"Who Killed The Electric Car" a documentary

[Tom Schindler]

As for leases, it works for some people, but not all. Why not give us both options? Why only one? If Ford went to lease only, they would lose more sales. Buy only, same thing. Offering both is the best of both worlds.

Does the movie explain why GM only provided the EV1 via lease?

I don't remember if it did or not. I don't think it did.

The question is, did GM actually WANT to sell and serve the market, or was it some lame attempt? And if a lame attempt, why?

That is a good question. Was it a lame attempt? Possibly. Why? There are many reasons. It goes back to, as you said, "people that typically are distrustful of govt, large corps,...". Are those people right and people like yourself are too blind to see the truth. My statement is not putting you down or anything, but truth is stranger than fiction.



Mind you, I am in the middle. I hope that the government can be trusted, but I will still watch them to make sure they have my best intrest in mind. The same goes for businesses. They are scum and there is no way around it. I understand that things must be done to help the business, but it is a two way street. Don't expect me to take a 50% pay cut so you can get a bonus. I take the cut, I expect you to take a pay cut too. Lead by example. Enough of the Off topic statements I just made.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen says:

Are those people right and people like yourself are too blind to see the truth. My statement is not putting you down or anything, but truth is stranger than fiction.

Glad you aren't putting me down. The part where you said "people like yourself are too blind to see the truth" could have been seen as a put down. Thanks for clearing that up.



So, what are the "many reasons" that GM's attempt at marketing the electric car were lame? Please give the factual reasons, not the symptoms.



Thanks!



TJR

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen also said:

The same goes for businesses. They are scum and there is no way around it.

I am a business owner and take offense to that statement.



Don't you want to run your own business someday, Tom? Wouldn't you like it to be successful and grow? If that were to happen, wouldn't you think that people that "blindly distrust" all businesses and think they are "all scums" a little, well, over-reacting?



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

Don't you want to run your own business someday, Tom?

Been there, done that. Did not enjoy it. Sold out to my partner and it was the best thing I ever did.

Wouldn't you like it to be successful and grow? If that were to happen, wouldn't you think that people that "blindly distrust" all businesses and think they are "all scums" a little, well, over-reacting?

I think it is very superficial to expect employees take a pay cut then give myself a bonus for taking food off the table of my employees. Unfortunatly, business owners don't feel that is wrong. An employer is only as good as his employees. Without employees, he has no business. Without an employer, we have no job. Take care of each other and things go nice. Times are tough, both sides of the fence need to make sacrifices. Asking your employees to take a pay cut then rewarding yourself with a bunus at the cost of the employees is as chicken shit scum that someone can be.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen painting all business owners with a broad brush-stroke of contempt.



Not EVERY employer treats his employees like crap.

 

[Johnny O]

Hook me up with one of these, and we're talking.

If memory serves, Car and Driver (it's not on their site but in my mag) said it only cost $350,000.

 

[Tom Schindler]

Not EVERY employer treats his employees like crap.

You are correct.



(You know this is coming)



Unions protect all of us from that. The threat of unions helps keep them for going by the wayside in the treatment of the unions.





Tom

 

[Gavin Allan]

I've worked for several employers over the years (helped startup five manufacturing plants from the ground up, and others). There is good management and bad management. The good ones don't get unions, and the bad ones do.



Companies get what they deserve. If they don't want a union, then don't treat your employess like they are your enemies.

 

[Tom Schindler]

Gavin, exactly my point.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

So, then Gavin and Caymen, if "good companies don't get unions", and "bad companies do", then by the transitive property "ALL union members work for bad companies!"



I've got it now. Thanks!

 

[Johnny O]

Private-sector unions in the U.S. are already toast. Down to about 9% of the private sector workforce and still shrinking last I heard. Meantime, unionized government employees has passed 50%.

Going off-topic, but for unions to be successful they need to eliminate competition. Skilled unions are one thing because of training and specialization needed (like electricians), but well-paid union jobs swinging a shovel or hooking cranes in a steel mill like I did left for China and Japan a long time ago. No one is going over there to picket or break kneecaps and the lefty politicians who might be sympathetic to union issues (i.e. Democrats) cast their lot with the greenies and further legislate blue-collar jobs out of existence in this country with taxes and environmental regulations.

If elected, I will ban all imported goods from any country with lower worker protection and environmental standards than ours. Employment in China is not my concern.

Union or not, it's good to think about what exactly a job is and why you get paid what you get paid for doing it.

....Okay, I was going wait for answers but I'll probably forget to come back. A job is when you produce a good or service of some value to someone else. You get paid, theoretically, on the portion of value that you add to said good or service.

 

[Gavin Allan]

Honestly, does anyone think the Subaru Tribeca really looks good? Honestly?

Oh, gosh, no! All those new vehicles like the Murano, Tribeca, Edge, CX-7, etc. are horrid-looking vehicles. They are obviously a combination of the worst traits of a minivan and SUV.

So, then Gavin and Caymen, if "good companies don't get unions", and "bad companies do", then by the transitive property "ALL union members work for bad companies!"

I don't know if I would say this is true in every case, but I would guess that the majority of unionized companies are not great, or else they wouldn't have a unionized workforce. Why else would someone volunteer to pay money out of their check every month (dues) and put up with the hassle of having to have someone else speak for you (instead of speaking for yourself) and bringing in a union?

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Right JohnnyO.



Artifically removing competition and thereby inflating your worth or the worth of your product is a sub-optimizing act. Many here have used OPEC as an example of where that collusion is bad. Clearly no one wants to pay more for oil or fuel than the price as dictated by a free, open market.



However, when it comes to domestic goods and services, many here don't see Unions in that same light. They have no problem with paying higher prices, inflated prices for goods and services as long as it means "better wages" (etc) for the union worker.



I find it somewhat hypocritical to think that OPEC is bad, but American unions are good given that they are performing the same actions, but I can understand how people have that opinion.



I suspect this sentiment and the associated point-of-view rooted in protectionism and the scarcity principle. In the scarcity principle there is a fundamental belief that there is only so much "profit" to be made, so much "good fortune" available, and you have to optimize the "here and now" for "your interests" in order to prosper.



I subscribe to the "abundance principle". If left to it's own devices and allowed to run free, the market actually grows to raise all incomes, wages, and outputs. Now compare and contrast that with the "tampered" effect of a marketplace that is controlled, as that market tends to have periods of starts, stops, and stagnation along with periods of growth.



Regulation, artificial influence and control tends to hurt growth of a market, whereas the free-market allows for "organic" growth...the good prosper grow and the bad die faster.



At least that's how I think about it.



TJR

 

[Gavin Allan]

Manufacturing in the US isn't dead. If companies would adopt excellent product design and support, they will be sucessful. Of course, multi-nationalism is here to stay, so don't be thinking that everything will be made in the USA.



Look at Caterpiller and John Deere. They are extremely successful US companies whose products are in demand all over the world.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Gavin said:

Oh, gosh, no! All those new vehicles like the Murano, Tribeca, Edge, CX-7, etc. are horrid-looking vehicles. They are obviously a combination of the worst traits of a minivan and SUV.

And yet, there are a ton of them on the road; every mfgr has one. They are where what I used to call hybrid before hybrid meant gas/electric. The hybrid was part SUV, part sedan...all ugly. ;-)



So if there are a ton on the road, and everyone has their version, again, they must be there because of market demand, right?

 

[Gavin Allan]

Regulation, artificial influence and control tends to hurt growth of a market, whereas the free-market allows for "organic" growth...the good prosper grow and the bad die faster.

Amen! I agree with you!



That is why tarriffs, import bans and quotas, etc. are bad for the US. If we do not have free access to cheap products at acceptable levels of quality from all around the world, our economy will cave in due to the artificial protectionism. Protecting US jobs by limiting foreign competition is not a long-run winning strategy.

 

[Gavin Allan]

And yet, there are a ton of them on the road; every mfgr has one. They are where what I used to call hybrid before hybrid meant gas/electric. The hybrid was part SUV, part sedan...all ugly. ;-)



So if there are a ton on the road, and everyone has their version, again, they must be there because of market demand, right?

No one said that consumers were smart. Look at all the money made on pet rocks, rap music, etc.

 

[Tom Schindler]

TJR,



Being union is not about protecting your own. There is more to it then that.



Lets say I get into trouble at work. Lets say it is nothing serious. I get representation to make sure the company is following the company/union policy to the "T". None of those buddy deals where I get fired for the same thing the other guy did, but he got a stern warning. I have seen that happen myself. I also have in writing my job duties. I am not told to operate a crane if it is not in my job description. If I have a safety concern, I can report it without fear of any repercussions. None of that "rules change to fit the application" crap. What is wrong today is wrong tomorrow, next week, next month, etc.



There is more to a union than having someone the negotiate wages and benefits. Though it is a plus, it is not the only purpose.





Tom

 

[Ryan Schaecher]

Unions protect all of us from that. The threat of unions helps keep them for going by the wayside in the treatment of the unions.

I've worked Union and Non-Union. The worst places were the Union shops. The managment distrusted the employees, the employees distrusted the management and noine worked to gether for the survival of the company.



The Non-Union shops (like where I currently work) everyone works together to get the bonuses, raises, etc. We are a manufacturing shop. I am an Engineer and usually spend my day behind a desk, but have been asked to assemble conveyors, work the production lines, do maintainence and go on service calls. If we were a Union shop, we would have closed our doors 10 years ago and nearly 100 people would not be making their paychecks here. They would be somewhere else, but not here. Is this place perfect? Nope. But I'll take it for now.

None of those buddy deals where I get fired for the same thing the other guy did, but he got a stern warning

If it's fireable offence, it is something serious. Most places don't fire someone for putting a trashcan in the wrong spot. Most firing take place for the following reasons:

-Violence (or threats of violence) in the workplace

-Drug/alcohol use

-Cronic accidents and safety violations

-Attendance issues

-Theft

-Lieing/"violation of trust"

If I have a safety concern, I can report it without fear of any repercussions

If I see a safety concern and DON'T REPORT it, there will be reprocussions, especially if God Fobid it leads to someone getting hurt or worse. Unions shouldn't be needed for that fact. If someone were to get fired over a safety concern they spoke up about, that's grounds for a lawsuit anyway.

No one said that consumers were smart. Look at all the money made on pet rocks, rap music, etc

.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

[Tom Schindler]

Ryan,



You havent worked in the right shop to see what I am talking about.



Where I work, we work on components worth over $20 million with assembled units worth $1.5 Billion. It is far from being chump change.



FWIW, I can be fired for another employee damaging a part if I see him doing something wrong and I do not say something to him about it.





Tom