many jobs to produce that many onions, but you still have more domestic jobs than if they automated and you didn't, because in that case you would end up with zero flat rather than at least keeping 20% of the original workforce.

Post reply on HN