Ok, so its not New Years yet, but I procrastinate, so I better get these out here now.
Normally, I don't do NY resolutions. Why? I'm honest. I don't really have any intention on following through most years.... Ok, stop, here's the truth. If I don't make resolutions, I can't not keep them. I get 100% followthrough then. You can't quit what you don't start. Well, even though that's the story of my life, I should've live like that.
Lose weight. This ties in a bunch of things. Eat healthier, exercise, take my vitamins/supplements regularly. Here's what it entails: Go to the gym 3 times a week minimum. Take my lunch to work minimum 4 days a week. Watch the soda intake and the beer intake. (Funny thing is, I can easily sit and have a single beer and be happy. But, I can down can of soda after can of soda and crave more. Ah, high fructose corn syrup how I hate you and love you.)
Practice my guitar. 3 times a week for 30 minutes. At least. This is bare minimum stuff folks, I want to do more, but I need to set atainable goals.
Read more. For those of you who know me well you might be scratching your heads. "Paul needs to read more?" Yes. I've been slacking lately, especially on good non-fiction books.
Make time for God. Yeah, these are in no particular order. This is something I must do. Time for prayer, for devotions, for focusing on Him and how He wants me to live.
Procrastinate less. I'll always be a procrastinator. But I need to get better about it.
We'll see how this all goes.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Friday, December 26, 2008
Family
Its the Christmas season and its been crazy. My brother and his wife are way out in Portland Oregon (and stuck there due to snow) and I miss them. They've had a rough Christmas due to inclement weather and just the annoyances of life.
My wife and I have had to deal with a furnace going out ($305), a drain backing up and flooding our basement floor ($190 and counting), getting the house in order and a myraid of home repairs I'd been putting off. Those NEVER go as planned.
Then you have Christmas Eve where we rushed out to Tremont to go with my parents to see my Grandpa Schurter. Had lunch there, rushed back to Tremont to go with my Grandpa Stuber to pick up the seafood platter and then back to Pekin to wrap gifts to take to Tremont to exchange with my mom's side of the family.
Also my sister-in-law Andrea and her boyfriend Mike are staying with us and are wonderful houseguests, but its still a bit crazy having extra bodies around.
So Christmas with the Stubers, then back home to relax and watch a movie. Then Christmas day with Katrina's family and all the excitement that entails.
It was a crazy 2 days of Christmas. But you know what? It was great getting to spend it with family.
The love and joy at family members seeing each other who hadn't for awhile. At my young cousins who both have battled a life-threatening genetic disorder and the joy at them making it through another year and staying healthy. It was wonderful.
Christ brought hope to a lost world when He was born. The joy brought about celebrating his birth should remind us all of Him, and lead us to give thanks.
My wife and I have had to deal with a furnace going out ($305), a drain backing up and flooding our basement floor ($190 and counting), getting the house in order and a myraid of home repairs I'd been putting off. Those NEVER go as planned.
Then you have Christmas Eve where we rushed out to Tremont to go with my parents to see my Grandpa Schurter. Had lunch there, rushed back to Tremont to go with my Grandpa Stuber to pick up the seafood platter and then back to Pekin to wrap gifts to take to Tremont to exchange with my mom's side of the family.
Also my sister-in-law Andrea and her boyfriend Mike are staying with us and are wonderful houseguests, but its still a bit crazy having extra bodies around.
So Christmas with the Stubers, then back home to relax and watch a movie. Then Christmas day with Katrina's family and all the excitement that entails.
It was a crazy 2 days of Christmas. But you know what? It was great getting to spend it with family.
The love and joy at family members seeing each other who hadn't for awhile. At my young cousins who both have battled a life-threatening genetic disorder and the joy at them making it through another year and staying healthy. It was wonderful.
Christ brought hope to a lost world when He was born. The joy brought about celebrating his birth should remind us all of Him, and lead us to give thanks.
"Facts"
Facts are an interesting thing. Especially when presented in entertainment form. Yes, I'm talking about the news again. Specifically the 24 hour news networks.
Even though there are easily 24 hours of news to cover around the world, that's expensive. It is far cheaper to focus on a few stories, and then have hours of programming of commentary disguised as hard reporting.
The problem then becomes, all your "facts" are mashed in with commentary. Which, especially when key other facts are ommitted, completely changes the interpretation.
An example. In a discussion on the No Child Left Behind act it was stated that it was because of the Democrats. While it is a "fact" that Ted Kennedy was one of the original sponors of the bill, it was a bi-partisan initiative brought about at Bush's behest. He wanted this bill. He didn't sign it grudgingly, he made a special trip out to a school to sign it because he was so excited about it.
As recently as last year a Washington Post article quoted a Republican Rep. Peter Hoekstra saying, "President Bush and I just see education fundamentally differently. The president believes in empowering bureaucrats in Washington, and I believe in local and parental control."
See, the "fact" that Democrats helped sponsor the bill was made to obscure the fact it was Bush's idea from the start.
This is the danger of news channels spending too much time in studio "analyzing" and not enough time out actually gathering information. Its far, far cheaper to stay in studio then it is to pay teams of reporters to travel all over getting the hard facts. This is only going to contribute to the polarization and dividing of our country. And it does no one a service.
Even though there are easily 24 hours of news to cover around the world, that's expensive. It is far cheaper to focus on a few stories, and then have hours of programming of commentary disguised as hard reporting.
The problem then becomes, all your "facts" are mashed in with commentary. Which, especially when key other facts are ommitted, completely changes the interpretation.
An example. In a discussion on the No Child Left Behind act it was stated that it was because of the Democrats. While it is a "fact" that Ted Kennedy was one of the original sponors of the bill, it was a bi-partisan initiative brought about at Bush's behest. He wanted this bill. He didn't sign it grudgingly, he made a special trip out to a school to sign it because he was so excited about it.
As recently as last year a Washington Post article quoted a Republican Rep. Peter Hoekstra saying, "President Bush and I just see education fundamentally differently. The president believes in empowering bureaucrats in Washington, and I believe in local and parental control."
See, the "fact" that Democrats helped sponsor the bill was made to obscure the fact it was Bush's idea from the start.
This is the danger of news channels spending too much time in studio "analyzing" and not enough time out actually gathering information. Its far, far cheaper to stay in studio then it is to pay teams of reporters to travel all over getting the hard facts. This is only going to contribute to the polarization and dividing of our country. And it does no one a service.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Transformers
"A needle in the eye." Yes, that is a bad play on their slogan. It is also what would be more pleasant than watching this movie.
Well, to be fair, I didn't actually see the whole movie because a little after an hour into it, and nothing of real importance to the plot happening, my wife and I gave up. Whoever signed off on this poorly written, poorly directed hunk of crap should be beaten with a stick.
I'll start with the big problem that my wife summed up best. The movie and its makers couldn't decide if they wanted to be a young adult/adult movie at PG-13 or a kids movie. So, they wrote a script for a kids movie and peppered it with swearing. The writing was awful. Painful even. And the poor actors, I just couldn't care about them. It wasn't their fault, there was nothing likeable about any of them. I just wanted them to die. Really. It would have been better had the evil cop car robot had killed the main kid and the movie ended.
They needed to make the movie PG. Clean up the swearing, drop the little bit of blood and make it a kids movie.
I don't remember the cartoon much. I remember enjoying it, but I don't want to go back and watch them and have childhood memories destroyed. But, they were after the kid because his great-grandfather's glasses still held the image or something? WHAT!?!? I mean, I wanted to watch this movie for fun, not because it was a good movie, but because it would be fun. And it wasn't fun. It was bad and dumb.
Lets get to the CGI right. Ok, the Transformers looked pretty. But, the action sequences were so fast, that I couldn't see what was going on. Maybe I'm getting old. I don't know, but I wanted big epic robot fighting (maybe it came later) not blazing fast ninja robot action.
And a final BLEAH on this movie. Why did the evil transformers transform? I mean, 1 of them took out a military base. So....if you're an evil powerful robot, why hide? Why not just blow the crap out of everything in sight? Details I suppose.
Sorry, but I hated this movie. Hated it. And am sad I rented it.
Well, to be fair, I didn't actually see the whole movie because a little after an hour into it, and nothing of real importance to the plot happening, my wife and I gave up. Whoever signed off on this poorly written, poorly directed hunk of crap should be beaten with a stick.
I'll start with the big problem that my wife summed up best. The movie and its makers couldn't decide if they wanted to be a young adult/adult movie at PG-13 or a kids movie. So, they wrote a script for a kids movie and peppered it with swearing. The writing was awful. Painful even. And the poor actors, I just couldn't care about them. It wasn't their fault, there was nothing likeable about any of them. I just wanted them to die. Really. It would have been better had the evil cop car robot had killed the main kid and the movie ended.
They needed to make the movie PG. Clean up the swearing, drop the little bit of blood and make it a kids movie.
I don't remember the cartoon much. I remember enjoying it, but I don't want to go back and watch them and have childhood memories destroyed. But, they were after the kid because his great-grandfather's glasses still held the image or something? WHAT!?!? I mean, I wanted to watch this movie for fun, not because it was a good movie, but because it would be fun. And it wasn't fun. It was bad and dumb.
Lets get to the CGI right. Ok, the Transformers looked pretty. But, the action sequences were so fast, that I couldn't see what was going on. Maybe I'm getting old. I don't know, but I wanted big epic robot fighting (maybe it came later) not blazing fast ninja robot action.
And a final BLEAH on this movie. Why did the evil transformers transform? I mean, 1 of them took out a military base. So....if you're an evil powerful robot, why hide? Why not just blow the crap out of everything in sight? Details I suppose.
Sorry, but I hated this movie. Hated it. And am sad I rented it.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
The Party of Executive Greed?
The antipathy of certain southern Republican's to any sort of aid/bailout/help to the US auto industry is a bit bizarre to me. They seem to have no grasp on reality or simple economics.
Let me lay this out. The car companies have made stupid choices over the years. GM is still too big, has too many lines, and too many dealerships. Chrysler is still struggling from numerous poor decisions made during the time they were owned by Daimler and having too many dealerships.
Yes, labor costs, and most importantly ex-employee benefits/health care cost them tons of money each year.
However, the southern Republican's appear, and I can only say appear, because I don't understand their stance, to think that all the problems with the companies are because of the unions and that they don't have enough fuel efficient vehicles in their lineup.
GM has the most cars that get 30+ mpgs of any manufacturer. Granted, it could be the same car in 2 or 3 different lines but they still have options. Chrysler is in a stickier position due mostly to questionable decisions made during the Daimler tenure, however they have a multitude of hybrid/plugin electrics coming down the line for 2010.
Two things seem to be lacking from the view of those opposing this loan. First, consumers are idiots. They whine about the gas mileage they get, but as soon as gas prices dropped the vehicles that showed the biggest gain were all medium to full size SUVs. There is also the difficulty of turning a profit on small cars compared to trucks and SUVs. Forcing companies to produce more vehicles consumers do not want yet (raise the gas tax another $1 a gallon) and that they can't turn a profit on is not a path to profitability.
Second, yes, union labor costs more. So does executive pay. For a $5 million bonus to one executive (which they seem to get no matter how the company is doing) you could pay a whole heck of a lot of workers a living wage. I'm not saying workers need to be getting $35/hour to put widget A on widget B plus benefits. But I am saying that making $15-20/hour plus benefits and the big guys up top getting bonuses of $250k to $500k sounds fair to me.
The Republicans might wonder why they are losing votes like crazy. Things like this are why. The average person is a worker, not an executive. So when all the laws you make, decisions you push, seem to benefit the top 1% the other 99% aren't going to be thrilled with you.
Let me lay this out. The car companies have made stupid choices over the years. GM is still too big, has too many lines, and too many dealerships. Chrysler is still struggling from numerous poor decisions made during the time they were owned by Daimler and having too many dealerships.
Yes, labor costs, and most importantly ex-employee benefits/health care cost them tons of money each year.
However, the southern Republican's appear, and I can only say appear, because I don't understand their stance, to think that all the problems with the companies are because of the unions and that they don't have enough fuel efficient vehicles in their lineup.
GM has the most cars that get 30+ mpgs of any manufacturer. Granted, it could be the same car in 2 or 3 different lines but they still have options. Chrysler is in a stickier position due mostly to questionable decisions made during the Daimler tenure, however they have a multitude of hybrid/plugin electrics coming down the line for 2010.
Two things seem to be lacking from the view of those opposing this loan. First, consumers are idiots. They whine about the gas mileage they get, but as soon as gas prices dropped the vehicles that showed the biggest gain were all medium to full size SUVs. There is also the difficulty of turning a profit on small cars compared to trucks and SUVs. Forcing companies to produce more vehicles consumers do not want yet (raise the gas tax another $1 a gallon) and that they can't turn a profit on is not a path to profitability.
Second, yes, union labor costs more. So does executive pay. For a $5 million bonus to one executive (which they seem to get no matter how the company is doing) you could pay a whole heck of a lot of workers a living wage. I'm not saying workers need to be getting $35/hour to put widget A on widget B plus benefits. But I am saying that making $15-20/hour plus benefits and the big guys up top getting bonuses of $250k to $500k sounds fair to me.
The Republicans might wonder why they are losing votes like crazy. Things like this are why. The average person is a worker, not an executive. So when all the laws you make, decisions you push, seem to benefit the top 1% the other 99% aren't going to be thrilled with you.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
The Future of Unions
Watching the attempted bailout of the US automakers and the responses of the Union, and the apparent desire of some Republicans to pretty much kill the unions, I'll throw my two cents out there.
The unions must change if they want to survive. The old way of doing business doesn't work in the new age of multi-national corporations, dramatically shifting markets, and ever-changing technology. The current 800lb gorilla method of unions isn't effective anymore and needs to be rethought.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-union. It isn't the union's fault that the car companies are in such dire straights, though the constant demands of more more more didn't help things. Unions have done much good, and are necessary to protect workers. But they need to go back to being truly local.
I think a network of truly local unions would be healthier and better for workers and employers then the current model of "local" unions where everything of importance is handled by people brought in by the national headquarters. It would allow unions to tailor contracts to their environment better. Workers in Chicago should make more than workers in Alabama, it costs more to live there.
A case in point. I live near the Mitsubishi plant in Normal, Illinois. Workers there have taken cut after cut as Mitsubishi attempts to survive in the US. Workers have taken over the past few years $1200/month wages concessions, assuming they kept their jobs. That is terrible, but they had $1200 in wages to give away. I'm sorry, I am all for people making a decent wage, but that is simply insane.
You've given up $14,400 in yearly wages because the unions kept demanding ever greater pay and benefits. (Yes, those lovely health-care benefits have also done much to shoot the cost of health-care up.) Am I saying that workers should get screwed when their companies make boneheaded decisions? No.
I am saying that getting paid $30/hour plus benefits to put widget A on widget B (without any real technical training) isn't a successful business model anymore. Add to this the protections of getting paid when their is no work (guarenteed 40 hours) and more, the unions have not done real favors when times get tough.
More negotiation needs to be done to tie both exectutive pay, and employee compensation to how the company is doing. Especially at the top levels. When executives can helm a company that is crashing into the ground and walk away with millions in golden parachutes, the employees must be protected as well.
This is disjointed, probably makes no sense, and got lost from the initial point. Though, I suppose that sums up the business climate pretty damn well.
The unions must change if they want to survive. The old way of doing business doesn't work in the new age of multi-national corporations, dramatically shifting markets, and ever-changing technology. The current 800lb gorilla method of unions isn't effective anymore and needs to be rethought.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-union. It isn't the union's fault that the car companies are in such dire straights, though the constant demands of more more more didn't help things. Unions have done much good, and are necessary to protect workers. But they need to go back to being truly local.
I think a network of truly local unions would be healthier and better for workers and employers then the current model of "local" unions where everything of importance is handled by people brought in by the national headquarters. It would allow unions to tailor contracts to their environment better. Workers in Chicago should make more than workers in Alabama, it costs more to live there.
A case in point. I live near the Mitsubishi plant in Normal, Illinois. Workers there have taken cut after cut as Mitsubishi attempts to survive in the US. Workers have taken over the past few years $1200/month wages concessions, assuming they kept their jobs. That is terrible, but they had $1200 in wages to give away. I'm sorry, I am all for people making a decent wage, but that is simply insane.
You've given up $14,400 in yearly wages because the unions kept demanding ever greater pay and benefits. (Yes, those lovely health-care benefits have also done much to shoot the cost of health-care up.) Am I saying that workers should get screwed when their companies make boneheaded decisions? No.
I am saying that getting paid $30/hour plus benefits to put widget A on widget B (without any real technical training) isn't a successful business model anymore. Add to this the protections of getting paid when their is no work (guarenteed 40 hours) and more, the unions have not done real favors when times get tough.
More negotiation needs to be done to tie both exectutive pay, and employee compensation to how the company is doing. Especially at the top levels. When executives can helm a company that is crashing into the ground and walk away with millions in golden parachutes, the employees must be protected as well.
This is disjointed, probably makes no sense, and got lost from the initial point. Though, I suppose that sums up the business climate pretty damn well.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Microsoft OS
Ok, I'm not a techie geek anymore. I was only ever a borderline one and even that title went out years ago. So, keep that in mind.
Microsoft and their ever-present "Mojave" commercials (i could get lots out of Vista too with a killer machine being used by someone who knows all the ins and outs) with-standing, Vista isn't really something people are raving about. Especially in the corporate world.
Why? Well, most people don't need an uber-powerful operating system. Vista apparently can do amazing things, if you care enough to do them. What I, and most users, notice, is that it sucks up tons of system resources just being on my computer. (I'm discounting the early Vista basic editions which were broken for all intents and purposes.)
What Microsoft isn't realizing, or maybe will with Windows 7, is that the average computer user just wants a stable machine. They want it to load fast, run fast, run the programs they buy, have drivers for the hardware they use, and just plain work. Yes, I realize this is a lot to ask, and there will always be glitches, bugs and hiccups. That's ok.
Don't give us a super-powerful, new, amazing, confusing and unecessary massive hunk of software. Really, most of us don't need it.
Make it two tiered: A home edition which is all the NECESSARY basics to just run your computer. A Pro edition which is all that PLUS a bunch of web-integrated stuff or whatever.
I run an old Pentium 4 that has Ubuntu on it. I barely know how to use linux. But it works. Every time, it works. I can get on the web, I can do word processing, photo editing, etc. Oh, I'm not proselytizing Linux, its not for everyone, but what I am saying is that it works for me. That's all I need. It doesn't suck up all my system resources, it only has a gig of ram. But it works.
Like I said, this isn't a big concern of mine, but Microsoft never seems to learn that upgrading and completely changing don't have to go hand in hand.
Microsoft and their ever-present "Mojave" commercials (i could get lots out of Vista too with a killer machine being used by someone who knows all the ins and outs) with-standing, Vista isn't really something people are raving about. Especially in the corporate world.
Why? Well, most people don't need an uber-powerful operating system. Vista apparently can do amazing things, if you care enough to do them. What I, and most users, notice, is that it sucks up tons of system resources just being on my computer. (I'm discounting the early Vista basic editions which were broken for all intents and purposes.)
What Microsoft isn't realizing, or maybe will with Windows 7, is that the average computer user just wants a stable machine. They want it to load fast, run fast, run the programs they buy, have drivers for the hardware they use, and just plain work. Yes, I realize this is a lot to ask, and there will always be glitches, bugs and hiccups. That's ok.
Don't give us a super-powerful, new, amazing, confusing and unecessary massive hunk of software. Really, most of us don't need it.
Make it two tiered: A home edition which is all the NECESSARY basics to just run your computer. A Pro edition which is all that PLUS a bunch of web-integrated stuff or whatever.
I run an old Pentium 4 that has Ubuntu on it. I barely know how to use linux. But it works. Every time, it works. I can get on the web, I can do word processing, photo editing, etc. Oh, I'm not proselytizing Linux, its not for everyone, but what I am saying is that it works for me. That's all I need. It doesn't suck up all my system resources, it only has a gig of ram. But it works.
Like I said, this isn't a big concern of mine, but Microsoft never seems to learn that upgrading and completely changing don't have to go hand in hand.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Got Him
The FBI arrested our wonderful governor today. Rod Blagojevich was arrested on corruption charges linked with attempting to sell the Senate seat recently vacated by President-elect Obama. He also is linked to numerous other shady deals including threatening the Tribune company (which owns the Cubs) that unless they fired certain editors state money could be withheld from renovating Wrigley Field.
I have yet do decide if the man is stupid, arrogant or just a firm dose of both.
His administration has been a train wreck from day one, and shame on the people of Illinois for voting him in twice. (Double shame on the Republicans for being such a sad pathetic group of cronies that they couldn't beat him last time.)
I've been saying all along he'd be in jail before his term was up. We'll see how long he can drag this trial out!
Go special prosecutor Fitzgerald!! If you nailed Ryan, you should be able to nail this slimeball easily!
I have yet do decide if the man is stupid, arrogant or just a firm dose of both.
His administration has been a train wreck from day one, and shame on the people of Illinois for voting him in twice. (Double shame on the Republicans for being such a sad pathetic group of cronies that they couldn't beat him last time.)
I've been saying all along he'd be in jail before his term was up. We'll see how long he can drag this trial out!
Go special prosecutor Fitzgerald!! If you nailed Ryan, you should be able to nail this slimeball easily!
Monday, December 8, 2008
Tricky Business
The US automakers are in Washington with hat in hand asking for loans. This is not a good thing. I don't claim to have all the answers on what needs to be done, but here are some of the issues lawmakers (and taxpayers/consumers) need to know about and take into account.
Did the car companies do this to themselves?
Yes, by and large.
GM, has been poorly run for years. They are too big, have too many lines with similar products and too many dealers competing to sell essentially the same products. Couple this with legacy expenses from pensions and healthcare they are hampered in adjusting to changes in the market and economy.
Ford, is coming around. They have some sharp products, made some wise financial moves (selling off Land Rover and Jaguar) and are positioning themselves well to emerge from the brink of disaster. They also have too many dealers (all the Big Three do) and need to get rid of Mercury or rebrand it somehow. Merely selling Ford's with the Mercury label and a few different shiny parts isnt' exactly cost effective.
Chrysler, needs help. Daimler took a company that was struggling and helped to drive it into the ground. Sure, they gave the company some great powertrains, and a few sharp looking lines, but many many stupid decisions on interior trim, new models, and some of the recent redesigns of vehicles hurt Chrysler greatly. Couple this with legacy costs, too many dealers, too many similar models and odd for being owned by a European company for so long, no small high mileage (35mpg+) models continue to make Chrysler plod along losing market share by the year.
Chrysler is pretty much hoping to be bought by another company to reengergize the company and give them a springboard to succeed. Chrysler has many positives for it, it merely needs time.
Here's where things get tricky: Everybody says they want more fuel efficent cars. However, the market doesn't show that. Last month when gas dropped significantly the biggest sales spikes were all full-size SUVS, the Toyota Sequoia, Honda Pilot, BMW X5. Sales of small fuel efficient cars dropped even further. Gas will go back up, people will complain again, and the cycle will continue. The government should slap an additional $1 a gallon tax on gas, THEN lets see the market adjust.
Another problem. Small cars don't make any money for automakers. Seriously, the profit margin on small cars in miniscule compared to trucks and SUVs. That's not even counting hybrids which if a company can break even on is a happy day. Its not simply "build smaller cars and you will make more money" because you won't. You'll have to sell LOTS more cars just to make the same amount of money you are making now. As market shares grow ever smaller, this is not a way to profitability as things stand.
A final problem that needs to be tackled is the enviromental issues. Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm all against gas-guzzling vehicles, but you must consider that alternatives have their own problems. Hybrid batteries are horrendously expensive, and disposal of them poses a big enviromental challenge. Manufacturing them is also not an overly green process. Does this mean they are bad? No, it merely means that just they are not 100% perfect either.
So, to sum it up, here are the main problems facing Detroit, and all car makers to a certain extent: Car sales are down. Its tough to make money with small cars. Consumers have not shown they will stay away from large SUVs if gas is cheap enough. Alternative fuel vehicles have plenty of their own enviromental issues as well.
A radical change needs to occur in this industry, but I just don't see it happening. I don't know how it can. It is such an entrenched part of our economy and such a vast retooling and downsizing would need to occur it would make things much worse before they got better.
One thing is certain though, until GM decides that it is still 2 to 3 lines heavy, I see no realistic hope of them turning things around.
Did the car companies do this to themselves?
Yes, by and large.
GM, has been poorly run for years. They are too big, have too many lines with similar products and too many dealers competing to sell essentially the same products. Couple this with legacy expenses from pensions and healthcare they are hampered in adjusting to changes in the market and economy.
Ford, is coming around. They have some sharp products, made some wise financial moves (selling off Land Rover and Jaguar) and are positioning themselves well to emerge from the brink of disaster. They also have too many dealers (all the Big Three do) and need to get rid of Mercury or rebrand it somehow. Merely selling Ford's with the Mercury label and a few different shiny parts isnt' exactly cost effective.
Chrysler, needs help. Daimler took a company that was struggling and helped to drive it into the ground. Sure, they gave the company some great powertrains, and a few sharp looking lines, but many many stupid decisions on interior trim, new models, and some of the recent redesigns of vehicles hurt Chrysler greatly. Couple this with legacy costs, too many dealers, too many similar models and odd for being owned by a European company for so long, no small high mileage (35mpg+) models continue to make Chrysler plod along losing market share by the year.
Chrysler is pretty much hoping to be bought by another company to reengergize the company and give them a springboard to succeed. Chrysler has many positives for it, it merely needs time.
Here's where things get tricky: Everybody says they want more fuel efficent cars. However, the market doesn't show that. Last month when gas dropped significantly the biggest sales spikes were all full-size SUVS, the Toyota Sequoia, Honda Pilot, BMW X5. Sales of small fuel efficient cars dropped even further. Gas will go back up, people will complain again, and the cycle will continue. The government should slap an additional $1 a gallon tax on gas, THEN lets see the market adjust.
Another problem. Small cars don't make any money for automakers. Seriously, the profit margin on small cars in miniscule compared to trucks and SUVs. That's not even counting hybrids which if a company can break even on is a happy day. Its not simply "build smaller cars and you will make more money" because you won't. You'll have to sell LOTS more cars just to make the same amount of money you are making now. As market shares grow ever smaller, this is not a way to profitability as things stand.
A final problem that needs to be tackled is the enviromental issues. Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm all against gas-guzzling vehicles, but you must consider that alternatives have their own problems. Hybrid batteries are horrendously expensive, and disposal of them poses a big enviromental challenge. Manufacturing them is also not an overly green process. Does this mean they are bad? No, it merely means that just they are not 100% perfect either.
So, to sum it up, here are the main problems facing Detroit, and all car makers to a certain extent: Car sales are down. Its tough to make money with small cars. Consumers have not shown they will stay away from large SUVs if gas is cheap enough. Alternative fuel vehicles have plenty of their own enviromental issues as well.
A radical change needs to occur in this industry, but I just don't see it happening. I don't know how it can. It is such an entrenched part of our economy and such a vast retooling and downsizing would need to occur it would make things much worse before they got better.
One thing is certain though, until GM decides that it is still 2 to 3 lines heavy, I see no realistic hope of them turning things around.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)