Is GM finished?

[BeAChooser]

The UAW and its members have given up considerable advancements due to restructuring.

Specifically?

Most of the union workers have given up pay and benefits they easily would have seen 5 years ago.

Really? Do you have a source with any specific details as to what you claim they gave up in the bailout and restructuring? Because the Washington Post, a liberal source, claimed they didn't give up much of anything.

If you're a bulk volume buyer you usually get fringe benefits and discounts the average joe on the street doesn't.

This isn't about "fringe benefits and discounts". What unions *negotiated* were what now are being called "cadillac" policies ... health plans that cost far more than the average plans and offer better than average coverage. They didn't negotiate with insurance companies for getting these plans with less money, they *negotiated* with the car companies to get them to pay for them, regardless of how much they cost. Part of the reason car companies went belly up. And under the new health care bill, if ordinary folks have one of these cadillac plans, you will get charged a penalty ... a 40% excise tax. But democrats put language in the bill that specifically excluded auto union members from this penalty.

And here are more details about the *deal* that auto unions *negotiated* during the bankruptcy and restructuring ...

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/11/19/the-uaws-benefits-shell-game

Who will control the VEBA? Not the government. This is all set up as a private arrangement. Not the automakers. One of the reasons they wanted to cut the deal was to get the liability for the long term benefits off their books. To do that, accounting rules require that they keep their hands off the VEBA. But there is no such problem for the UAW and in fact, they will name 5 of the 11 trustees who will control the VEBA. The UAW can replace any or all of these trustees at any time with no oversight. There will also be 6 "independent" trustees, who will be appointed at first by the judge who is overseeing the lawsuits filed by the UAW against the automakers that are being settled by setting up the VEBA.

Now what happens when one of the "independent" trustees dies or retires? The remaining members of the board of trustees will select the new trustee. When one of the "independent" trustees resigns or dies, the UAW will have 5 of the 10 votes needed to name a replacement.

All of which means that as a practical matter, the UAW will soon have control over the entire muti-billion dollar fund -- with minimal oversight by anyone.

... snip ...



DOL is being asked to give exemptions to laws which require healthcare and pension plans to diversify their investments and not engage in self dealing with the employer that funded the plan. ... snip ... If DOL grants the VEBAs exceptions autoworkers may well end up without the benefits the UAW, the companies -- and the U.S. Department of Labor -- were all supposed ensure they receive. The VEBAs are great for the automakers who will remove health care liabilities from their balance sheets and great for the UAW which will have over $50 billion in assets to play with as they wish. The real losers are the workers who could see their healthcare benefits vanish and the taxpayers who may be forced to bailout -- yet again -- ill-conceived decisions that benefit only UAW bosses and the automaker executives.

 

[varwoche]

My Ford has 180k miles on it.

The myth about poor domestic car quality is just that, a myth.

Not according to Consumer Reports reliability ratings (subscription required). Taking model year 2008:

Ford has 14 models that have been scored:

Excellent: 1
Very good: 2
Good: 8
Fair: 2
Poor: 1

Toyota has 15 models:

Excellent: 7
Very good: 8
Good: 0
Fair: 0
Poor: 0

 

[mhaze]

Not according to Consumer Reports ....

Whom I used to subscribed to, and stopped several years ago when I figured out that you could not believe anything they said.

A patently biased organization. By the way, I wasn't looking at cars at the time, but since you bring it up, they have consistently, through the years, favored Japanese cars. Not all of which were so terribly great.

 

[varwoche]

Whom I used to subscribed to, and stopped several years ago when I figured out that you could not believe anything they said.

A patently biased organization. By the way, I wasn't looking at cars at the time, but since you bring it up, they have consistently, through the years, favored Japanese cars. Not all of which were so terribly great.

I hope you understand that I assign no weight to unsupported statements from anonymous characters on the internet. Much less, well, er, you.

 

[Roadtoad]

I hope you understand that I assign no weight to unsupported statements from anonymous characters on the internet. Much less, well, er, you.

One shouldn't assign weight to anecdotal evidence, either.

But, just the same...

Over the years, I've owned multiple automobiles, but the best they were Subarus, Japanese cars. Let me offer a bit of a comparison:

When it came to my Chevrolets, I had to either take them to the shop, or I had to buy manuals and gear that were both expensive and arcane in their use to fix them. On the other hand, my Subies were so easy to fix most of the time, I could often have them up and running within a day, even with some of the most serious problems. I usually wound up surrendering them to the junkyard only when the engines had given up the ghost. And the fixes were usually a hell of a lot cheaper than anything GM was offering.

So, you tell me: Given what we know regarding Detroit's propensity to build cars that can't be maintained, (the Escort, anything with an Olds Quad 4, anything at all built by Chrysler), why would you consider buying a Detroit vehicle? Make any sense at all? Particularly when you can buy a Subaru for a fraction of the price of a Chevrolet.

 

[Debunker]

Not according to Consumer Reports reliability ratings . Taking model year 2008:

Ford has 14 models that have been scored:

Excellent: 1
Very good: 2
Good: 8
Fair: 2
Poor: 1

Toyota has 15 models:

Excellent: 7
Very good: 8
Good: 0
Fair: 0
Poor: 0

Looks like Toyota is winning by far..

 

[varwoche]

My Ford has 180k miles on it. The myth about poor domestic car quality is just that, a myth.

Maybe 2008 was a freak year (lol). Here's a summary of CR's "Best of the best" for 1998-2009. (These are counts of the recommended models.)

Small: US 0, Japan 9*
Family: US 2, Japan 5
Upscale: US 2, Japan 9
Luxury: US 0, Japan 4
Sporty: US 1, Japan 10
Minivan: US 0, Japan 2
Small SUV: US 0, Japan 4
Large SUV: US 0, Japan 13
Pickups: US 0, Japan 5

Let me know if you want to see the "Worst of the worst", but be prepared to avert your eyes.

* Includes Pontiac Vibe which is made by Toyota

 

[pipelineaudio]

Consider that no Chrysler product provides even a dipstick for the automatic transmission, according to my mechanic.

Get a new mechanic

While this is a big pisser on some models, its certainly not true for all. The tradeoff is that now, just by virtue of the PCM itself you will know not only the level of the transmission fluid, but the condition, temperature and operating pressures as well. All without getting your hands dirty. In the event you really really do need to look at the fluid, to look for water or something (which would show up on the PCM due to its effect on operating parameters), its one cap away

And I know many object to including this with chrysler but their jeep wrangler and in many ways their cherokee lines represent some absolutely top notch engineering in so many ways. As much as I cant stand cars made after 1973, the new jeep JK is an unreal performer right off the showroom floor.

 

[drkitten]

You want evidence?

What happened in the Obama negotiated GM bailout? Where did the equity of the existing shareholders go?

The same place equity of existing shareholders always goes in a bankruptcy. To the creditors of the firm in question, at the expense of the shareholders who haven't been able to make the firm run.

Basically, the same place any rational observer would have expected it to go when a company goes bankrupt. It's only the irrational Republican talking heads that seemed to think that a bankruptcy plan would favor the shareholders (who are LAST in line for any money) over the unions who were contractually obligated to a huge sum of money as part of the freely negotiated pension agreements that the shareholders and board of directors had agreed to.

 

[Furcifer]

That's not a performance car. That's a wannabe on wheels.

Part of owning a Performance Car -- note the caps -- is that you are able to keep it performing over the years you own it. (If you're not going to own it any longer, rent one.) Consider that no Chrysler product provides even a dipstick for the automatic transmission, according to my mechanic. Want one? No problem. $80, out the door.

You might be jumping the gun here RT, time will tell. As it stands the owners aren't complaining.

You get a factory tuned performance car. The key here being factory tuned. So it's under warranty. Most of the tuning you see in these cars can be bought, probably a little cheaper, but you negate your warranty.

Further, these guys aren't babying these cars. I know a few Accord's that run 10's, even high 9's. They don't last. This car will tune and last, wait, you'll see

The man in me requires me to laugh at you for talking about automatic transmissions. Ha-Ha. The 09 Challenger now comes with a 6 speed manual. A little slower than the 5 speed auto last year, but it's a stick dammit, I personally want that option.

All kidding aside, I see your point but don't see the need for a dipstick I will never use. There's light to indicate if the level drops below minimum and it's covered under warranty. A dipstick has the potential to get lost or come out. As the only hole in the tranny that the fluid could come out of, why the heck not plug it? A dipstick is an unnecessary feature on a modern automatic transmission.

 

[Furcifer]

Maybe 2008 was a freak year (lol). Here's a summary of CR's "Best of the best" for 1998-2009. (These are counts of the recommended models.)

Small: US 0, Japan 9*
Family: US 2, Japan 5
Upscale: US 2, Japan 9
Luxury: US 0, Japan 4
Sporty: US 1, Japan 10
Minivan: US 0, Japan 2
Small SUV: US 0, Japan 4
Large SUV: US 0, Japan 13
Pickups: US 0, Japan 5

Let me know if you want to see the "Worst of the worst", but be prepared to avert your eyes.

* Includes Pontiac Vibe which is made by Toyota

I don't have a subscription so I can't see what the heck this is about, but seriously 5 Japanese pickups and no North American? I can't name 5 Japanese pickups. I can't even think of 5 people who drive a truck that would consider a Toyota Tundra if you gave it to them.

 

[Furcifer]

Specifically?

Co-pay, retiree benefits, private rooms, number of yearly visits covered, out of pocket expenses all come to mind.

Really? Do you have a source with any specific details as to what you claim they gave up in the bailout and restructuring? Because the Washington Post, a liberal source, claimed they didn't give up much of anything.

Maybe they didn't consider what was already given up to keep them solvent in the last 5 years? I don't know. I'll have to check, most likely it will be coming from the Detroit Free Press.

 

[davefoc]

The same place equity of existing shareholders always goes in a bankruptcy. To the creditors of the firm in question, at the expense of the shareholders who haven't been able to make the firm run.

Basically, the same place any rational observer would have expected it to go when a company goes bankrupt. It's only the irrational Republican talking heads that seemed to think that a bankruptcy plan would favor the shareholders (who are LAST in line for any money) over the unions who were contractually obligated to a huge sum of money as part of the freely negotiated pension agreements that the shareholders and board of directors had agreed to.

This would be true, if only there had been equity to give the unions. I believe the order of priority in a normal bankruptcy would be salaries, bonds, pensions although perhaps pensions would be ahead of bonds. Either way their was nothing left to divvy up. The government injected mass amounts of capital into GM and then gave a lot of that capital in the form of funded pensions and an equity stake to the unions.

I don't think BeAChooser, and I know I wouldn't have had a problem with just turning GM over to the unions if the union stake in GM was such that they had had the appropriate debtor priority to justify that. Of course, that wasn't the situation. The GM executives had cooked the books for decades claiming profits where in fact there were none because of their relentless underestimation of their liabilities to the unions. Eventually, a recession came along and it became obvious tht the emperor had no clothes except the government for political reasons was driven to transfer billions of dollars of taxpayer assets to the unions to allow the scheme to continue for a little while longer. In doing so, they kept in place the process that killed the Detroit automakers and they contributed to the process that is destroying the ability of the US to compete in world markets.

Real wealth measured in a variety of ways has been static or declining for ten years or so in the US. BS schemes designed to enrich unions are not remotely related to doing anything about that problem.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by 3bodyproblem
The UAW and its members have given up considerable advancements due to restructuring.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Specifically?

Co-pay, retiree benefits, private rooms, number of yearly visits covered, out of pocket expenses all come to mind.

Oh that's right. For decades (until the 2007 contract), UAW health plans had no deductibles, no copays, no medication costs, nor many of the other costly/inconvenient *details* that are a fact of life for the rest of us. (See what I mean by cadillac plans, folks?) Only recently have they had to start paying anything for some of these things, and in most cases it's so little that they've still got health plans that would be the envy of anyone else. And now you want to claim they gave up those things as part of the restructuring? That this is something that occurred as a condition for the unions getting 40% ownership of GM and 55% ownership of Chrysler? Wrong. Active workers gave up nothing. Retirees gave up a little but they started to lose these perks long before Obama's restructuring agreement. In fact, here's the Obama administrations fact sheets on the GM and Chrysler restructuring:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press...-Restructuring-Initiative-for-General-Motors/

http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/tg115.htm

There is no mention of any concessions on the part of unions in terms of health plan co-pays, deductibles, etc for active workers and I suspect Obama administration officials would have been eager to mention them if that had in fact occurred. Please point out where I missed mention of them.

Here's a newsletter that gives even more specifics regarding the concessions that were actually approved:

http://www.fhsolutionsgroup.com/shownews.aspx?type=38&show=1958

It states:

Pay rates, pensions, and health benefits for active employees remain unchanged.

The fact is active workers did not lose anything (just as the Washington Post said). And as pointed out earlier, the democrat Congress has obligingly insulated both active and retired UAW workers from the extra tax the rest of us will pay for such cadillac plans (if the health care bill passes). And as pointed out earlier, the democrat Congress has included language to lessen or negate even of the meager concessions that the unions actually did make vis a vis retirement health plans and pensions. Either Obama is the biggest patsy ever or he (and his party) expected to get something for such overwhelming largess (billions and billions of dollars of it).

 

[drkitten]

This would be true, if only there had been equity to give the unions. I believe the order of priority in a normal bankruptcy would be salaries, bonds, pensions although perhaps pensions would be ahead of bonds.

No. The "normal priority" in a chapter 11 bankruptcy is whatever the debtors agree to.

Either way their was nothing left to divvy up. The government injected mass amounts of capital into GM and then gave a lot of that capital in the form of funded pensions and an equity stake to the unions.

Which is why the debtors agreed to the proposed restructuring and repayment plan. They made more money being in line behind the unions, but with an operating company, under the proposed chapter 11 restructuring, then they would have under a chapter 7 liquidation.

And the "agreement" is explicit. Not only did they explicitly sign on to the repayment plan, but if any of them had actually insisted, the law gives creditors the right to reject any form of chapter 11 and insist on going direct to chapter 7. Of course, this would mean that the creditors would lose a lot more, because the government wouldn't have poured all the new money into GM if it was just going straight into liquidation.

 

[drkitten]

No. The "normal priority" in a chapter 11 bankruptcy is whatever the debtors agree to.

Sorry. Embarassing mistake there. Whatever the creditors agree to.

Basically, when bankruptcy rolls around, the creditors have two choices.

Stand on their rights, insist on liquidation, and get paid next to nothing in exact order of priority OR

Work out another deal with everyone else involved. Which may involve loss of priority, if you would rather have 20% of a viable corporation than 40% of nothing, for example.

 

[Furcifer]

There is no mention of any concessions on the part of unions in terms of health plan co-pays, deductibles, etc for active workers and I suspect Obama administration officials would have been eager to mention them if that had in fact occurred. Please point out where I missed mention of them.

Just what I know from people that actually work in the industry. There's a catch however, most of the people I know work for the CAW not the UAW. I know what's changed for the CAW, but the UAW not so directly. Again, what you've posted is in reference to what happened in 2009, not what happened since 2005 (I think that was the last round of contract negotiations in the US). The fact is the Union has been the number one proponent of getting health care to its members. Much like they did in the early days, when workplace safety was a friggin joke they established fair working rules for employees. What you consider "the Cadillac of health plans" should be the norm in a civilized society such as the US. You give your body (this isn't the PGA tour, people get hurt in these factories) to a company for 30 years, you deserve to get healed as best as is possible when you suffer injury. People say "Spread the wealth", what about "Spread the health"? You probably don't have a clue what kind of money was spent making these jobs as safe as possible so that working class men and women made it home every night. On my lines I had millions of dollars worth of safety mats and laser curtains. They faulted out all the time and cost millions of dollars in lost production. A day. Yeah, you read that right, a day. 50 minutes of lost production in a single shift represents almost a million dollars in lost revenue. I suppose we could have reverted to the same safety standards we see overseas in order to get production and cover health benefits. People like you don't see because you don't have a clue what's really going on.

TAX PAYER TAX PAYER TAX PAYER, everyone's a tax payer. You get your check at the end of the week and have $100 bucks taken off and now your a bitchin whining tax payer. DO you have a break down of what the Union membership paid in taxes over the last 50 years, in comparison to what the average tax payer has? Who really contributes, and who just thinks they have? I'll tell you this, my last 3 months working at the Big 3 I paid something like $18 000 in taxes alone. In 3 months. Granted I'm Canadian but the ratio still holds the same in the US. I know people here that haven't paid $18 000 in taxes over the last 10 years.
Don't whine to me about what the "tax payer" lost, because you have no reference point. Given the Union membership and spinoff jobs associated with the automotive industry how many Americans owe their privileged right to pay taxes to the Big 3? What are you some sort of Socialist? Do you think everyone's contribution to taxes has been equal over the last 50 years? Please. most of the Union workers have paid more in taxes each year than the average person made. This isn't meant to belittle anyone, I'd bet most people would die for the privileged to be in the 50% tax bracket. That being said, don't come at me with this "tax payer" crap, I know who actually pays taxes.

The fact is active workers did not lose anything (just as the Washington Post said). And as pointed out earlier, the democrat Congress has obligingly insulated both active and retired UAW workers from the extra tax the rest of us will pay for such cadillac plans (if the health care bill passes). And as pointed out earlier, the democrat Congress has included language to lessen or negate even of the meager concessions that the unions actually did make vis a vis retirement health plans and pensions. Either Obama is the biggest patsy ever or he (and his party) expected to get something for such overwhelming largess (billions and billions of dollars of it).

Let's just say this is true. What it amounts to is health benefits in lieu of wages.That's smart. 1) it represents a benefit that isn't taxable. Any wage compensation would get sucked up by taxes, and people would never see it anyway. Government isn't the most efficient means of distribution and administration (at least that's what I think you think). 2) it puts money in the largest growing industry in America, the health care industry. People with good health care go to doctors, people who don't, well they don't go. So you have the largest industry directly contributing to the second largest industry (correct me if I'm wrong, I think that's the way it works out now, tourism is another very large industry but I still think they fall short of the automotive and health care)

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
There is no mention of any concessions on the part of unions in terms of health plan co-pays, deductibles, etc for active workers and I suspect Obama administration officials would have been eager to mention them if that had in fact occurred. Please point out where I missed mention of them.

Just what I know from people that actually work in the industry. There's a catch however, most of the people I know work for the CAW not the UAW.

LOL! The CANADIAN Auto Workers? Gee ... and I thought we were talking about US unions. OK. Now you say CAW members gave up a lot in the restructuring of GM and Chrysler? Well then, I find this statement from Wikipedia interesting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Auto_Workers ):

Industry analyst Anthony Faria ... snip ... noted that UAW president Ron Gettelfinger agreed to have the UAW's "all-in" wage, benefit and pension costs drop from a high of $75.86 per hour in 2007 to an average of about $51 per hour starting in 2010. By comparison, the CAW's cost per hour was $77 in 2007 and will rise to over $80 per hour by the end of the new contract. Faria said that Gettelfinger went into negotiations "with the right intention...Save jobs. The CAW strategy was to squeeze every dime out of them."

And according to that wikipedia article:

Current union president Ken Lewenza has argued that labour is not responsible for the bankruptcy crisis facing the Big Three automakers, saying that his members would not make concessions part of any taxpayer-funded bailout.

And this ...

The CAW negotiated a cost-cutting deal with General Motors Canada on March 8, 2009. The deal would extend the current contract for an additional year to September 2012, and preserves the current average assembly-worker base pay of about $34 an hour. It would eliminate a $1,700 annual "special bonus," and reduce special paid absences or "SPA days" from two weeks to one week a year, while maintaining vacation entitlements which range up to six weeks a year for high-seniority workers. The deal also introduce payments by members toward their health benefits - $30 monthly per family for workers and $15 a month for pensioners. Lewenza said it also would trim by 35 per cent company contributions to union-provided programs such as child care and wellness programs. Lewenza called the package a "major sacrifice." However, observers noted that the deal did not go far enough

Gee ... now they have to pay $30 a month per family ($15 a month if they are pensioners). What a hardship.

What you consider "the Cadillac of health plans" should be the norm in a civilized society such as the US.

LOL! Then why are folks on your side of the aisle in this debate complaining about the average cost of health care in the US? Afterall, these cadillac plans don't come cheap. They are vastly more expensive than the average cost that your side of this debate is constantly claiming is already too high? I think I detect some cognitive dissonance.

You give your body (this isn't the PGA tour, people get hurt in these factories) to a company for 30 years, you deserve to get healed as best as is possible when you suffer injury.

LOL! I don't even see you guys on this list: http://www.thesharkguys.com/2009/09/02/top-10-most-dangerous-jobs/ . The fact is that plenty of people have dangerous jobs.

Look, I don't have a problem with unions negotiating whatever health and retirement plans they think they can get from a private company. What I object to is that when unions get too greedy and that company goes under as a result (as GM did), they then expect the taxpayer (people like me) to bail them out to the tune of tens of billions of dollars while allowing them to retain their cadillac benefits. What I object to is the pretense that unions are anything more than an arm of the democrat party now. Take the UAW for instance. The UAW is one of the 20 top political contributors the last decade. And during that time, the UAW essentially gave ZERO to the republican party. What the UAW did was BUY Obama and the democrats. Just as the democrat leadership bought their own members in order to pass their healthcare monstrosity. (BTW, I'm being generous in using the word "buy" because in both cases "bribe" is more applicable.)

TAX PAYER TAX PAYER TAX PAYER, everyone's a tax payer.

Actually no. Most people in the US pay NO Federal or State income tax. And it's getting worse all the time. It's Beggars and Choosers and the Beggars are winning. Now, not only are they starting to outnumber the Choosers (so they they can vote what ever goodies they want into law and put into office whichever politician promises them the most goodies), they think they are entitled to it. It is a recipe for disaster. Mark my words.

What are you some sort of Socialist?

LOL! I'm not the one supporting Obama and his policies.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
The fact is active workers did not lose anything (just as the Washington Post said). And as pointed out earlier, the democrat Congress has obligingly insulated both active and retired UAW workers from the extra tax the rest of us will pay for such cadillac plans (if the health care bill passes). And as pointed out earlier, the democrat Congress has included language to lessen or negate even of the meager concessions that the unions actually did make vis a vis retirement health plans and pensions. Either Obama is the biggest patsy ever or he (and his party) expected to get something for such overwhelming largess (billions and billions of dollars of it).

Let's just say this is true. What it amounts to is health benefits in lieu of wages.

FALSE. Didn't you read what the Washington Post stated? Read what that Wikipedia article stated about CAW. Neither the UAW or CAW gave up wages to get health benefits. Their wages did not go down (and neither did their health benefits) as part of the bailout agreement. Why do you keep claiming things that are simply not true? This is like the fourth or fifth time in this discussion alone. It's getting a little annoying.

Government isn't the most efficient means of distribution and administration (at least that's what I think you think).

LOL! Are you claiming that's not true? Would you like me to prove you wrong a sixth time?

So you have the largest industry directly contributing to the second largest industry (correct me if I'm wrong, I think that's the way it works out now, tourism is another very large industry but I still think they fall short of the automotive and health care)

Notice folks, that Obama is trying to nationalize both the auto industry and health care (or at least turn them over to the unions). Now unless 3bodyproblem wants to argue that government and unions are more efficient than private industry, what do you think is going to happen? Do you really think Obama's and the UAW/CAW's policies will save you any money or make either the auto or health care industry produce a better product? If so I have a bridge to sell you.

 

[daenku32]

Hah, I sold my Honda Prelude with 209,000 miles and it was still going. I think that proves unequivocally that Hondas have better quality than Ford. I guess this completely disproves ZirconBlue's assertion that one can't draw valid general conclusions from single data points.

The Prelude I drove had quite a bit more issues at under 180k miles (but it was a decade older too...) So that is two data points I'm going by!

Still, I think much of thinking about superior foreign quality comes from perpetuation of an old idea, not from exact evaluations.

 

[davefoc]

The Prelude I drove had quite a bit more issues at under 180k miles (but it was a decade older too...) So that is two data points I'm going by!

Still, I think much of thinking about superior foreign quality comes from perpetuation of an old idea, not from exact evaluations.

Well, to be serious for a moment, my prelude was the worst Honda by far that we have owned. The timing belt broke twice and on other issues it was just not as good as our other Hondas have been. Older preludes were worse I suspect. My parents owned an automatic transmission version (about a 79 I think) and I didn't think much of it.

I sympathize with your view that foreign automobile reliability might be over rated, but I suspect you're wrong. In every comparison that I've ever seen toyota and honda overall are listed well above American manufacturers.

Clearly Ford has made substantial progress in recent years. Their styling and overall finish and perhaps their reliability seem to have improved substantially to this observer. They have also made the decision to start producing European models or European inspired models in the domestic market. It is beyond belief to me that it has taken them so long to come up with this idea. It was amazing to this California boy to find beautiful, well designed Fords in Europe that I'd never heard of.

What has only been addressed peripherally in this thread is the risk cost that a particular buyer assesses to a particular manufacturer. Even if Ford and GM made cars today that were equal or superior to Honda and Toyota at equivalent or lower prices they would only slowly gain market share. Many people that have been burned by these manufacturers (like my step mother with her $450 battery cable repair) or who have gotten good value from their current non Ford and non GM car are going to see buying a Ford or a GM auto as risky and they will expect a substantial discount before they are willing to assume that risk.

This is one of the many flaws in the government's reasoning behind these bailouts. GM needed to have lower wage costs than other suppliers so that they might begin to regain market share. (Chrysler didn't need just lower wage costs, it needed a miracle besides). Instead GM is largely encumbered with the same uncompetitive situation that they have been in all along except that now they have billions of dollars more of government money to burn through. The idea that GM will regain competitiveness as an almost completely union/government owned organization is a sad joke. The political power of the unions will sink GM again and the ability of the US to compete in world markets will be dealt another blow.