Jammer -
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jammer
Good point(s): From my perspective, I was a young kid when Saturn was started and my father along with many other UAW workers were asked to come on down south to work. But most of the workers quickly figured out they had a much better deal staying right where they were. I think part of the problem was they should of got a better deal with the union that might would allowed fresh workers from the street to of been hired in- because the way they did it they tried building a revolutionary plant but they staffed it with the same UAW workers they had back in Michigan... I suspect this might of stiffed some of their creativity in building a newly designed car. It was supposed to of been a car built like the plants in Japan built cars, but I sense it never really fully achieved it's goals.
|
There are a lot of articles on why Saturn failed :
SaturnFans.com | The Saturn Authority for Saturn Enthusiasts.
My opinion is that the initial product "succeeded" because it sold cars to the demographic that GM was losing (people like me that previously owned a CRX), but the retirement of GM CEO Roger Smith (
I know, I know, that Roger Smith) meant that Saturn lost it's "patron" within GM and henceforth withered on the vine. The only "real" Saturn was the original S-Series. That design was given two plastic facelifts, incremental drivetrain improvements, and ended up lasting 12 years. A single platform lasting 12 years is a long time in the car industry. I would buy an S-Series tomorrow if they were still building them. All other Saturn models were increasing compromises with GM, and Saturn ceased to exist as an independent entity in the early 2000's, which means that it had already died a "quiet" death behind closed doors, unlike Oldsmobile.
Regarding the other stuff you have posted, I'm in agreement with a lot of what you say. I think that puts us in the minority. It's not just the universal health care issue that's in the news right now, it's the free trade mantra. Most of the other "competing" countries are either protectionist or can undercut our wages to the point where it doesn't matter how many hours we work. Japan and China *protect* and nourish their industries.
We live in an era where the next generation of Americans will have it (a whole lot?) worse than the previous generation. The problem is, we as Americans inherited a world view that requires resources to be cheap and abundant. That POV is not sustainable. This is what I meant in another thread when I said a "false reality". You can see cheap gas at the station now, but it's a chimera if we are being insulated from the real cost of that gas.
I actually wouldn't mind living in a 2nd world country (if that definition means anything anymore). I don't want to live in the 3rd world, but I feel like we are watching it happen right here right now. In time I see the USA stratifying into what Latin America looks like, 5% super rich, 15% technocrats to assist the super rich, and 80% dirt poor. At that point we'll have the dirt cheap labor to compete with China. Our lives won't get better, but Wall Street will be happy, and isn't that the only thing that matters anyway,
?
CarloSW2