From Mr GM himself - F-Body Road Racing and Autocross Forums

From the WSJ.

Rob

A Portrait of My Industry
By RICK WAGONER
December 6, 2005; Page A20

DETROIT -- Since mid-October, General Motors has announced plans to cease production at 12 North American manufacturing facilities and eliminate 30,000 jobs by 2008; trim $1 billion in net material costs in 2006; and, in cooperation with the United Automobile Workers, reduce GM's retiree health-care liabilities by $15 billion, or about 25%, for an annualized expense reduction of $3 billion.

The reason for these dramatic actions is no secret: GM has lost a lot of money in 2005, due to rapidly increasing health-care and raw-material costs, lower sales volumes and a weaker sales mix -- essentially, we've sold fewer high-profit SUVs and more lower-profit cars. What is less clear is why things turned sour so fast for GM, as well as for other American auto makers and suppliers. To put it another way, why are so many foreign auto makers and suppliers doing well in the United States, while so many U.S.-based auto companies are not?

* * *

Despite public perception, the answer is not that foreign auto makers are more productive or offer better-quality or more fuel-efficient vehicles. In this year's Harbour Report, which measures manufacturing productivity, GM plants took three of the top five spots in North America, including first and second place. In the latest J.D. Power Initial Quality Study, GM's Buick and Cadillac ranked among the top five vehicle brands sold in America, ahead of nameplates like Toyota, Honda, Acura, Nissan, Infiniti and Mercedes-Benz. And GM offers more models that get over 30 miles per gallon (highway) than any other auto maker.
In fact, this kind of operating performance makes GM's recent financial performance all the more frustrating. The fact is, we're building the best cars and trucks we've ever built at GM, our products are receiving excellent reviews, and we're running the business in a globally competitive manner. Outside of North America, we're setting sales records. In fact, for the first time in our history, we will sell more cars and trucks this year outside the United States than inside, aided in no small part by our market-leading performance in China.

So why, fundamentally, are GM and the U.S. auto industry struggling right now?

Intense competition, for one. The global auto business grows tougher every year, and we accept that. Our ability to compete has made us the world's No. 1 auto maker for 74 consecutive years, and we're fighting hard to stay on top.

Beyond that, our performance in the marketplace has not been what we've wanted it to be. While we've been strong in truck sales, we've been weaker in cars, and, yes, the recent surge in gas prices hurt sales. While we've led in technologies like OnStar, we've lagged in others like hybrid vehicles. Rest assured, we're working hard to address the areas where we lag. Simply put, we are committed to doing a better job of designing, building and selling high-quality, high-value cars and trucks that consumers can't wait to buy. No excuses. We will step up our performance in this regard.

But competition and marketplace performance are not the whole story. To fully understand why GM and the U.S. auto industry are struggling right now, we have to understand some of the fundamental challenges facing American manufacturing in general -- challenges well beyond the control of any single company.

There are those who ask if manufacturing is still relevant for America. My view: You bet it is! Manufacturing generates two-thirds of America's R&D investment, accounts for three-fourths of our exports, and creates about 15 million American jobs. And the auto industry is a big part of that, accounting for 11% of American manufacturing, and nearly 4% of U.S. GDP. Together, GM, Ford and DaimlerChrysler invest more than $16 billion in research and development every year -- more than any other U.S. industry. And GM, alone, supports more than one million American jobs.

So what are the fundamental challenges facing American manufacturing? One is the spiraling cost of health care in the United States. Last year, GM spent $5.2 billion on health care for its U.S. employees, retirees and dependents -- a staggering $1,525 for every car and truck we produced. And the figure is going up again this year. Foreign auto makers have just a fraction of these costs, because they have few, if any, U.S. retirees, and in their home countries their governments fund a much greater portion of employee and retiree health-care costs.

Some argue that we have no one but ourselves to blame for our disproportionately high health-care "legacy costs." That kind of observation reminds me of the saying that no good deed going unpunished. That argument, while appealing to some, ignores the fact that American auto makers and other traditional manufacturing companies created a social contract with government and labor that raised America's standard of living and provided much of the economic growth of the 20th century. American manufacturers were once held up as good corporate citizens for providing these benefits. Today, we are maligned for our poor judgment in "giving away" such benefits 40 years ago.

Another factor beyond our control is lawsuit abuse. Litigation now costs the U.S. economy more than $245 billion a year, or more than $845 per person. That's more than 2% of our GDP. No other country has costs anywhere near this level. And the perverse thing is that, in many cases, the majority of courtroom settlements go to the lawyers and other litigation costs, not to the injured parties.

Another major concern is unfair trading practices, especially Japan's long-term initiatives to artificially weaken the yen. A leading Japanese auto maker reports that for each movement of one yen against the dollar, it gains 20 billion yen in additional profitability -- or nearly $170 million at today's exchange rate. No wonder Japanese auto makers have noted their recent record profits were aided by exchange rates. And no wonder the U.S. trade-balance deficit continues to grow by leaps and bounds.

There are other issues, of course, but my point is this: We at GM have a number of tough challenges that we must and will address on our own -- but we also carry some huge costs that our foreign competitors do not share.

Some say we're looking for a bailout. Baloney -- we at GM do not want a bailout. What we want -- after we take the actions we are taking, in product, technology, cost and every area we're working in our business today -- is the chance to compete on a level playing field. It's critical that government leaders, supported by business, unions and all our citizens, forge policy solutions to the issues undercutting American manufacturing competitiveness. We can do this. And we need to do it now.

Mr. Wagoner is chairman and CEO of the General Motors Corporation.

Rob Hood View Member Profile	Dec 7 2005, 06:28 AM Post #1
Experienced Member Group: Advanced Members Posts: 1,086 Joined: 16-January 04 From: Chandler AZ Member No.: 130	From the WSJ. Rob A Portrait of My Industry By RICK WAGONER December 6, 2005; Page A20 DETROIT -- Since mid-October, General Motors has announced plans to cease production at 12 North American manufacturing facilities and eliminate 30,000 jobs by 2008; trim $1 billion in net material costs in 2006; and, in cooperation with the United Automobile Workers, reduce GM's retiree health-care liabilities by $15 billion, or about 25%, for an annualized expense reduction of $3 billion. The reason for these dramatic actions is no secret: GM has lost a lot of money in 2005, due to rapidly increasing health-care and raw-material costs, lower sales volumes and a weaker sales mix -- essentially, we've sold fewer high-profit SUVs and more lower-profit cars. What is less clear is why things turned sour so fast for GM, as well as for other American auto makers and suppliers. To put it another way, why are so many foreign auto makers and suppliers doing well in the United States, while so many U.S.-based auto companies are not? * * * Despite public perception, the answer is not that foreign auto makers are more productive or offer better-quality or more fuel-efficient vehicles. In this year's Harbour Report, which measures manufacturing productivity, GM plants took three of the top five spots in North America, including first and second place. In the latest J.D. Power Initial Quality Study, GM's Buick and Cadillac ranked among the top five vehicle brands sold in America, ahead of nameplates like Toyota, Honda, Acura, Nissan, Infiniti and Mercedes-Benz. And GM offers more models that get over 30 miles per gallon (highway) than any other auto maker. In fact, this kind of operating performance makes GM's recent financial performance all the more frustrating. The fact is, we're building the best cars and trucks we've ever built at GM, our products are receiving excellent reviews, and we're running the business in a globally competitive manner. Outside of North America, we're setting sales records. In fact, for the first time in our history, we will sell more cars and trucks this year outside the United States than inside, aided in no small part by our market-leading performance in China. So why, fundamentally, are GM and the U.S. auto industry struggling right now? Intense competition, for one. The global auto business grows tougher every year, and we accept that. Our ability to compete has made us the world's No. 1 auto maker for 74 consecutive years, and we're fighting hard to stay on top. Beyond that, our performance in the marketplace has not been what we've wanted it to be. While we've been strong in truck sales, we've been weaker in cars, and, yes, the recent surge in gas prices hurt sales. While we've led in technologies like OnStar, we've lagged in others like hybrid vehicles. Rest assured, we're working hard to address the areas where we lag. Simply put, we are committed to doing a better job of designing, building and selling high-quality, high-value cars and trucks that consumers can't wait to buy. No excuses. We will step up our performance in this regard. But competition and marketplace performance are not the whole story. To fully understand why GM and the U.S. auto industry are struggling right now, we have to understand some of the fundamental challenges facing American manufacturing in general -- challenges well beyond the control of any single company. There are those who ask if manufacturing is still relevant for America. My view: You bet it is! Manufacturing generates two-thirds of America's R&D investment, accounts for three-fourths of our exports, and creates about 15 million American jobs. And the auto industry is a big part of that, accounting for 11% of American manufacturing, and nearly 4% of U.S. GDP. Together, GM, Ford and DaimlerChrysler invest more than $16 billion in research and development every year -- more than any other U.S. industry. And GM, alone, supports more than one million American jobs. So what are the fundamental challenges facing American manufacturing? One is the spiraling cost of health care in the United States. Last year, GM spent $5.2 billion on health care for its U.S. employees, retirees and dependents -- a staggering $1,525 for every car and truck we produced. And the figure is going up again this year. Foreign auto makers have just a fraction of these costs, because they have few, if any, U.S. retirees, and in their home countries their governments fund a much greater portion of employee and retiree health-care costs. Some argue that we have no one but ourselves to blame for our disproportionately high health-care "legacy costs." That kind of observation reminds me of the saying that no good deed going unpunished. That argument, while appealing to some, ignores the fact that American auto makers and other traditional manufacturing companies created a social contract with government and labor that raised America's standard of living and provided much of the economic growth of the 20th century. American manufacturers were once held up as good corporate citizens for providing these benefits. Today, we are maligned for our poor judgment in "giving away" such benefits 40 years ago. Another factor beyond our control is lawsuit abuse. Litigation now costs the U.S. economy more than $245 billion a year, or more than $845 per person. That's more than 2% of our GDP. No other country has costs anywhere near this level. And the perverse thing is that, in many cases, the majority of courtroom settlements go to the lawyers and other litigation costs, not to the injured parties. Another major concern is unfair trading practices, especially Japan's long-term initiatives to artificially weaken the yen. A leading Japanese auto maker reports that for each movement of one yen against the dollar, it gains 20 billion yen in additional profitability -- or nearly $170 million at today's exchange rate. No wonder Japanese auto makers have noted their recent record profits were aided by exchange rates. And no wonder the U.S. trade-balance deficit continues to grow by leaps and bounds. There are other issues, of course, but my point is this: We at GM have a number of tough challenges that we must and will address on our own -- but we also carry some huge costs that our foreign competitors do not share. Some say we're looking for a bailout. Baloney -- we at GM do not want a bailout. What we want -- after we take the actions we are taking, in product, technology, cost and every area we're working in our business today -- is the chance to compete on a level playing field. It's critical that government leaders, supported by business, unions and all our citizens, forge policy solutions to the issues undercutting American manufacturing competitiveness. We can do this. And we need to do it now. Mr. Wagoner is chairman and CEO of the General Motors Corporation.

bsim View Member Profile	Dec 7 2005, 05:57 PM Post #2
Race Driver Group: Advanced Members Posts: 382 Joined: 14-February 04 From: SoCal Member No.: 205	QUOTE In short, they used to build cool cars at a reasonable price and they need to start doing that again. Chevette Citation Vega Caprice Wagon When did they ever build 'cool' cars, other than the Corvette and (with the exception for a few years) Camaros? Novas and Chevelles of the 60's/70's were the grocery getters of the day. Maybe what we think of as 'cool' cars, are the beefed-up muscle cars that people had modded? Then, as Rick states, we didn't have the lawsuits we have today. A company could actually over power a car, and not worry about getting sued because grandma did a smokey burnout over hill and dale, and ran into a drugstore on her way to pick up Depends. We're all car guys (and gals) here. We don't understand that there are actually people in this world that go to a dealership and say "what do you have for $XXXX?". They don't do research, they don't care about speed or handling. They want a true 'machine' that will perform the needed task of moving them and their stuff from point A to B - and get this - with NO emotional attachment whatsoever. Strange but true. And believe it or not, there are more of them than us. That's the basic idea behind "halo cars". A Corvette in your lineup brings traffic to the dealership, and you sell tham a bland grocery getter. The new Malibu is a good car (not that 'Classic' POS), the HHR smokes a PT Cruiser, the Impala is a great freeway ride, and the CTS is plain awesome. But no one knows that. In my opinion, I think what we're seeing in today's buying cycle is that a majority of people actually buying cars these day still has lingering efects of the late 70's to mid- 80's memories (or their parents taught them) regarding the horrible quality of products ALL of the US manufacturers put out. They've made up a ton of ground, but Mr. Majority General Public won't come in, since he thinks a Camry is more reliable than a Buick Regal, and Mr. Minority Enthusiast won't come in since that Impala is FWD. Doesn't matter what the product is at this point due to the percieved nature of the cars produced. So, all the big manufacturers are screwed this way. Especially since you can't compete dollar to doallr because of cost required to build at home. Interesting to me that labor forced a number of changes "for the working man", trying to provide a "living wage", but in the end formed the basis for America to be on an un-even playing field during this 'globalization". Who's doing well? The already rich 'leaders', and the working man gets screwed again - can't get a good job 'cause it got sent off to Mexico, and can't afford even a Civic on McDonalds wages.