Live data from Hacker News

Who shot General Motors? (Labor unions, in 1950.)

nytimes.com

21–30 of 48 posts

Re: Who shot General Motors? (Labor unions, in 1950.)

#21
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's kind of tough to succeed when your workers (with the same skills) get paid 2-3x what competing car companies pay. Profit margins are just as important to a company's success as demand. See Internet math of the late 90's for a perfect example of what 1000000 * 0 equals.

Profit margins are just as important to a company's success as demand. On what planet? Wanna buy a buggy whip, a cassette player, or a 5.25" floppy disk drive? All marked up 100%, but still good prices.

You wouldn't happen to have better examples? These only reinforce his point -- which alternately worded is: "Demand is just as important to a company's success as profit margins".

Re: Who shot General Motors? (Labor unions, in 1950.)

#22
post #21
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Profit margins are just as important to a company's success as demand. On what planet? Wanna buy a buggy whip, a cassette player, or a 5.25" floppy disk drive? All marked up 100%, but still good prices.

You wouldn't happen to have better examples? These only reinforce his point -- which alternately worded is: "Demand is just as important to a company's success as profit margins".

You wouldn't happen to have better examples?

No. These weren't "examples". They were caricatures.

Because the statement is absurd. What difference do your margins make if no one wants to buy your stuff?

We're all so good at tech and so used to eyeball driven apps that it's easy to lose sight of the single most important fact of business: sooner or later someone has to be a customer.

I never entered the "labor vs. management" debate here because it's a complex issue that won't easily be resolved here (or anywhere else). Instead I offered a play on pg's "Make Something People Want," slightly modified for Detroit.

I don't know whose fault it is (nor do I care), but face it: hardly anyone wants Detroit's cars. They've delayed the inevitable by bolting 4 door bodys onto pickup truck chasses for 15 years now without preparing themselves for $4 gas. Duh.

Look out your window right now. After the first 100 Camrys, Accords, and Altimas drive by, do you see anything from Detroit that you'd rather have? Neither does anyone else. That's Detroit's biggest problem, so I'll restate my original, they need to "Make Cars People Want".

I know this is Hacker News (thus the questioning about the applicability of this post). We must not forget that the business aspect is just as important as the tech aspect.

No matter what your other financials are, without demand, you have no sales. Without sales, you have no business. Then all of this is just one big hobby.

Re: Who shot General Motors? (Labor unions, in 1950.)

#23
It seems insane to me that the overall editorial conclusion is "we need to do more to fund public pensions". The entire rest of the article seems to be to the point that "pensions are an artifact of sky-high prosperity that ultimately rob the future". Maybe I am just misreading the article.

Re: Who shot General Motors? (Labor unions, in 1950.)

#24
post #13
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you guys don't seem to realize or take seriously is that enough of this stuff (Obama, Iran, unions, etc...) will drive the quality of the site down, just like reddit. "Non computer" stuff is often ok if it's just some random, interesting thing that's "food for the brain", but when you get into politics and economics (at least some kinds of economics) and stuff like that, it's just poison.

There have always been a few stories like this. I understand that to someone who saw what happened to reddit, the sight of words like "Obama" or "Union" in a title is very alarming. But not all stories with those words in their titles are boring political ones. Don't worry, I won't let News.YC go down that road. I'll munge the voting algorithm before I let that happen.

Thanks for keeping an eye on it.

I actually think that 'boring' isn't the problem though. Boring stuff is easy to ignore. Political stories, on the other hand, are easy for everyone to have an opinion on, and get excited about. This tends to draw people in who otherwise might refrain from commenting... basically what happened to the reddit community. There were initially some political articles with the rest, and they were pretty good, and a decent mix of liberals and libertarians. Then it hit a tipping point, and that stuff completely drowned out the rest of the site.

I trust that you'll ensure that doesn't happen, but part of the equation isn't necessarily better algorithms, IMO, but trying to foster a community spirit of "let's avoid these things for the sake of the site's quality".

Re: Who shot General Motors? (Labor unions, in 1950.)

#25
post #7

Make cars people want.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=GM Revenue (ttm): 180.41B 180 Billion dollars revenue suggests to me that they already understand the basics of the auto industry.

From your own link:

Stock Price History: 52-Week Change: -74.19%

I wonder if their owners would agree with you.

Re: Who shot General Motors? (Labor unions, in 1950.)

#26

As a libertarian immigrant, I don't care for unions. Please no Ayn Rand jokes, I can't stand her. So while the unions are certainly a big part of the problem, the responsibility is ultimately with management. It is ALWAYS management's fault. It doesn't matter if it is GM or a start up, it's management. If you are considering going to work for a startup, the management should be the most important factor in your decis…

GM didn't buy their own SUV's, Americans did. So while we're all quick to blame GM for cashing in on SUV's we all did the dance with GM in the 90's which got them drunk with success and profit. That being said (and to counter my own point), the first Toyota Prius came out in 1997, and I don't think I need to tell everyone what gas cost then.

[deleted]

Re: Who shot General Motors? (Labor unions, in 1950.)

#27
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=GM Revenue (ttm): 180.41B 180 Billion dollars revenue suggests to me that they already understand the basics of the auto industry.

From your own link: Stock Price History: 52-Week Change: -74.19% I wonder if their owners would agree with you.

Which is to do with their financial situation, not with their sales. Sales are down slightly, but GM still sells more cars than anybody on Earth (except maybe Toyota, I haven't kept up with the sales figures for this year). Every time they sell a car, it's because somebody has decided they want the GM product instead of any of the many other products they could have.

There are weak spots in their product line (especially not having a decent entry in the small car market for the US) but their problem is that they have massive debt, not that their sales aren't strong.

Re: Who shot General Motors? (Labor unions, in 1950.)

#28
post #22
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You wouldn't happen to have better examples? These only reinforce his point -- which alternately worded is: "Demand is just as important to a company's success as profit margins".

You wouldn't happen to have better examples? No. These weren't "examples". They were caricatures. Because the statement is absurd. What difference do your margins make if no one wants to buy your stuff? We're all so good at tech and so used to eyeball driven apps that it's easy to lose sight of the single most important fact of business: sooner or later someone has to be a customer . I never entered the "labor vs. ma…

OK... It sounds like you are actually in violent agreement with josefresco's statement that both demand and profit margin are important. :)

Re: Who shot General Motors? (Labor unions, in 1950.)

#29
post #27
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From your own link: Stock Price History: 52-Week Change: -74.19% I wonder if their owners would agree with you.

Which is to do with their financial situation, not with their sales. Sales are down slightly, but GM still sells more cars than anybody on Earth (except maybe Toyota, I haven't kept up with the sales figures for this year). Every time they sell a car, it's because somebody has decided they want the GM product instead of any of the many other products they could have. There are weak spots in their product line (especi…

Which is to do with their financial situation

What could possibly matter more than their financial situation? Honestly, ownership actually paid management to lose 75% of their equity in one year? That's only a little better than playing the lottery.

especially not having a decent entry in the small car market for the US

What else is there now? Don't you think it's been management's responsibility (maybe their biggest one) to forecast the price of gas? Who does it affect more?

This is like saying, "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?"

Re: Who shot General Motors? (Labor unions, in 1950.)

#30
post #22
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You wouldn't happen to have better examples? These only reinforce his point -- which alternately worded is: "Demand is just as important to a company's success as profit margins".

You wouldn't happen to have better examples? No. These weren't "examples". They were caricatures. Because the statement is absurd. What difference do your margins make if no one wants to buy your stuff? We're all so good at tech and so used to eyeball driven apps that it's easy to lose sight of the single most important fact of business: sooner or later someone has to be a customer . I never entered the "labor vs. ma…

Last month, GM sold 262,329 vehicles in the US alone. Toyota, in second place, sold 193,234. Ford and Chrysler took the third and fourth spots, with Honda in fifth. You can't claim that "hardly anybody" is buying Detroit's products.

And that's just in the US. You wanna know what the top-selling car in Europe is? It's the Opel/Vauxhall Astra -- a GM product -- with nearly half a million sold last year. The Ford Focus comes in third, after the Renault Clio. In Australia the top-selling cars are almost always GM's Holden Commodore and Ford's Falcon.

If you think nobody's buying American cars, that might just be a function of where you live (Northern California?)

Post reply on HN