Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alighieri who wrote (440556)	12/15/2008 9:58:07 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1584611

Nothing positive of course, but my point is that business is lost more prevalently because, with the exception of large vehicles, they build a mix of dull, unremarkable product, and customers have come to think of them that way. That's your point but you can't back it up with numbers. In the first place, a substantial portion, if not most, of GM's market loss is likely from a normal market transition from having new players entering the market. Secondly, you cannot quantify to what extent the loss pertains to market share loss versus other causes. So, if you can back up your remark, go for it. If not, you ought to withdraw it as being an unsupportable claim.

To: Alighieri who wrote (440556)	12/15/2008 12:06:17 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1584611

Al, > Nothing positive of course, but my point is that business is lost more prevalently because, with the exception of large vehicles, they build a mix of dull, unremarkable product, and customers have come to think of them that way. Any company will have to make up for higher costs and higher expenses with either higher quality output or higher productivity. It's obvious that the per-car labor costs means the Big Three failed at higher productivity. Hence they'll have to make up for it in quality, which they also failed to do. Either way, it's a dysfunctional business model. So now what? Management will have to work that out, but since the UAW is drawing a hard line, they are making themselves part of the problem instead of part of the solution. "Not MY job," say the union leaders whose first priority is the workers entitlements and not the workers' output. What to do then? One thing is for sure, though. A bailout is not going to fix the problems. One poster here claimed it's "Pay them now OR pay them later," but it's actually going to be a case of "Pay them now AND pay them later" if we bail them out. Tenchusatsu