| Jump to bottom |
new car sales
"Third, blue collar and middle class jobs have disappeared at an alarming rate and could well take a decade or more to get back to pre-recession levels. Furthermore, the jobs that are being secured are often less financially rewarding and result in less discretionary funds available for the purchase of a new second (or third) vehicle."
This is the absolute core of our problem! Why do the "smart people" not see this? If you don't have enough people making a decent wage, you cannot have a thriving economy! It's not complicated, doesn't require postdoctoral education or a Nobel prize to understand.
Even those of us who still have decent middle class jobs (knock on wood) are largely in debt and/or underwater on our houses--even modest houses financed conventionally. New cars move increasingly upmarket and less affordable to more people as median wages stagnate or fall. I mean, really--DUH.
And frankly, I'm not confident that we will see middle class jobs rise to a pre-recession level. As we become more "productive", fewer people are needed for most jobs. Even cashiers lose out to self-check. Unless there are new jobs from sectors unseen, we will still have high unemployment, hence lower consumer spending on all goods.
hatchbacks in USA
Your column about American aversions to hatchbacks made me think of the 1979 Cutlass HB we saw at the Frankenmuth AutoFest yesterday. It may be that, like with diesels, our subconscious memories associate "hatchback" with cars like these.
To refresh your memory, try this link:
http://www.carlustblog.com/2008/10/1979-oldsmobile.html
Why import it?
If the chicken tax is a concern, why not build it here? Presumably some changes would need to be made to meet US standards, but the majority of the engineering & design is done.
The Ranger has been the exact same design since 1994. If you look at last month's sales numbers it sold about half as well as the Tacoma, but I'd bet the profit dollars per vehicle are much better. That's probably why Ford has been content to let it ride, much like the Crown Vic and the Econoline.
I wish that Ford would go back to a truck the size of the first Ranger--small, lightly equipped, fun to drive. Call it a Courier or Ranchero...What happened to the discussion of an F100?
But in any case, the Ranger needs some attention from FoMoCo. You shouldn't have any vehicle in the showroom that's been around since Windows 3.0 was new.
Romney
OK...exactly what is Obama taxing??
And you preferred Bush's huge increases in spending accompanied by tax cuts (mostly for the highest income brackets), turning a surplus into a deficit?
Kudlow and GM
Kudlow should talk. He was/is a big part of the problem. He is all in favor of workers' wages being held down, and for the rich to pay no taxes.
And he's not exactly the Amazing Kreskin.
October 2007: “The recession forecast is all but wiped out as the Dow hovers around 14,000..”
October 2007: “Our dynamic system of free market capitalism works. It's still the safest, surest, most profitable investment strategy out there.”
October 2007: “The economy actually appears to be speeding up, following the relatively sluggish performance of the prior 18 months.”
Auto industry overcapacity
The comment about industry overcapacity holds the nut of the whole problem. Even if we only bought cars built in America, there are still too many factories, too many workers--auto production will continue to be more "efficient" along with all manufacturing.
Which brings us to this: if we don't need as many workers in manufacturing, and we don't need as many to farm (that might change if we move away from factory farming, but still), and we don't need as many in construction--what DO we need? What jobs will be around that pay well enough to sustain a large middle class?
I don't think an economy can be successful when consumption is 70% of it, like ours has been. What is the economy going to look like in 5 years--what do we WANT it to look like?
PT Cruiser
Since I work for an automotive research company, this is the type of topic that finds its way into the water cooler conversation. My contention is that a model like the PTC should be presented as a limited run vehicle from the beginning--state that you will only build it for 4 or 5 MY's. There's really no way to facelift or redesign the PTC and retain its appeal as you said. (VW has the same issue with the Beetle, which they should consider booting too).
But why not retain (and incrementally improve) the platform, drivetrains, etc., look into the Chrysler archive or go to a few car shows and come up with another modern-retro design? Redo the sheet metal totally, call it a "Sportsman" or a "Valiant" or a "PX Cruiser" or whatever and sell something else for 5 MY's.
Ford has said publicly they are looking at a shorter refresh cycle (can you say Ranger? I knew you could)--Chrysler needs to do the same. They produce product hits like the PTC or 300, then dust off their hands and walk away. You just can't do that anymore.
| Jump to top |
