And probably pricey. Certainly more pricey than say Wal-Mart. Its like that with chains here in California, the only unionized grocery stores that can stay afloat are the ones that tend to stay out of the ghetto. Its the Wal-Marts and such that are dominant in the ghetto AND hire (significantly) more minorities (which is why rich white liberals hate Wal-Mart so much, its an abstraction to them … but I digress).

I’m curious, why do you think Corolla sells more than say its GM competitor? I’d say its because of the quality/price ratio…not the looks or the gas mileage, after all GM’s autos can get the same mileage.

And as this article shows, that ratio is directly related to labor costs…which unions have artificially raised. In other words, its the unions.

I can’t really comment on the other industries… except perhaps for the grocery industry. Local coops are big here in Seattle and I have seen mine grow substantially over the years. Coops, at least here, are heavily unionized but amazing quality.

I was referring more to the large, powerful truck area. Hummers, Ford F150’s F350’s, and such. By far its the American car manufacturers that dominate that area and … up until recently, that has been their main source of revenue.

Regarding your general point: sure, neither of us are experts, but that doesn’t mean we can’t speculate. Also, consider this…

1. All experts on this issue agree that the unions are a significant reason for GM’s and Ford’s problems. Some put higher blame than others but there is a general agreement that its significant.

(again, given the fact that it was barely 50 years ago that GM was so big, so vital to the American economy that some said, “What is good for GM, is good for America”…now, a mere 50 years later, it is on the brink of bankruptcy, I give it a higher significance).

2. What is occurring in the automotive sector with unions is not unique. It is something that is common to all, or atleast most, of the highly unionized sectors. Whether we are talking about automotive, public schools, airline, or grocery chains…the sectors with high unionization bring you low quality, high prices or are on the brink of bankruptcy. It’s a trend.

In short, speculation yes, but educated speculation that is based on solid data. Which is more than I could say of the defenders of unions.

Here is a bit of inside information on why GM abandoned the electric car:

General Motors lost two billion dollars on the project, and lost money on every single EV1 produced. The leases didn’t even cover the costs of servicing them.

The range of 130 miles is bogus. None of them ever achieved that under normal driving conditions. Running the air conditioning or heater could halve that range. Even running the headlights reduced it by 10%.

Minimum recharge time was two hours using special charging stations that except for fleet use didn’t exist. The effective recharge time, using the equipment that could be installed in a lessee’s garage, was eight hours. …

NiMH batteries that had lasted up to three years in testing were failing after six months in service. There was no way to keep them from overheating without doubling the size of the battery pack. Lead-acid batteries were superior to NiMH in actual daily use.

It’s important to remember that even today, where electric technology is far more advanced, cheaper to produce and gas is near $5/gallon, electric cars are barely taking off and not the money makers people assume.

On second thought, what I bet GM is kicking itself for, is letting their workforce unionize. From the looks of it, it will eventually bankrupt them.

Besides ultra-luxurious sedans and high-end sports cars, where does GM not compete against other car companies?

A quick glance at their website reveals that they currently make 91 vehicles ranging from the sub-compact Aveo to commercial vans, military Hummers, Corvettes, Caddys, etc. Honda and Toyota actually do very well in the truck and SUV market… Honda CRV, Ridgeline, Pilot, Element; Acura MDX, RDX; Lexus LX, RX, GX; Toyota FJ Cruiser, Land Crusier, 4Runner, Sequioa, RAV4, Highlander, Tundra, Tacoma…

Between these two brands (based on what I can name off the top of my head) that is 15 models… hardly an “untouched” market.

The point is, neither of us are experts on the car industry. The reasons why any business fails rarely is just a single element. Even less when neither of us work in the industry on a level where we understand these things. I could probably speak a bit about the online industry but even after working in it for a decade I couldn’t speak on the level of a professional industry analyst.

You write, When was the last time GM made a car that people were actually crazy about and people actually bought?

Did you read the quote above or the comment I posted to LaurenceB? This is precisely what we were addressing, and yes, this too can be mostly blamed on the unions.

To recap, I will cut and paste the important points above in case you missed them:

GM’s historical pension and healthcare obligations, and the vast difficulties they have in permanently laying off workers, mean that the company had to maximize cash flow as best they could. …The industries in America where labor has the most power are the ones that have the hardest time making strategic choices to lower profits now in order to raise them in the future.

I also wrote,

If you are squeezed by unions, you don’t try to compete in areas that are highly competitive - you will lose. GM and Ford likely knew that the only area of the market that had little competition was the large trucks and SUV market. Toyota, Honda, and other powerful, well run, companies have not much touched that market. So GM and Ford chose to invest there.

In other words, it was because of union pressure and unions tying their hands that they were, in alot of ways, forced to enter corner markets and avoid the center.

This is just the icing on the cake…I’d be interested in your thoughts on this paper, detailing the many things GM and Ford could have done had there been no unions.

So again I ask, at what point do you concede that unions are in fact destructive?

Why worry about GM anyway? Wouldn’t a true capitalist just let the market decide its fate? If it isn’t competitive anymore then let it fail. Other companies will take its place.

Just think of the magnitude of what unions have done. It was barely 50 years ago that GM was so big, so vital to the American economy that some said, “What is good for GM, is good for America”…now, a mere 50 years later, unions have brought it on its knees.

At what point do you say unions are, in fact, destructive?

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=3580676&page=1