GM exec: 100, 200 miles on a charge may be coming

Associated Press ^ | 8/9/12 | Tom Krisher

[Joe 6-pack]

"So is a cure for all diseases, new organs made on a machine, fusion power, intergalactic space travel and immortality."

Your post, 2IDV, raises a very sad point. There was a time in this country when our car makerswere discussing the possibilities of flying cars, even nuclear cars. The auto industry, and the American people looked forward to building and doing great things.

Now, they are selling a 200 mile range as a bold, earth-shaking innovation and the way of the future.

[driftless2]

"sixty minutes"

Imagine you're on the road and the car needs a charge. Now, if you're driving a gasoline-powered car and low on gas: no problemo. Just stop at the gas station, and in five minutes or so, you're on your way again. But sixty minutes for a recharge!!!! These recharging stations better have a lot of outlets, because they're going to awfully clogged with motorists. When the lefties succeed in banning gas-powered cars (or mandating all electric..same thing), I'm going to convince the wife to buy a charging station. If we're still alive that is.

[Claud]

Yep. Electric heat sucks wattage like nobody’s business. It’s just not practical in cold areas, compared to a combustion engine that produces heat *as waste* that can just be pumped into the cabin.

[fabian]

Gasoline...you can kiss my butt!

[Claud]

LOL awesome

[HamiltonJay]

Until you can get a 300-400 mile range and a 5-10 minute recharge the purely electric vehicle is nothing but a commuter vehicle at best, its not a practical replacement for the internal combustion engine.

Someday we may get there, but aren’t there yet.

Frankly why don’t we just put this money into teleportation, then we can be done with cars in their entirety.

[Jim from C-Town]

I know it is my fourth or fifth Le Sabre, all bought used. The one before this had over 175K on it and I hit something on the highway and put a hole in the transmission. Drove it to my mechanic, who said it would be more than it was worth to fix. i sold him the car, bough ta another one. He changed the transmission gave it to his niece and she is STILL driving it with over 250K on the odometer.

Best car Gm ever made. Best engine 3800 V6 and they dropped the nameplate in 2005.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for your responses folks.

I don’t plan on frequenting any GM showrooms either. What took place with GM was wrong on a number of levels.

My only question would be, how do we best fix that?

Is driving GM out of business really the best outcome for the nation? It seems to me that some sore of activity to move the entity back to the model of American values we support, would be better.

Failing that, I pretty much think of it the same way you folks do.

I have been anti-union since my youth. All you have to do is look at what unions have been involved in, to know that they are essentially anti-American and consummately evil.

Bond holders with GM deserve to receive compensation for their monetary support for GM. Partial union ownership is also a no-go for me.

[BobL]

“Is driving GM out of business really the best outcome for the nation? It seems to me that some sore of activity to move the entity back to the model of American values we support, would be better.”

Thanks, but no. The only practical way to wipe out the UAW, at this point, is to simply let the unions have their victory, and bring down GM (and the others). At that point, the pieces can be picked up by non-union operations in this country and overseas, while, hopefully, new domestic (non-union) manufacturers take hold. That’s exactly what happened in retail, and it’s much, much, more efficient now.

[BobL]

“Yep. Electric heat sucks wattage like nobody’s business. It’s just not practical in cold areas, compared to a combustion engine that produces heat *as waste* that can just be pumped into the cabin.”

Electric cars also produce heat...although the heat is produced and rejected at the power plants that supply their energy (coal and gas, in particular).

That’s the problem they have.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for your response BobL. I’m not convinced you are wrong here. I don’t like seeing old brands wiped off the map. Unfortunately in this instance, the damage has been done, and the outcome is slowly playing out as it should.

I’m not trying to give you a dig here, but I wonder how many non-union jobs will disappear if GM goes down. I wouldn’t be surprised if from suppliers to sales, we’re talking far more than the number of those who are actually employed at GM.

Take care.

[mo]

All that GM really waiting for is this technology to recapture the .50/gal gas tax the Feds lose when it kicks in...

[BobL]

“I’m not trying to give you a dig here, but I wonder how many non-union jobs will disappear if GM goes down. I wouldn’t be surprised if from suppliers to sales, we’re talking far more than the number of those who are actually employed at GM.”

I did think about the white collar jobs, but we cannot carry along sick companies to protect those workers...otherwise we don’t have a free market. Any time a company fails, non-union people lose jobs too - sometimes lots of non-union people. Often some of those non-union people are well beyond their prime and should have been let go (I work with a number of those), but management feels an (understandable) bond to these people. So the process of staying competitive does that job. Rough, but the alternative is much, much, worse.

[Secret Agent Man]

I was saying that from a purely technical perspective, over the other alternative energy vehicles currently available.

It’s good to get the context before replying.

[Secret Agent Man]

Well the thing that’s really pissed off a lot of leaf owners is that they are used to recharging rechargeable batteries fully. Apparently if you keep doing that with the leaf, you quickly start reducing the batteries’ capacity. I didn’t think Li-on batteries developed “memory” issues like other rechargeables but apparently this is an issue, at least with the leaf’s batteries and charging method. They say not to fully charge it every time you’re done driving.

[mo]

“Yeah, I’m thinking no song will be written about the Volt like Little Deuce Coup.”

the Volt....a 20K car that comes with a 20K...one gallon, 500lb fuel tank!!!!

[DoughtyOne]

I do agree with some of what you said. Look, the government has no place picking winners and losers. It has no business cutting bond holders off at the pass. It has no business intruding and giving unions management or ownership positions. I disagree with that across the board.

If ever there was a company that should go down, I believe GM to be one, due to government actions, due to union actions.

I will say that dismissing out of hand, all the non-union people that would be effected by this, is severely problematic in this business environment. You mentioned older dead wood, and that older dead wood would find it next to impossible to find new employment.

There are plenty of younger people in the work force looking for employment. Most businesses are going to opt for them. I’m not saying self-interest is bad here either, but there are misconceptions about long term employees too.

The characterization of older people not being productive, is a flawed premise. SOME are. Others have a long term expertise that is valuable to the business.

I have seen businesses chop employees that cost them a number of times what the employee was making, only to hire in someone at more money and far less key knowledge to replace them. Those new hires making more money could not rebuild (or would take a decade or more to rebuild) what was destroyed during the process.

I have seen many people treated this way, and I am still anti-union and argue with some family members regularly on the topic.

[BobL]

“The characterization of older people not being productive, is a flawed premise. SOME are. Others have a long term expertise that is valuable to the business.”

If you weren’t the most politest person I’ve ever come across on this site (seriously, your earlier posts set a standard here), I’d say some off-color things. So I’ll just try to one-up you...

...I believe that I may have mus-intentionally misled a fellow FReeper with an earlier posting. What I had been trying to convey, although not successfully (because of my carelessness, of course), was that there is a subset of older people, some with lots of experience, that are either marginally productive, or not productive at all. I have worked with both. I’ve also worked with a number of very productive older people - and some, definitely are irreplaceable, and I consider myself in that class (although not quite as old as some of them).

The point that I was trying to make was there are often some non-productive people that are very highly paid, due to their past positions. These people, not a lot of people, but some, should be let go, or have their salary reduced to a level commensurate with their present capabilities. It is often very difficult for a company to do without “outside help”.

As far as whether it’s inhumane, that’s a tough call, but I still have to come down on the side that companies must stay lean and competitive. If an older person working for a big company (for a long time) and making big bucks is broke, then that person, almost always, did not plan ahead, but chose to “live for the day”. Those people should not be carried, essentially as welfare cases, by companies trying to compete in a world market. There will be some exceptions, but in the corporate world, they are rare, as most deal with health-related problems, of which coverage almost always exists.

People make choices - they can buy cars and houses on extended credit, to keep up with the Jones’s, or they can choose to live on less than what they make. In some cases, it might mean living in an apartment and driving a (non-union) mid-size, rather than a big house and a Lexus SUV - but it is a choice that they make, and companies should not feel obliged to “help out” people that have made bad choices. I base that on knowledge of a person that I worked with that fit that description and was broke shortly after being laid off. We hired the guy...who was essentially useless, because my boss felt bad for him (and knew him from an earlier day). It was a long time ago, but probably played a small part in my company disappearing.

[JCBreckenridge]

If GM dies, other companies will rise to replace it. I see no reason to reward their decisions with further business, not when there are superior options.

[DoughtyOne]

The characterization of older people not being productive, is a flawed premise. SOME are. Others have a long term expertise that is valuable to the business.

If you weren’t the most politest person I’ve ever come across on this site (seriously, your earlier posts set a standard here), I’d say some off-color things. So I’ll just try to one-up you...

One upping me won't be all that hard.  You've already made some good points.  There are some reasoned points to made, to support your views on this.  I happent to share a number of them.

...I believe that I may have mus-intentionally misled a fellow FReeper with an earlier posting. What I had been trying to convey, although not successfully (because of my carelessness, of course), was that there is a subset of older people, some with lots of experience, that are either marginally productive, or not productive at all. I have worked with both. I’ve also worked with a number of very productive older people - and some, definitely are irreplaceable, and I consider myself in that class (although not quite as old as some of them).

Okay.  That's more or less all that I was trying to say on the topic.  Some of my comments are more or less lamenting what needs to be done.  Other parts of it are intended to get folks to think of related matters that I would like to see aired, even if in the end GM does cease to exist.  I merely think it's important to contemplate what the unintended consequences will be, even if it is decided that it is overall prudent and necessary to end GM.  I will admit to the idea, that ending the production of the Corvette, a car that I have held in high esteme for over fifty-five years, would be a real tragedy IMO.  If ending GM was imminent, I would sure hope that devision could be sold to another manufacturer.

The point that I was trying to make was there are often some non-productive people that are very highly paid, due to their past positions. These people, not a lot of people, but some, should be let go, or have their salary reduced to a level commensurate with their present capabilities. It is often very difficult for a company to do without “outside help”.

I don't disagree with your comments here.  All businesses have an obligation to remain as lean and mean as they can.  That's business.

As far as whether it’s inhumane, that’s a tough call, but I still have to come down on the side that companies must stay lean and competitive.

I agree.  My above comment more or less got here before I read this point, but either way, I agree with it.

If an older person working for a big company (for a long time) and making big bucks is broke, then that person, almost always, did not plan ahead, but chose to “live for the day”.

This is an appropriate comment, but I think it is reasonable to point out that people plan for their careers to end at a certain point in their life.  Knock a decade or more off of that, and it would make a dent in anyone's monetary plan.  You're five years from paying off your home.  All of a sudden, you can't sustain the payments.  You home is gone.  Your hopes and dreams for the future are dashed.  Should your planning prior to this have mitigated the fall, made it less painful?  Yes, I believe it should have.  Is it always going to, even if your game plan was fairly sound?  I don't think so.  I think many of us underestimate the devistation a complete cut-off of our income would cause to us.  And if it took three years to find something paying 25% of what we used to make, we're looking at severe depression and extreme family stresses.

Those people should not be carried, essentially as welfare cases, by companies trying to compete in a world market. There will be some exceptions, but in the corporate world, they are rare, as most deal with health-related problems, of which coverage almost always exists.

I agree with this also.  There's only so much you can do, and in truth I think these 'separations' are not as wonderful to either side as it seems they're going to be up front.

People make choices - they can buy cars and houses on extended credit, to keep up with the Jones’s, or they can choose to live on less than what they make.

I think that's a rather rosy depiction of what folks can do to protect themselves.  To an extet, I am somewhat inclined to buy into it, but what would happen to your family if you lost your job, and within a month or two your wife lost hers too?  If you are situated to ride that out, I'd say you're probably 1:100,000 of people who could.

In some cases, it might mean living in an apartment and driving a (non-union) mid-size, rather than a big house and a Lexus SUV - but it is a choice that they make, and companies should not feel obliged to “help out” people that have made bad choices.

No, the company should not have to play into this scenario.  I wouldn't make that case.  I'm merely pointing out that even if a family only had moderate home, vehicle, and credit card bills to pay, losing one or two jobs could destroy your financial security.  If it didn't, your retirement would be severely deminshed in short order  While I am somewhat sympathetic to the idea that some folks over extend themselves, this scenario is not exclusively dependant on that being the case.

I base that on knowledge of a person that I worked with that fit that description and was broke shortly after being laid off. We hired the guy...who was essentially useless, because my boss felt bad for him (and knew him from an earlier day). It was a long time ago, but probably played a small part in my company disappearing.

I would argue against your boss doing that.  It's simply not supportable.  People do have long standing relationships, and will feel an obligation to help their friend because they would hope someone would help them in the same situation.

I am a firm believer in retraining if it can be done.  I also believe in downsizing positions if things are that serious, and that's your ownly option to keep people working.

The supervisor/owner's only obligation is to the business, and making the decisions whether some employees, or all employees lose their jobs, and whether the value of the company is improved, to a certain degree deminished, or even destroyed.

Thank you for the nice response.