7th Nov 2009, 17:39
Desperate people likely will take low pay and no benefits, not getting fairly paid. I paid my home off and used cordless phone at home and even pay phones on the road. I am glad I was able to even buy and own a home vs a low paid autoworker without benefits. I could rent if I worked lots of overtime with low import wages I have heard about. No thanks.
8th Nov 2009, 19:39
I wasn't arguing about how capable of a truck it is... I just stated it was a truck plain and simple. I know the rest of the story on it.
8th Nov 2009, 19:44
"People who feel that Japanese auto makers have done ANYTHING to help the U.S. are greatly misled."
Yes because we all know how much the American car companies have helped the U.S. economy by taking billions of tax payer dollars due to their incompetence and inabilities to run an efficient business. Sorry, I almost forgot how good they have been to this country. I should be so misled not to see this!
9th Nov 2009, 04:03
It's incredible that a company like GM lose money like that. But they are incredible mismanaged in my opinion. The car industry is economy of scale business where it should be easy for the biggest ones to make money. The reason is that there are many fixed costs in this industry, and the more cars you produce, the more units you have to spread the fixed costs. It should be possible for GM to make $1000 more per car than, let's say Nissan, just because of GM's high output. The reason GM loses money like this is that they are mismanaged and inefficient, and has been over 50 years. All this talking about US auto makers employs so many people, this is probably true. I worked for consultancy company having GM a client. And it was like working for the government. Bureaucratic, tons of people running around, no one had any responsibility and it's impossible to get any real answers fast. UAW and the pension fund is just one of GM's problems but I've heard this adds a $1000 or so on each car. If this is a good argument for buying cars from them, go ahead! If you want to subsidize an old inefficient company, go ahead.
9th Nov 2009, 09:43
You are right in the sense that the UAW was overpaid to an unsustainable rate. What choice did the auto manufacturers have but to agree to their demands? Especially when Honda and Toyota undercut them by paying no benefits and half the wages to people desperate for work?
However, the UAW also was the guide that said blue collar work was as important as white collar work, and that manual labor deserved a good, middle class standard of living. Apparently you, as well as Honda and Toyota, do not agree.
You see, it's not just auto workers and manual labor. It is also graphic designers, and other tech or white collar jobs. Why not have us return to 1932, when paying what the job was worth meant that a railcar of coal could be unloaded by a man in return for a handful of corn meal? That's your vision, is it? The New Deal emplaced wage price supports so that the population would not have to be starving to death for sub-subsistence wages. Conservatives and business owners then, as you do now, railed against that. "Let the market forces work!" they cried. But what you mean is that everyone will work for bare subsistence except a handful of the super wealthy who collude to keep wages low. The market forces do not work because they are subverted. Yes, your relatives who are doctors and lawyers, too, because those jobs can just as easily be outsourced to India.
9th Nov 2009, 11:53
"All this talking about US auto makers employs so many people, this is probably true."
Yes, it IS true, and your solution is putting all these people out of work, letting the government spend billions to support them and all the retailers and manufactures that are put out of work because the unemployed auto workers can't buy anything? Gee. It just makes me want to run out and buy a Toyota right now.
9th Nov 2009, 15:46
Even so, to most Americans (myself not included), if it can't tow more than 10,000 pounds, and it gets more than 12 MPG, it isn't a truck. Truth is, for most of them, the Ridgeline would be MORE than enough truck for what they really need.
9th Nov 2009, 16:46
Hmmmmmm, so by your definition, a Chevy El Camino or Ford Ranchero is a truck. Okay, fine.
10th Nov 2009, 12:26
"Hmmmmmm, so by your definition, a Chevy El Camino or Ford Ranchero is a truck. Okay, fine."
Hmmmmm, the Ridgeline isn't based on an Accord the way the El Camino and Ranchero were based on the Chevelle and Torino respectively. You are comparing apples to oranges here. The Ridgeline is much more rugged than a car, sits higher up and has 4WD as an option. Find me a stock El Camino or Ranchero that has any of these things.
Why are we even arguing this point?
10th Nov 2009, 16:19
How could a doctor or a lawyer be outsourced? A doctor especially. So if the doctor gets outsourced, we're all going to have to go to India for a check-up? I don't think so. I know that this has nothing to do with cars, but I couldn't NOT address this comment.
10th Nov 2009, 22:07
The Ridgeline hardly has a "LARGE" bed. It is tiny and has VERY high sides that make loading and unloading it much more difficult. It is a unibody vehicle with front drive and very low ground clearance. It can't pull ANYTHING bigger than a motorcycle trailer (no FRONT-DRIVE vehicle can). It is basically a hoked-up Pilot SUV with an open area in the back big enough for two or three bags of groceries. It can hardly be called a "TRUCK" by even the wildest stretch of the imagination. The Chevy El Camino and Ford Ranchero were far more "real trucks". At least they were rear wheel drive and had a frame. Their transmissions also usually lasted longer than 30,000 miles.
11th Nov 2009, 05:59
They are cars also, although I did like driving the El Camino 396 SS. I had to add ladder bars for traction with such a light rear. I bought a new Silverado Truck, Car frames are car frames, not truck frames.
11th Nov 2009, 13:30
I cannot see paying to insure a car frame with a bed when I can simply buy a hatchback car and tie the lid down. Couple bags of mulch or a bouse plant will fit either way. I could never pull my 20 foot family boat up the ramp. I have a truck, and if there's insurance costs to consider, then I would have a hatchback car or a truck.
11th Nov 2009, 22:45
Have you even looked at a pick-up lately? I am 6'3" and the last Dodge Ram I looked at had a bed on it that was up to mid chest on me. Talk about impossible to load! You can also get 4WD on the Ridgeline and more often than not you'll see them equipped that way. They pull 5,000 lbs. which is enough for up to a 20 foot boat. Yeah, motor cycle trailer...okay then. Plus who needs ground clearance?? Most people don't take trucks off-roading these days so it is hardly an issue.
You don't have to get 8 mpg to pull your boat to the ramp...really. I have been pulling mine around for years with V-6's and they do just fine. Most people with big pick-ups are just going the whole overkill route and they probably don't need anything nearly as big as that. They are useful for work, but not much else.