# Chrysler gone from Canada ?? does anyone care



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Aside from the workers affected - does anyone care?? Expecting 1/4 of the bailout funds from Canada seems a bit much.



> Chrysler threatens to pull out of Canada
> 
> Updated: Wed Mar. 11 2009 10:50:07 PM
> 
> ...


more
CTV Toronto - Chrysler threatens to pull out of Canada - CTV News, Shows and Sports -- Canadian Television


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Enough already. Let 'em pull out.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

After seeing LaSorta's arrogance on TV last night ...No, No and No.

Chrysler has 3 plants here, Windsor, Brampton and a casting plant in Etobicoke. For that they need 2.3B and $20/hr wage concessions? LOL

Send them packing, It'll be cheaper to pay the workers to sit at home.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Time to go. Maybe a couple of million dollar grant to clean up the plants after they go.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Not only should they not give Chrysler a dime they should expropriate the Chrysler planets in lieu of past subsidies and turn over the facilities to ZENN motors as an industry grant (Let ZENN come up with the capital to refinance the plant re-tooling).

Or setup a plant to mass produce these...

YouTube - HHV How it Works Video


----------



## rustamanyana (Sep 22, 2008)

It appears that Chrysler has already made up their mind to pull out of Canada. these demands were deliberately outrageous so that it would be difficult for anyone to agree to them. 

this will destroy the lives of many a chrysler employee.


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

With all this talk about the domestic auto companies failing, there seems to be this assumption that the plants and the demand for autos will simply disappear. Not so. Someone will buy the plants and re-hire the workers and fulfill the demand for new cars. That someone could be Toyota or BMW or some new, restructured Chrysler/GM.

I used to do business with all the big auto companies. You wouldn't believe the waste at the Big Three. They are mired in the past. The unions, the self-serving, top heavy executive structure - right out of the 1950s. Let them die. 

Dinosaurs died and mammals took over. We filled all the niches. The same thing will happen in the car industry. Let them die.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Agreed. The only thing profitable at Chrysler is the Jeep. Other than that, their stuff is garbage.


----------



## dmpP (Jun 1, 2004)

I heard on the news that there are about 4,500 chrysler workers that would be affected by them moving out of Canada. i thought it would have been more like 40,000.

Not to mention all the custom tool and dye shops that make small specialized parts.

--START RANT--

I'm not a fan of the Chrysler products.

I'm not a fan of any Canadian or American-based car manufacturers.

As far as I'm concerned, they've long been overdue for a slap on the face. The Japanese and German car companies produce cars that are far more advanced, have better technology, conserve fuel better, and are better built.

Again, that's just my opinion after owning a Sunfire, Civic Si, Santa Fe, Audi A4, Audi A4 Avant.

My dad was a HUGE GM fan - owned 4 caddies... he move to a Pathfinder, and now he's in a Solara.

My mom was into Ford. She's now on her second Nissan.

It sucks that there are a lot of people who are going to be affected by plant closures.

Chrysler, GM, Ford should have seen this coming for the last 10-15 years. My guess is that they did, and they ignored it. They let the customer dictate the types of cars they mass produced (large gas guzzling cars and SUV's, hummers, v12 caddies, 300+ HP cars, etc), instead of taking control over the market and helping shift the mindset of the public to one of conservation and environmentally friendly.

Suppose I run a business, and it's my fault that I overpaid workers, and I couldn't turn a profit, would the government bail me out? Are they bailing them out because they employ so many people? Aren't the top-level and second level exec's the ones to blame? Maybe they should pay back the money from their salaries?

All I know is that I will likely never buy a Canadian or American-based manufacturer vehicle.

Toyota and Honda have plants in Canada. I haven't heard anything in the media about their plants being closed down? My only guess is that they make quality products that consumers like.

Yes, I understand marking and sales, I've even taken courses, there's only so much that the market can demand without manufacturers aiding in changing their viewpoint.

Whenever I see someone driving their massive Suburban XL, Yukon Denali, Cadillac Escalade, Hummer H2 or H3, I always just laugh at them. How many of the owners of those vehicles actually use it for what it was intended? How many of them just drive around to work, groceries, shopping, and home? My guess, about 90%.

The attitude of the mfgr's needs to change. They need to help shift the mindset of the public. They need to be more innovative and technology driven. They need to produce vehicles that last up to our climate and weather conditions. They need to produce vehicles that last the test of time. They need to offer and stand by long-term standard warranties - 150,000km+ is what I'm talking about). They need to produce vehicles that are "eco"-friendly.

Ya, sure GM has the "Volt", but that's not due to hit the Canadian market until 2011 or 2012 or something. Too little too late.

They need to be thinking about what they can do TODAY, not in a few years from now.
--END RANT--


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

hhk said:


> Someone will buy the plants and re-hire the workers and fulfill the demand for new cars. That someone could be Toyota or BMW or some new, restructured Chrysler/GM.


Why would this happen? There is a excess capacity in the automaking industry these days - so why would anyone bring more plants on line in this market? I don't see this changing for years.

In the unlikely event that Toyota or BMW needed extra North American capacity down the road, why would they bother with Canada? Wouldn't it make more sense to set up shop in a cost to market region like Mexico, or possibly some of the "right to work" states in the US South?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I can't quite get over the "hang 'em high" attitude being shown in this thread.

Suppose just for a moment that public opinion was the same for the industry or business where you currently work?

How would YOU then feel about the "dump them altogether" crowd when it was YOUR job on the line?

Has no one any compassion for the thousands of people this would put out of work? And that's not just at Chrysler, but right across the secondary supply industry to the automotive plants.


----------



## rustamanyana (Sep 22, 2008)

SINC said:


> I can't quite get over the "hang 'em high" attitude being shown in this thread.
> 
> Suppose just for a moment that public opinion was the same for the industry or business where you currently work?
> 
> ...


Chrysler leaving would be tragic, but what do you do when the demands from Chrysler are tantamount to blackmail or ransom. 

It sounds like they're gonna leave anyway, it's just a question of if they leave running, walking, or with a pile of cash in hand.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> How would YOU then feel about the "dump them altogether" crowd when it was YOUR job on the line?


I would lament the loss of my job, but what has that got to do with the public's unwillingness to subsidize my employer?


----------



## rodneyjb (Apr 9, 2006)

I would hate the social implications of the plants closing. Lots of smaller companies as well as retail, and other type of businesses would suffer. All that means more people on Ei, and eventually welfare, which of course puts a strain on gov't services, I don't however, like the Big Three holding a gun to our politician's heads for funds and other grants, bailouts, and other drains on public money. Enough is enough already. But if Chrysler were to close, I would hope BMW or Hyundai or someone would come in, bring the plants online to produce their cars, and hire some of the people who lost their jobs.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The fundamental problem:* NOBODY IS BUYING THEIR CARS!!!!!!*

The billions they are asking for will barely keep their damnfool heads above water while they stockpile vehicles for which there is *NOT ENOUGH DEMAND!*

Under government subsidy, it would make more sense to drive the same vehicle around back, dismantle it, then build it over and over again. At least then, material costs would go down.


----------



## dmpP (Jun 1, 2004)

Macfury said:


> The fundamental problem:* NOBODY IS BUYING THEIR CARS!!!!!!*
> 
> The billions they are asking for will barely keep their damnfool heads above water while they stockpile vehicles for which there is *NOT ENOUGH DEMAND!*


that's the essence of my rant (above)


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

rodneyjb said:


> But if Chrysler were to close, I would hope BMW or Hyundai or someone would come in, bring the plants online to produce their cars, and hire some of the people who lost their jobs.


Why would they do this? As stated earlier, there is already a glut of capacity.

While Chrysler is likely beyond saving at this point, when they do slip beyond the event horizon the jobs associated with them will be gone - and won't be coming back.


----------



## dmpP (Jun 1, 2004)

If BMW or Hyundai are doing fine with the production and plant and manufacturing that they're doing now, it doesn't make any logical sense for them to buy a plant and expand.

If they were unable to keep up with demand, that's one thing, but I don't think that they're having a problem with that.

In fact, I think I heard a news report about a month back, that BMW is cutting one of their shifts or something like that.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

PenguinBoy said:


> While Chrysler is likely beyond saving at this point, when they do slip beyond the event horizon the jobs associated with them will be gone - and won't be coming back.


Try this one on for size then. They will continue to funnel a tiny amount of their bail-out to wages, then waste the rest, until the bail-out money is gone. Then the jobs will be lost. Forever.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

I voted "No" because:

-Chrysler is probably beyond saving after being gutted by the Germans.

-They are held by a private equity firm, that doesn't seem willing to open their books.

That said, I'm surprised at the schadenfreude of many here. These jobs will be going, and won't be coming back. With a big gaping hole blown in the Southern Ontario automotive supply chain by the departure of Chrysler, it wouldn't surprise me if Toyonda et. al. shutter their Canadian operations over time.


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

PenguinBoy said:


> Why would this happen? There is a excess capacity in the automaking industry these days - so why would anyone bring more plants on line in this market? I don't see this changing for years.
> 
> In the unlikely event that Toyota or BMW needed extra North American capacity down the road, why would they bother with Canada? Wouldn't it make more sense to set up shop in a cost to market region like Mexico, or possibly some of the "right to work" states in the US South?


You're thinking short term. I'm thinking long.

Cars wear out. Eventually, people have to buy. So, why not Canada? Toyota already has two car plants and a truck plant in Canada. The cars that come out of the Canadian plants are renowned for quality. The Canadian auto worker is highly regarded and as for competing with Mexico, we compete very well. Low labour cost is not that important in car manufacturing. More important is *efficient* labour and automation.

That's why the Japanese have done so well. Their worker productivity is second to none. If labour cost was so important, how come we're not all driving Chinese and Indian cars?

The plants are there. The equipment is first rate. The acquisition cost will be very low. Why wouldn't I want to pick up one of these facilities if I was running BMW or VW or Toyota? All those companies have plenty of cash. And if you're going to throw public money around, why not incent these companies instead of throwing good money after bad with Chrysler and GM.

If any of the Big 3 go under, we will see short term pain. But in the long run, it's for the best.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

PenguinBoy said:


> That said, I'm surprised at the schadenfreude of many here. These jobs will be going, and won't be coming back. With a big gaping hole blown in the Southern Ontario automotive supply chain by the departure of Chrysler, it wouldn't surprise me if Toyonda et. al. shutter their Canadian operations over time.


Schadenfreude requires the party to take delight in the misfortune of others. I don't think that's the case here. 

How does the fact that these jobs "won't be coming back" make them different from jobs that have been dropped by other companies? What good is a supply chain that supplies parts and services to a company that is not selling its vehicle stock--how long do you expect that to last?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

dmpP
- rant


Why are you including Ford.....they re not looking for bailouts and have a solid product line...

Perhaps play catch up a bit before you paint too broad a brush....

http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-eh/74439-ford-21st-century-new-realities.html


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Try this one on for size then. They will continue to funnel a tiny amount of their bail-out to wages, then waste the rest, until the bail-out money is gone. Then the jobs will be lost. Forever.


That is exactly what happens when you throw public (ie. free) money around. The Paulson bailout bill in the U.S. is a good example. According to Elizabeth Warren (Harvard prof, head of the oversight committee), not one cent of that 700 billion dollars was used to prevent mortgage foreclosures which is exactly what Congress wanted the money for.

If we give a handout to Chrysler, I honestly think it will be wasted. Next year, they'll ask for more because the company simply can't compete.

And do you know much money Chrysler made in 1994? $3.7 billion in profits. Even as late as 2005, they made $1.5 billion. I didn't see them building schools or public parks with that money. 

It's called capitalism and there are two sides to it.


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> dmpP
> - rant
> 
> 
> ...


Ya, I rented a Flex recently and it really opened my eyes. Nice ride.

Now, the HHR and the Pacifica that I had the displeasure to have to rent. My God, what garbage.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

hhk said:


> You're thinking short term. I'm thinking long.
> 
> Cars wear out. Eventually, people have to buy.


The North American market went from ~17M units / year in 2007 to ~9M today. When it eventually recovers, ~12M is likely to be the "new normal".

It doesn't look like the industry will need additional capacity for quite some time.



hhk said:


> So, why not Canada? Toyota already has two car plants and a truck plant in Canada. The cars that come out of the Canadian plants are renowned for quality. The Canadian auto worker is highly regarded and as for competing with Mexico, we compete very well. Low labour cost is not that important in car manufacturing. More important is *efficient* labour and automation.


I agree that direct labour cost is not the major cost in modern manufacturing - but I don't agree that our autoworkers are any better than those in Mexico or elsewhere. Quality comes from product design, material quality, and the manufacturing process. Workers in Mexico or elsewhere can produce the same quality product that Ontario workers do - we don't enjoy any natural advantage here.


hhk said:


> That's why the Japanese have done so well.


The thing is, the Japanese *aren't* doing well right now. Even mighty Toyota is burning cash at a rate of $5B / year right now - and it gets worse from there.

The Japanese are heavily dependent on the North American market, they don't have much presence in Europe and there are some severe structural problems in their home market that won't go away anytime soon.


hhk said:


> The plants are there. The equipment is first rate. The acquisition cost will be very low. Why wouldn't I want to pick up one of these facilities if I was running BMW or VW or Toyota? All those companies have plenty of cash.


If they could use the capital, why wouldn't they just buy the plants, move the equipment elsewhere, then sell the buildings and land separately?


hhk said:


> And if you're going to throw public money around, why not incent these companies instead of throwing good money after bad with Chrysler and GM.


Picking winners is hard. Remember, Chrysler was highly profitable and had a pile of cash in the bank when Daimler bought them in the late '90s.

Who is to say that the "winners" today will still be on top in 5 - 10 years time?


hhk said:


> If any of the Big 3 go under, we will see short term pain. But in the long run, it's for the best.


Agreed on the short term pain. Not sure about the long run, my crystal ball seems a bit cloudy these days...


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

There goes my plan to buy a Canadian built Grand Caravan.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Schadenfreude requires the party to take delight in the misfortune of others. I don't think that's the case here.


I definitely detect a hint of schadenfreude in some of the posts here.


Macfury said:


> How does the fact that these jobs "won't be coming back" make them different from jobs that have been dropped by other companies?


No different - but it will still be painful for all involved.


Macfury said:


> What good is a supply chain that supplies parts and services to a company that is not selling its vehicle stock--how long do you expect that to last?


No good at all. Note that I voted "No" for reasons given earlier.

I'm still surprised that some thing that Toyonda et. al. will be there to pick up the pieces. They won't.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

PenguinBoy said:


> I'm still surprised that some thing that Toyonda et. al. will be there to pick up the pieces. They won't.


No, not unless people want to buy more cars. Then again, they may just decide to move out of Canada forever. No guarantees on any of it. There never were guarantees in the first place.


----------



## dmpP (Jun 1, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Why are you including Ford.....they re not looking for bailouts and have a solid product line...


I was merely mentioning them to the fact that my mom is no longer a ford customer, and that nissan is making a superior product for her needs/wants.


----------



## dmpP (Jun 1, 2004)

dona83 said:


> There goes my plan to buy a Canadian built Grand Caravan.




Even if Chrysler closes up shop, I would imagine that they'll still be making the cars in the US and importing, and that there will still be stock of Canadian Caravans at the dealerships - if you're looking for a brand new one, or plenty on the used market.

Just because they close up shop for making the cars in Canada, doesn't equate to closing down all their dealerships. I would expect that there will be some closures though - likely for GM too.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by MacDoc
> Why are you including Ford.....they re not looking for bailouts and have a solid product line...
> I was merely mentioning them to the fact that my mom is no longer a ford customer,


No, you lumped all three together and dissed them for not being forward looking when in fact Ford was geared up for this in 2006, got their financing in place then and their quality /product line up focused and increased market share last month and look to do so ongoing.

If GM or Chrysler go - Ford wins big time.....

Ford DID what you prescribed but you lumped it together with GM and Chrsyler who are on the ropes begging.....it;'s not valid.

That your mother wants something else is her privilege and really has nothing to do with it.

And next time you are by a Ford dealer.......take a ride.....


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

Guys:

Our population isn't decreasing. Our thirst for personal transportation isn't going anywhere. And the green movement is the best thing for car mfgs as we replace our gas guzzlers and carbon emitters with new technology vehicles. Hell, I have two vehicles with 89,000 and 125,000 kms on them. They will *have* to be replaced in 2 years. 

The car industry isn't just going to disappear because GM and Chrysler go under. And there are very good reasons to locate manufacturing in Canada. 

There is no comparison between the cost of building a plant vs. the cost of refitting a GM or Chrysler plant. And snapping up skilled and experienced Canadian workers without the union baggage - a no brainer. As for buying the plants, gutting them and selling the land - ain't gonna happen. First of all, the cost of moving that equipment will be astronomical and what do they need it for anyways? Their plants in Europe and Asia are already outfitted.

That GM plant in Oshawa and that Chrysler plant in Brampton are going to be making cars. They just might have a different badge on them. That's my prediction if we don't hand out the public goodies. As good as any I guess.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

The general approach from Chrysler doesn't look like they're asking with hat in hand, but rather do what we want, or else. Let's take the money and invest in ourselves.

SINC: If it was my industry, it wouldn't matter. Businesses come and go all the time and our market prices have been beaten down year after year and devalued. Why should we care if ONE auto manufacturer closes it's doors? Let them close shop and allow the rest who CAN run a company step up.

When one door closes, another opens.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

dmpP said:


> Even if Chrysler closes up shop, I would imagine that they'll still be making the cars in the US and importing, and that there will still be stock of Canadian Caravans at the dealerships - if you're looking for a brand new one, or plenty on the used market.
> 
> Just because they close up shop for making the cars in Canada, doesn't equate to closing down all their dealerships. I would expect that there will be some closures though - likely for GM too.


Yea well why wouldn't I support Canadian labour and get the much more stylish Ford Flex instead?


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

4,500 ... Th Globe & Mail says 9,000. At 4,500 they are demanding over C$ 51,000 per job.

Chrysler also has an unpaid tax bill of between $500,000 and $1 Billion, which they want us to waive. Quite frankly, that's an outrageous demand that stems from profits Chrysler made, not market losses being experienced now.

Cerebus, the current owner of Chrysler, is a Private Equity firm, not a public company. They bought Chrysler at fire-sale prices and fully expect to make obscene profits; it's what this company does and the fact that they make cars is merely the mundane details of the process.

Cerebus has no interest in Chrysler as an entity or it's historical relationship with anyone, including it's customers, no particular interest whether Chrysler survives as a carmaker or not, and would liquidate the firm just as fast as operate it if they felt there was more money in dismantling it. Presumably those who buy it's bits and pieces will want to make cars or industrial machinery of some kind with it.

As a Private Equity firm, there is not the kind of financial information a public company, like GM, Ford or Honda, must provide. We really don't know what shape they are in, and they don't have to tell us either. If Chrysler goes broke, no Canadian shareholders are out anything, no Pension Funds go down in value and no Canadian's bank balance falls. Some foreigner fails to make huge profits.

Having said all that, the price to pay for it's failure would be enormous, and would end up costing the country months if not years worth of lost income for everyone. As painful as it is to say it, $3 Billion is an order of magnitde less than how much will be lost in income in this country should Chrysler go under, because it won't stop there and what are perfectly good companies right now, even in this climate, (yes, even Ford) might be the victims.

I think there has been a huge blunder and someone has poked a hibernating bear with a stick, which is not always so easy to calm down once aroused. You can see the other car companies desperately trying to halt the damage from extending to them as well.


----------



## Sitting Bull (Feb 4, 2008)

I do not agree with any bail outs. In my line of work I use 3/4 ton and 1 ton pick ups. The last truck I bought was the best i have owned. And it was a dodge 3/4 ton. And it still is going strong after 300,000 km. When the Japanese will produce a bigger truck than they have now, I think that would be the final blow to the big 3.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

The new Tundra wasn't doing too bad sales wise until the downturn.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

gordguide said:


> As painful as it is to say it, $3 Billion is an order of magnitde less than how much will be lost in income in this country should Chrysler go under, because it won't stop there and what are perfectly good companies right now, even in this climate, (yes, even Ford) might be the victims.


I think that statement has just been pulled out of thin air. Show me how a $3-billion bailout will boost Canada's income--especially when the cars aren't selling.


----------



## Macinguelph (Oct 27, 2007)

This whole conversation comes down to basic economics. Chrysler and GM have been building vehicles with diminished quality and the market is becoming more and more aware with each passing year. Somehow though, they continue to build just as many so that the unions don't complain and they sell them to the dealer network which then gets stuck with an excess inventory, just so the corporation can boost there own sales figures and justify producing too many vehicles.

Ford has got it's game together lately and the market has responded to them. GM and Chrysler have plodded along selling an inferior product and surprise surprise, people are just not buying as many of them anymore. 

I know that the economic impact of losing one or both of these companies is going to be catastrophic in the short term. I believe, however, that to help them along in their mediocre production and encourage financially the continuation of their arcane business practices, is going to be even more dangerous in the long term. GM has lost unfathomable amounts of money, and worse yet, really can't see the problems they have. Why in the world should these companies be allowed to continue to operate? 

Eventually, when the stench of decay and rot that Chrysler and GM left in their wake goes away, new businesses with leaner operations and better products will emerge to fill in the void. Who knows, maybe a Canadian car company.

As a society and as a nation, we also have to ask ourselves if we can truly compete to be a country capable of mass production in today's Chinese wage cost world economy. I think we have to ask whether saving a few bucks on wage costs and transferring environmental pollution is as important as saving jobs at home and to a larger extent, our planet!


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

I did not say it will boost income and it won't, compared to 2008 ... it will stem losses. You even quoted me:
" ... $3 Billion is an order of magnitde less than how much will be lost in income in this country should Chrysler go under ..."

When plants close, when people lose their jobs, those around them lose income and lose their jobs too. It's not some exotic theory; it's time proven fact backed up by stubbornly consistent experience worldwide.

I find the contrast between Chrysler and General Motors stunning. GM has notified the US that the $2 Billion scheduled to be loaned to the automaker from the US Government this month won't be needed, and that it is essentially finished formulating the restructuring and cost cutting plans they agreed to explore as a condition of it's US loans, they have already been effective, many are now implemented, and that the whole process is moving along nicely.

It may, or may not need $2.6 Billion scheduled for April; that's the last payment scheduled until 2011, where it has a $4.5 Billion note due that it may need help with, or may not. Either way, that would be the end of it for the US side and GM; loan repayments are expected to begin in September of this year with a $2 Billion payment from GM to the US Government. GM has indicated they see no problem making that payment on time and in full.

Details of any help from Canada and Ontario are still being worked out, but there is no reason to believe that GM will not be able to begin repaying those within the year either.

GM has also said it's deal with the CAW is sound and workable, bringing it's costs almost in line with Japanese rivals manufacturing in Canada, that more work in Pensions is going well and expected to be complete in Canada with the formation of a trust to pay future Pension liabilities going forward.

In it's agreement with the CAW, GM has committed to retaining a minimum of 20% of it's North American auto manufacturing in Canada (currently it's a bit more than that).

GM officials seemed bewildered by Chrysler's comments and could only mumble something along the lines of "I have no idea what he's talking about or where this came from, I am not privy to Chrysler's financial details, their costs must be different than ours."


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Not in the least a proper poll but politicians would watch...only 8% support gov action.



> What's your reaction to the prospect of Chrysler pulling out of Canada?
> 
> Gov't must help	8%
> Too bad, but inevitable	45%
> ...


Chrysler made guarantees about jobs for receiving government funding in the past.
Cerebus has the wealth....I think Ontario should act on those guarantees.

Other suppliers will step into fill the Chrysler void.

Gord - the industry is over capacity by 40% - why pour money into the weakest when the capital pool behind Chrysler is making billions.....

Ford, Honda, Toyota, Hyundai ( I think ) run Canadian operations.....why should the gov prop up competitors who failed - it weakens the industry overall.

The void any Chrysler loss might engender will quickly be filled by other manufacturers....

Personally I'd rather see any funding going to light transit manufacturing and build out than supporting the likes of Cerebus.

Hold them to their commitments.....

•••

GM is a different situation but frankly with GM and Chrysler gone......the over capacity issue is resolved.
Not like GM hasn't gobbled up competitors in the past..and some aggressive new company like Tata might relish the Chevy brand to enter North America.

Direct support to the unemployed still circulates to the general economy, support for Cerebus under effectively black mail conditions is odious in my view.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... Gord - the industry is over capacity by 40% - why pour money into the weakest when the capital pool behind Chrysler is making billions ..."

Everybody knows that the industry will have to shrink capacity; this does not mean no plant closings, regardless of what happens.

I have grave doubts about Cerebus and their intentions, but as it's been said many times by others, Jeep is a strong brand and there is little doubt that another automaker would buy it and keep it going. As for the rest, it's anyone's guess.

Liquidation would be a much more viable solution if the economy was not so fragile now; two years ago it wouldn't cause even a blip in the economy but today it would ripple throughout Canada and the world, for that matter. There really is no way to know how bad it would be, but Economics history can trace older recessions and collapses to the failure of a single entity. We would be gambling a lot on any assumption that we are immune to those kinds of effects today.

The one thing that all catastrophic economic disasters have in common is the phrase "there is no end in sight" once the ball gets rolling. I don't mean that as a comment on the current situation, which I believe is manageable, but as a warning that there is only so much you can let happen before it's too late and no amount of help will stop it.

Each and every major recession in our history was made worse and took longer to recover from because people were too timid to step in and save companies that were salvageable, when it was still cheap to do so. The fact is that Canada has the money today.

In 1980 we did not, and as a taxpayer I can tell you I am still paying 20% of my provincial taxes this year, and have been for almost two decades, to pay for what that cost, because the Province had to borrow to pay salaries and rent for the 40% that still had a job in the public sector five years later.

In the end, the economy shrank faster and fell harder here, because there was no cash to help, and it ended up costing $20 Billion in borrowing in Sask where perhaps $1 Billion applied quickly could have prevented such a steep fall in the first place.

And that is just the provincial government; each and every citizen of this province paid a huge price in depressed wages and income for the last two decades. That the price paid was many, many times higher than it need to be is the sad truth of it all. People don't live that long, you know.

If you've heard the talk about how there was a real estate boom in Saskatoon, with prices rising 20 and 30 and even 40% a year, just keep in mind that because of what happened here in the early 1980's, those prices were still at 1980 levels in 2000. That's why they rose so quickly. Because it took that long to recover.

Ontario in the past has been somewhat insulated from economic problems; the way this country is structured, money flows to Toronto from everywhere, regardless of what is happening in the economy.

The auto sector, however, is different. That is your baby, it's a huge part of the GNP of this country, and it won't be a problem "somewhere else" in Canada. It will be your problem, and trust me, it's a problem you don't want.

Listen ... go ahead and do what you want. Let Chrysler collapse. Without them, there will be no point for Magna or any of these other companies to be around, but so what?

If you have no children, then don't worry about whether there will be jobs in Ontario for them in five years, or whether they will be able to afford to go to college. Don't use my experience to help your communities thrive instead of wallow and shrink. I wanted to go to College, but couldn't afford it. But, no problem. Everything will be different in Ontario. You're immune.

When you do it right, there is enough income to pay back the expenditure in a year or two; when you do it wrong it has, in the past, taken more than a decade, here, in the US, in the UK, in Germany ... the list goes on.

It might be worth reminding everyone that Chrysler has borrowed from Canada in the past, and paid back every cent to both us and the US. This is not a gamble, done properly and soon enough. Delay, and it won't matter how much money you throw there; it will be too late, and there will be no revenue for roads, let alone helping people find jobs that feed their families.

It should be pointed out that the idea our modern economies are structured in such a way to be immune to spill-overs into the economy as a whole from one troubled sector was much of the justification for the junk mortgages written in the US in the previous five years. The modern economy is resilient, but it's not bulletproof. Don't provoke it.

I am satisfied by some of the comments by Canadian officials today, basically saying "we think you're bluffing *, the stuff between Revenue Canada and you is not going to be on the table now or ever, we refuse to become your banker so you had better choose to accept bridge financing you will need to pay back, because that's all you will get from us. Now calm down and let us know what you need and by the way we need to know the details as to how you expect to stay in business long enough to pay it back, because otherwise it's a no-go."

* Everyone in the industry knows Chrysler makes cars in Canada because it's cheaper than making them in the US, which is why they have almost a third of their production here, and Mexican plants still have nagging quality issues, which is a longstanding issue with Chrysler that they need to address, not increase.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> save companies that were salvageable, when it was still cheap to do so. The fact is that Canada has the money today.


So does Cerebus and they own it.

Magna almost bought Chrysler and may do yet and that I would support - it certainly will not put Magna out of business.

It also should be entirely cautionary to Ontario if we become "dependent" on any one sector to the point we "can't let one fail".

If Cerebus wants to continue, if UAW wants to continue - let them work it out so it's viable without government support as Ford already is.

I'd rather see those Chrysler workers retrained and put to work retrofitting houses and multiple dwellings for energy efficiency - at least that's a growth industry.
I have no issue with government providing a temporary bridge for a company that is viable that's not the case here - Chrysler has been barely viable and on the edge before...

I'm QUITE certain Magma will step in IF it comes to liquidation, and if they don't, then that's the most definitive sign of all that not putting in Chrysler was correct...it's not viable.

•••

As I say it's not clear about GM but there are some positive signs there, unlike with Chrysler



> GM Won’t Need Federal Aid by March 31; Chrysler Will (Update6)
> Share | Email | Print | A A A
> 
> By Jeff Green and John Hughes
> ...


If the owners who have the money won't step in to carry Chrysler......why should Canadian tax payers....

•••

Maybe the gov should be talking to Th¡nk



> OSLO (Reuters) - Norwegian electric car maker Think aims to open a manufacturing plant in the United States to produce 16,000 cars per year in the first phase and more later, the company said on Thursday.


Norway electric car maker Think plans U.S. plant | Reuters

That Chrysler plant in Brampton would be ideal - right next to a large market.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

gordguide said:


> I did not say it will boost income and it won't, compared to 2008 ... it will stem losses. You even quoted me:
> " ... $3 Billion is an order of magnitde less than how much will be lost in income in this country should Chrysler go under ...""


I mean the country's income. Show me the math on how the country will come out ahead with such a bail-out. Even given the supply chain, I don't believe you can show it will do more than keep the company running for as long as it takes to burn through that cash.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

If someone hasn't already said it,
I think ZENN motors should buy up the CHRY babies.

Then we can have a world class Canadian car.


----------



## sae (Feb 13, 2008)

hhk said:


> Hell, I have two vehicles with 89,000 and 125,000 kms on them. They will *have* to be replaced in 2 years.


Domestic vehicles are they? My first car was a 1989 civic that had 350,000 on it when I sold it to my brother, he then used it and sold it to my cousin with about 400,000 on it. And it was running great, the only I ever did it to it was replace the clutch (standard maintenance for a manual transmission).

My second car was a 1988 toyota camry who's shock mounts rusted out and was more expensive to replace that was worth it, but the engine, drivetrain and the interior were in perfect condition. It had 325,000 km on it. 

Current car is a 1995 Toyota camry with 346,000 km on it and going very strong. I have to fix the brakes on it every few years and the air conditioning hoses have cracks so I have to get them fixed and the coolant refilled each year, but other than that it's excellent!


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

MacFury demanded:
" ... I mean the country's income. Show me the math on how the country will come out ahead ..."

I suggested that a collapse in the Ontario auto sector, which is a key export industry generating 14% of Canada's GDP, can lead to widespread economic problems and a loss in GDP with unpredictable results. In 2007, Chrysler sold the second most number of cars and trucks in Canada, barely edging out Ford, who found themselves in third place. It's not hard to find a well-documented example.

From 1919 to 1929 Canada had the world's fastest growing economy, with a sharp but brief recession during WWI, and another brief one in 1920-22. Growth after the recession and during the 1920's was the highest.

In January, 1929, Canada went off the Gold Standard, being the first country to do so.

A fall in commodity prices during 1929 caused a slight downward trend in stock markets. late in 1929, a sell-off began that turned into a panic sell, as large numbers of people were carrying debt for the first time in history, and falling prices threatened the investments people expected to pay the debt off with.

The downturn began slowly and no one believed it would be any worse or any longer than the previous recession. Exports began to fall, and layoffs slowly reduced factory output. Stores began dropping prices to spur sales, but the sales did not improve. Commodity prices began to fall. Those with jobs found their hours cut back.

Ordinary Canadians had carried more debt than at any time previously, and began selling off personal assets to pay their debt. However, everyone was doing the same, and prices for used goods fell as well. Some had their goods re-possessed.

The US Federal Reserve responded by tightening credit and reducing the money supply by 1/3.

In the 1920's about 25% of Canada's GNP was via exports. The percentage is roughly the same today, only then it was wheat, today it's automobiles. On June 17 1930 the US raised it's import tariffs, making it much more difficult to sell Canadian goods to that country. Wheat prices fell by 50%. Canada reacted by increasing it's own import tariffs on US made goods, and began taking steps to move trade to England instead of the USA.

Prime Minister Wm Lyon Mackenzie-King believed the problem would be short-lived and refused calls for federal aid to the provinces, who were beginning to feel the burden of layoffs. At that time there was no welfare per se, but provinces were responsible for providing for the destitute. Slowly, their numbers began to rise.

On July 28, 1930 the LIberals lost the Federal election; the Conservatives of Richard Bennett campaigned on a platform of stimulus to the economy to combat the looming recession.

King was indifferent to rising unemployment and any call for aid was met with a derisive cry of a "Tory Conspiracy". Voters gave his rival 134 seats to the Liberals' 90.

Bennet did offer some stimulus, but got cold feet and changed the Government policy in 1931.

The 1931 economy was in bad, but not terrible shape. The damage had been done however, and employment continued to worsen. The economy would continue to shrink each quarter. By 1933 unemployment rose nationally to 30%; and GNP had fallen by 42%. In some parts of Canada unemployment was greater than 60% by 1933.

The Canadian economy began to expand after 1933. In Canada employment rose quickly, but wages, productivity and corporate incomes did not rise. By 1939 output was still 30% below 1929 levels in Canada. Investment fell to 15% of it's 1929 levels by 1933, and by 1939 was still 50% below the 1929 level.

All because the price of grain fell and consumers were in debt (but nowhere near today's debt levels ... consumer loans required 25% down payments, for example) and were investing their money in the hope of profit.

Total corporate earnings in all of Canada in 1929 were $396 million dollars. In the worst year, 1933, the sum of all corporate profits in the nation amounted to a loss of $98 million. In 2009 dollars, that is equal to $4.863 Billion dollars and $1.538 Billion, respectively, using the Statistics Canada Inflation Calculator (average over that time period is 3.69%).

During the depression relatively few companies went bankrupt, but what failures did occur had a huge impact. Failures increased by only 20% up to 1932, and then improved to the point where from 1932-34, there were fewer bankruptcies in Canada than at any time in the previous 30+ years. Canada did not experience any bank failures. Interest rates on Bonds held by foreigners did not rise, indicating that no-one felt Canada was a default risk, and therefore the problem was not caused by the Banking sector or with credit issues.

* Figures from The Great Depression in Canada and the United States: A NeoClassical Perspective, Amaral, MacGee, U Minnesota; and Statistics Canada.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

hhk said:


> And the green movement is the best thing for car mfgs as we replace our gas guzzlers and carbon emitters with new technology vehicles. Hell, I have two vehicles with 89,000 and 125,000 kms on them. They will *have* to be replaced in 2 years.


Why? You'll be emitting more pollutants replacing your young cars with a brand new car.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

A good graphic found on the NY Times website, comparing the Bear Markets of the 20th century. The two most prolonged and severe occur from the NYSE peak of September 3, 1929 to June, 1932. That was followed by a recovery that lasted until March 6, 1937 and then another severe Bear Market that continued to April 1942.

The current Bear Market is amongst the steepest in history, and has significant potential to fall further and longer without intervention. With intervention ... well, first of all, who cares, if you're doomed anyway? Governments won't be able to save any of the money you don't spend on stimulus, it will just disappear in social spending that will cost many times what any current intervention can possibly cost. May as well try to generate a recovery and minimize the losses. We literally have nothing to lose and everything to gain. You want to turn this downturn into one that resembles the others more than the 1929 and 1937 ones.

Note also that economies are more than just stock markets, but they do mirror consumer confidence, a keen indicator of the economy as a whole, in particular as it reflects confidence in the near future term.

Consumer debt as a % of GDP reached 100% in the US last year. That is the second time in history that has happened. The first time was 1929. There is tremendous potential for disaster if we allow a molehill to turn into a mountain when we still have an opportunity to keep it down to a bump in the road.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

I say that if Chrysler "pulls out of Canada" - then Canada should shut down all sales of Chryslers in this country. Then let Tommy Lasorda decide. Tommy was much better as the manager of the Dodger's than manager of the Dodges.

It's time to play hard ball with these greedy scumbags...


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

It wouldn't surprise me if it was Tony Clement that put the whole idea into Chryslers mind.
The sooner he's out of the Canadian Government the better.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> I say that if Chrysler "pulls out of Canada" - then Canada should shut down all sales of Chryslers in this country. Then let Tommy Lasorda decide. Tommy was much better as the manager of the Dodger's than manager of the Dodges.
> 
> It's time to play hard ball with these greedy scumbags...


A rare moment but I agree with you.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Magna sitting pretty to cash in.....

They wanted Chrysler...might get 10¢ on the dollar now...and they have the cash...



> Magna's in the driver's seat (for now)
> Article Comments (22)
> GREG KEENAN
> From Saturday's Globe and Mail
> ...


reportonbusiness.com: Magna's in the driver's seat (for now)


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Timken is shutting down their one Canadian plant for two weeks, laid off almost 50 earlier in the year. Probably this one goes past the radar of many, but this is a bellweather factory for industrial production in my mind.

The Timkin Tapered Roller Bearing is a high precision, high load part used in mechanical assemblies, from industrial equipment to aircraft and marine applications. It's an expensive part that isn't specified unless it needs to be there; cheaper alternatives abound. But, if you need one, you need one.

It's thrown into the Auto sector, since simply by volume there are a lot of Timkin bearings in transmissions, pumps, DOHC valvetrains, etc. But it's a precision part that represents all high quality machine manufacturing in the country, and to a huge extent the kind of manufacturing that doesn't get done in China, because it requires the highest available skills and materials, and not the least, experience.

That's a clear signal that factory orders are slowing, and that's an indicator that needs time to move up or down. It probably represents expected demand a few months forward.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> I mean the country's income. Show me the math on how the country will come out ahead with such a bail-out. Even given the supply chain, I don't believe you can show it will do more than keep the company running for as long as it takes to burn through that cash.


The country will not "come out ahead". The cash could just be given out to the employees who are going to loose their jobs, making them into instant millionaires, rather than having the money be wasted on diamond encrusted platinum plated shower curtains and solid gold bicycles for corrupt and degenerate executives.

Saving Chrysler or GM just means that they will be given an edge, so that they can continue to produce their obsolete crudmobiles - vehicles that do all of those things that people around here say are wrong: they waste gas with their filthy retrograde V-8 engines that no one needs, they produce giant sized vans so that single people can commute to work in the most wasteful manner possible, and their management methods breeds contempt and quite often endangers the worker's life with bad work environments, unsafe equipment, and etc...

It's time for these dinosaurs to become extinct. As for Tommy LaSorda making his "threats" - it;s easy - Chrysler either builds cars here, or they are prohibited from ever selling cars here - which would only be a depressing day for auto mechanics who work on that crud, and for the scrapyards where Chrylser makes up a full 50% of junkers.

It would be better if we just funded Garth Turner and Cam Jackson, so they can save the Alberta Cattlemen in their efforts to bring extinction to cattle by eating steak 24/7, because we all know that most methane (a greenhouse gas) is produced by cattle. Though with the current trends in global cooling and a decrease in solar activity, we may need Turner and Jackson's methane to provide salvation.

I'd be less upset if Chrylser shut down than seeing John tory frag himself for the final time...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

dolawren said:


> It wouldn't surprise me if it was Tony Clement that put the whole idea into Chryslers mind.
> The sooner he's out of the Canadian Government the better.


I agree - he is dirt, considering that he would rather endanger lives by running an obsolete 50 year old reactor than to get to the bottom of what corruption stole the money that was supposed to go into the required safety equipment.

Then he wants to "save" Chrysler, a company that makes the Jeep Patriot...


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

An interesting read on how Chrysler was doing some things wrong - but a lot of things right - until Daimler gutted them:
Designing the Dodge Neon - engineering and manufacturing

And a couple of articles that show how Chrysler is likely terminal now that their once impressive product development capabilities have been gutted:
Editorial: The Truth About DaimlerChrysler Product Development | The Truth About Cars

Editorial: Chrysler Suicide Watch 44: Will the Last One Out of the Building… | The Truth About Cars


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
There is a rather large chapter in a book I had on the Toyota Production System on the whole issue of how Chrysler ended up with a large number of people well versed in TPS, and how they even reorganized plants in order to take advantage of TPS methods - all of which was scrapped when Daimler walked in and fired all of the TPS people. Chrysler was "the biggest possible threat" to Toyota, and that the real PT Cruiser and other cars that were on the drawing boards might have ruined Toyota in a number of key markets - but that Toyota's greatest salvation was Daimler "walking in and gutting the company" and in cost saving measures, crippled the PT Cruiser with the deficient Neon engine, and axed the rest of the projects.

Perhaps the biggest loss for Chrysler is that they were left without key technologies, but instead, Daimler saw fit to not only thrift Chrysler, but they thrifted their own products - witness the disasterous M-Class (which stands as the worst Mercedes ever), and the outsourcing of engine building to Steyr-Magna in Hungary, because Lord knows, the Daimler people wanted an engine that was more fragile and prone to crazy breakdowns than their 70's dual overhead valve engine (which usually just failed by blowing the valves through the heads). That move, more than any, sent more people shopping at the competition, where engines that self destruct were significantly more rare...

The FIAT bid is nothing more than smoke, since FIAT can easily walk in and buy out whatever plant happens to come up for sale during bankrupcy, then they can inflict their peculiar, inferior grade products that are sure to make people beg for the "good old days" of the "reliable" K-Car...


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

EvanPitts said:


> The FIAT bid is nothing more than smoke, since FIAT can easily walk in and buy out whatever plant happens to come up for sale during bankrupcy, then they can inflict their peculiar, inferior grade products that are sure to make people beg for the "good old days" of the "reliable" K-Car...


when was the last time you drove a Fiat?

Laterz


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

EP: I would have bought a PT Cruiser if it had used a gutsy engine.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

K_OS said:


> when was the last time you drove a Fiat?
> 
> Laterz


The 80's. Fiats are biodegradable crud that just can't last in this climate where they put tons of salt on the roads. Now, maybe they have improved, but I wouldn't put money on that. The X1/9 was kind of cool, but it was biodegradable and needed much care at the garage, but was at least cheaper to repair than an Alfa...

Remember, FIAT is short for Fix It Again Tony.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> EP: I would have bought a PT Cruiser if it had used a gutsy engine.


I would have bought one if it wasn't a Chrysler...


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Macfury said:


> EP: I would have bought a PT Cruiser if it had used a gutsy engine.


2003-2006 Chrysler PT Cruiser GT Turbo - Modern Racer - Auto Archive


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Ford: Fix or Repair Daily, Found on Road Dead.

Anyone else have some others ones?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

PenguinBoy said:


> 2003-2006 Chrysler PT Cruiser GT Turbo - Modern Racer - Auto Archive


'

I come from a different era of "gutsy."


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Adrian. said:


> Ford: Fix or Repair Daily, Found on Road Dead.
> 
> Anyone else have some others ones?


Automotive Acronyms:

ACURA - Americans Can Underestimate Routine Accidents
AUDI - Accelerates Under Demonic Influence
BMW - Bavarian Manure Wagon
BUICK - Big Ugly Import Car Killer

CAMARO - Can't America Make A Real One?
CHEVROLET - Can Hear Every Valve Rap On Long Extended Trips
CHRYSLER - Could Have Remained Your Sickly Lame Elderly Relative's
CITROEN - Crap Interior Terrible Road-handling Owned Entirely by Nutters

DODGE - Drips Oil, Drops Grease Everywhere
FIAT - Failed Italian Attempt at Transportation
FORD - First On Recall Day
GM - General Maintenance

GMC - Garage Man's Companion
HONDA - Had One, Never Did Again
HYUNDAI - Hope You Understand Nothing's Drivable And Inexpensive
JEEP - Just Everyone Elses Parts

KIA - Korean Ingenuity Absent
MAZDA - Model All Zoilds Drive Aimlessly
MOPAR - Mostly Old Paint And Rust
OLDSMOBILE - Old Ladies Driving Slowly Make Others Behind Infuriatingly Late Everyday

PLYMOUTH - Please Leave Your Money Out Under The Hood
PONTIAC - Puts Out Noxious Toxins In All Cities
RENAULT - Retarded Engine, No Acceleration, Ugly Lump Of Trash
SAAB - Swedish Automobile Addicted to Breakdowns

TOYOTA - Too Often Yankees Overprice This Auto
TRIUMPH - The Risk Involving Useless Machinery Pays Heavily
VOLVO - Very Odd Looking Vehiclular Object
VW - Virtually Worthless


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

DROF (Ford backwards) - Drivers Return On Foot


----------



## Cole Slaw (Aug 26, 2005)

I have no sympathy for the CAW. They'd rather be unemployed than make $57/hour ( down from $75).
Oh well, good luck with that new Walmart job, dumbasses.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

EvanPitts said:


> The 80's. Fiats are biodegradable crud that just can't last in this climate where they put tons of salt on the roads. Now, maybe they have improved, but I wouldn't put money on that. The X1/9 was kind of cool, but it was biodegradable and needed much care at the garage, but was at least cheaper to repair than an Alfa...
> 
> Remember, FIAT is short for Fix It Again Tony.


and there lies the problem, I've driven several Fiats in Europe over the last 12 years and there quality is above what they had here with there efforts in NA in the 80's. From the Punto to the Panda they are very good cars on par with most Japanese cars in quality within there price brackets. I'm one of those that is praying like hell that they do merge with Chrysler which will only speed up the migration of the new Fiat 500 to our shores.

Laterz


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

FORD = Fixed Or Repaired Daily
FORD = Found On Road Dead
FORD = Friggin Old Rebuilt Dodge
FORD = First On Race Day

BMW = Break My Wallet

Hyundai = How You UNDerestimated An Import



> RENAULT - Retarded Engine, No Acceleration, Ugly Lump Of Trash


You wouldn't be saying that if you drove the new Renault Clio.

Laterz


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

K_OS said:


> I'm one of those that is praying like hell that they do merge with Chrysler which will only speed up the migration of the new Fiat 500 to our shores.


I just had a look at that 500 at Fiat.com and outwardly, that car hasn't changed since the 60's.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

kps said:


> I just had a look at that 500 at Fiat.com and outwardly, that car hasn't changed since the 60's.


The new Fiat 500 is a completely new car with a "retro" design, like the new MINI.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Cole Slaw said:


> I have no sympathy for the CAW. They'd rather be unemployed than make $57/hour ( down from $75).
> Oh well, good luck with that new Walmart job, dumbasses.


I don't know of anyone that works in a CAW plant that is scoring $75 per hour, or even $50 per hour. All of this "labour cost" is crazy. If the companies had put the pension money into the pension account at the same time as they do the payroll, rather than spending 5 or 10 years not contributing a dime (in order to inflate their "profits" in order to con investors), then it wouldn't be a problem.

Of course, if the wages are not comparable to that of the Japanese makers - then it is the fault of the Big 3, from their poor management that turns their plants into festering pits of grievances, to unsafe work conditions on machines that are not up to snuff, to endless nepotism where hard workers get the worst job while the bosses son gets to loaf around and smoke in some office. And it is also true that two years ago, the Big 3 did sign contracts with the workers, and thus, could obviously afford whatever they decided to dish out.

Since the former CEO of GM scored a $20 Million severance - then each worker in the company is entirely deserving to score a $5 Millon severance - it is entirely fair that if the fat cats at the top can live a life of decadence and luxury, with their platinum plated, diamond encrusted shower curtains - then the worker should be able to score a quarter of that opulence - since it is the worker that does the actual work.

The problem at GM and Chrysler is not what they pay the worker - but their lack of a product that people want to buy. This is not some kind of new thing - GM hasn't scored a profit in at least a decade, and has been a junk bond for what, five years? They do not have a viable product that anyone wants, and put every effort into discouraging potential customers and getting rid of current customers - witness their new "defect" with the plastic spark plug boots that melt, burst into flames and burn cars out - 1.5 Million of them. And Chrysler, there's a company that keeps returning to the defectmobiles in order to score like, an extra 5 cents per car. It's like they didn't learn from the Aspen/Volare, they had to "make sure" they were wold leaders in defects with the KCar, then with exploding transmissions in their minivans, then the numerous engine and electrical defects that riddled the Neon... No wonder why they have to bribe customers with $12,000 cash back with 0% financing - because they are going to recoup all of that money and more in service and parts.

The workers settled fairly, and if the companies can't compete - it's time for them to become extinct like the other corporate dinosaurs.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

PenguinBoy said:


> The new Fiat 500 is a completely new car with a "retro" design, like the new MINI.


it is a new car but in my opinion it has kept allot more of the originals soul than either the new MINI or Beetle.

Laterz


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

EvanPitts said:


> The workers settled fairly, and if the companies can't compete - it's time for them to become extinct like the other corporate dinosaurs.


Sure they settled fairly. And after they're all let go, they will settle into reality.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

K_OS said:


> and there lies the problem, I've driven several Fiats in Europe over the last 12 years and there quality is above what they had here with there efforts in NA in the 80's. From the Punto to the Panda they are very good cars on par with most Japanese cars in quality within there price brackets. I'm one of those that is praying like hell that they do merge with Chrysler which will only speed up the migration of the new Fiat 500 to our shores.
> 
> Laterz


I sure hope FIAT has improved their quality because we really do not need any more scrap steel zooming around the QEW.

And it would be quite a step for FIAT, because their vehicles were pretty bad in the 70's, though admittedly, better than the Peugeot Diesel or the Renault Alliance...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Sure they settled fairly. And after they're all let go, they will settle into reality.


The vast majority have already been let go - and the companies still can't compete. I just think it is a load when these car companies are claiming that wages are making their product uncompetitve when the fact it, it is their product that makes their product uncompetitive. It doesn't matter how much a worker's wage is cut, the companies can not survive if they have to dish out $12,000 cash back incentives with 0% financing for 72 months in order to move their product. You could have slaves building the stuff, and it's still not going to make any difference, especially when the companies are dishing out millions and millions of dollars to the top executives that made the mess in the first place.

I also think it is a joke that they keep saying that it costs them $75 (or whatever number they happen to dig up on a given day), when clearly, no worker on the line is making anything near that number. But then again, even if it is $75 per hour - that is nothing compared to the $40,000 or more per week that some executive is cashing in on while flicking a wet towel at some other executive's butt at the golf and country club while smoking cigars and drinking brandy.

When Apple was tanking - Jobs worked for $1 per year - and Apple became obscenely profitable and highly competitive. Let's see some auto executive do the same and step up to the place, like Iacocca did when he salvaged Chrysler from rack and ruin. The Government shouldn't be handing corporate welfraud out when the executives are going to score a cool $50 million a piece for a job badly done...


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

PenguinBoy said:


> The new Fiat 500 is a completely new car with a "retro" design, like the new MINI.


Okay, I get it...retro...much like Chrystler started many years ago, then BMW (Mini), then GM, etc.

When, and if, Chrysler and Fiat merge I can see the below coming to fruition for the North American market.:lmao:









*


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

FIAT = Fix It Again Tony

What's funny about all this is that Fiat left the North American market in the 80s with it's tail between it's legs. They almost went bankrupt. Now, they are calling the shots on this merger. Wow, what a turnaround. Goes to show you that GM or Chrysler could resurrect itself under the right management.


----------



## Cliffy (Apr 18, 2005)

hhk said:


> FIAT = Fix It Again Tony
> 
> What's funny about all this is that Fiat left the North American market in the 80s with it's tail between it's legs. They almost went bankrupt. Now, they are calling the shots on this merger. Wow, what a turnaround. Goes to show you that GM or Chrysler could resurrect itself under the right management.


By the mid-nineties, Chrysler had worked itself out of debt and into one of the most profitable car companies in the world. EvanPitts did mention some of the problems that happened with quality. All in the name of saving a couple bucks a car. When Daimler started talks, it was most likely because Chrysler had something like 10 billion cash in the bank. That has to be something done right.

That was better management then now. Cerberus owns the Auburn Hills HQ And Chrysler has to pay rent.


----------



## Mr.Tickles (Mar 25, 2009)

Kick Chrysler out, bring in more Japanese/German companies. Why are CAW workers getting more pay than most middle management in companies that MAKE money?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Without doubt, Japanese vehicles are superior.


----------



## Mr.Tickles (Mar 25, 2009)

SINC said:


> Without doubt, Japanese vehicles are superior.


Toyota all the way. My family still uses a Tercel from 1991 that STILL has better mileage and upkeep than much more recent Fords and Chryslers.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Yeah, my 2001 Suzuki Grand Vitara Limited has been bulletproof. Only tires in nearly 100,000 driving and 40,000 towing kms. No brakes, no tune ups. Nuttin' but oil and filter changes.


----------



## kgeorge78 (Sep 8, 2003)

come down to windsor and see the hundreds of thousands of people who are affected then tell me your opinion.

And those tercels and other pieces of junk are just that.


----------



## kgeorge78 (Sep 8, 2003)

Mr.Tickles said:


> Toyota all the way. My family still uses a Tercel from 1991 that STILL has better mileage and upkeep than much more recent Fords and Chryslers.


 when will this myth of American cars being junk end. The recent offerings are far superior than the recent Toyota small cars (Oh wait a Matrix is a Vibe, Toyota and GM are sharing technologies? no way.)


----------



## Mr.Tickles (Mar 25, 2009)

kgeorge78 said:


> when will this myth of American cars being junk end. The recent offerings are far superior than the recent Toyota small cars (Oh wait a Matrix is a Vibe, Toyota and GM are sharing technologies? no way.)


Why should I care if people on the other side of the country are out of work because their union is making their own company uncompetitive?

No sympathy there. Rigid unions for the fail.


----------



## kgeorge78 (Sep 8, 2003)

Mr.Tickles said:


> Why should I care if people on the other side of the country are out of work because their union is making their own company uncompetitive?
> 
> No sympathy there. Rigid unions for the fail.


We have mixed feelins here. I personally hate the union and agree they are a bunch of turds. But at the same time, lets see here, over 1/2 my family works at chrysler, Ford, GM or the small engineering firms that work with the Big 3.

The cars are much better than before. Chrysler is actually making the Volkswagon Mini Van.

This is my turnaround prediction - things get really bad, the union blows up, chrysler and GM re organize without the Union paying fair pay and benefits.

I buy a new Corvette and F150 in 2 years and either fly by or run over the tin on wheels that you city people love to drive!

p.s. Unbias opinion here - My Wife drives a Toyota! (Lexus GX470).


----------



## Mr.Tickles (Mar 25, 2009)

kgeorge78 said:


> We have mixed feelins here. I personally hate the union and agree they are a bunch of turds. But at the same time, lets see here, over 1/2 my family works at chrysler, Ford, GM or the small engineering firms that work with the Big 3.
> 
> The cars are much better than before. Chrysler is actually making the Volkswagon Mini Van.
> 
> ...


I heard something about the current benefits plan not being optimal either. Does anybody have a breakdown of where that 59/h is coming from? It can't all be cash.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

kgeorge78 said:


> when will this myth of American cars being junk end. The recent offerings are far superior than the recent Toyota small cars (Oh wait a Matrix is a Vibe, Toyota and GM are sharing technologies? no way.)


The Vibe is 90% Toyota, probably why it has been sooooo much better than my previous ****fire.


----------



## kgeorge78 (Sep 8, 2003)

The vibe and ****fire and not even in the same class let alone the same car.
The Complete int. of the vibe is GM 100%.

The ****fire is a POS and so is the cav. I agree.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

The interior of both the Toyota Matrix and Pontiac Vibe were designed by Pontiac. Toyota's just provided quality control checks, for example making sure the HVAC dials have that Lexus-like feel to them. It's been a very good partnership so far, it's too bad that Pontiac/GM is not taking this expertise and improving all their other cars. The Cobalt/G5 Pursuit could be so much better.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

dona83 said:


> The interior of both the Toyota Matrix and Pontiac Vibe were designed by Pontiac.


Wow, and if I had one complaint against my Vibe, it would be the quality of the interior! Too much like my ****fire! :lmao:


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Mr.Tickles said:


> Kick Chrysler out, bring in more Japanese/German companies.


Why would Japanese or German carmakers set up shop in Canada? The entire industry has excess capacity these days, so why would *anyone* be opening new plants in this environment?

If they did, eventually, need additional North American capacity why would they select Canada over lower cost North American locations such as Mexico or the "right to work" states in the US South?


----------

