Bye Bye GM & Toyota Pie

Remove this Banner Ad

StrappingTape said:
You'd be cleaner with our current cars then battery powered "green cars". A typical folly of the green movement, a bit like solar panels being 'green'.

Also if the car manufacturing in SA made so much cash, why doesn't the SA gov put the cash in? Nothing is stopping them from investing it.
Click to expand...


If they had income taxing powers they would.
 
Anyway back on to the car industry
Portia said:
Re: investment in Australia, if Rudd had thought it through for more than 5 minutes, his declaration of ending most car fringe benefits completely would've been revised to a Green Car Fringe Benefit structure instead.

Rather than 20% statutory value for company vehicles across the board, revise to something like:

* Australian made green car @ 0%
* Foreign green car @ 20%
* Australian made car @ 30%
* Other cars @ 60%

He definitely could've got Greens support for this one, it would've been a difficult political handball for Abbott to deal with, and voila you're giving institutional support to a domestic market for australian cars & for imported green cars. Throw in subsidies currently directed at the domestic Australian car market, and surely you have something worth looking at?
Click to expand...

Haha that's a great non-tariff barrier protection scheme. The WTO can't kick up a stink about that and I would be very very confident it doesn't breach any Free Trade Agreement.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Portia said:
Australian made cars are no big deal.

Here are some answers to more relevant questions.

* Do I expect to be working in the same job in four years time? No.
* Do I expect to be working for the same company in four years time? No.
* Have I worked in a workplace with redundancies looming? Yes.
* Have I ever had to move to another city for job opportunities? Yes, and at not much above minimum wage.
* Do I accept that my work future will be full of changes that I can't control? Yes.
* Do I think that is normal and acceptable in Australian society? Yes.
Click to expand...

I agree with all that and think the same way and have experienced uncertainty and rapid change. Unfortunately many people don't think that way and I reckon GMH didn't want their employees to think that way as it minimised turnover and people leaving when they wanted and having to retrain workers.

A fair chunk of society works because people have low expectations and want to keep things simple and not subject to change all the time. Its why Johnny Howard got away with his relaxed and comfortable line. In 1996 a lot of people had reform and constant change fatigue.
 
The Tesla worked because Musk marketed to Fortune 500 types who wanted to outdo each other and have 'the next cool status symbol'. I heard that when they initially released it, they gathered all these guys on jets and took them to the testing track, where there was a electronic board that would flash who had just bought one so people would think 'I can't let HIM have one and not me!'. Elon Musk is good at selling dreams and has the right connections. But when you're talking at a consumer level...connections don't get you sales. Performance and reliability do. Not to mention the Tesla was subsidized by the US government something awful with a half a billion dollar loan to start it up. Plus, every one of them is subsidized (to Tesla) by up to $10,000. US tax dollars at work so the bourgeoisie could get something else to thumb their nose at the proletariat.

So here we have a car pushing $100,000 paid for in no small part by you and me, no matter whether Tesla paid back their federal loan or not. The small comfort is that we are off the hook for any default on that loan, but it would be more comfort if we weren’t all compelled—completely against most of our wills—to shell out around somewhere around $10K (depending on state) for every one that goes out the door. The more they sell, the more we pay.
The only way to stop this craziness is for the company to stop making cars. If demand drops much, or California goes into a major fiscal crisis (they’re working on it), oddly enough, Tesla’s bankruptcy will save the rest of us some money.
Click to expand...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrick...ld-stop-selling-cars-wed-all-save-some-money/

What does that tell us? That the electric car horse hasn't bolted. That implies that someone has engineered an electric car that looks good and is cheap enough for the general populace to purchase. Which they haven't. I wouldn't be looking at production at this stage...I'd still be looking at R&D. Make battery life longer, and smaller. Increase efficiency of the motors to increase output and performance. That sort of thing.

The country that can produce a viable, realistic electric car that actually performs (and actively reduces emissions instead of offsetting them to a big, dirty coal power plant) can be the next Germany/Japan in terms of manufacturing. Because that innovation can snowball into other industries.

Then you bring in someone like Musk to sell it to the world.
 
Janus said:
...
What does that tell us? That the electric car horse hasn't bolted. That implies that someone has engineered an electric car that looks good and is cheap enough for the general populace to purchase. Which they haven't. I wouldn't be looking at production at this stage...I'd still be looking at R&D. Make battery life longer, and smaller. Increase efficiency of the motors to increase output and performance. That sort of thing.

The country that can produce a viable, realistic electric car that actually performs (and actively reduces emissions instead of offsetting them to a big, dirty coal power plant) can be the next Germany/Japan in terms of manufacturing. Because that innovation can snowball into other industries.

Then you bring in someone like Musk to sell it to the world.
Click to expand...


Whoever cracks the Closed Loop Fuel Cell equation will have the car market to themselves. Although trying to build 1 billion engines to replace combustion engines suggests a s**t load of licensing will probably occur.

If my technology group ever gets funding from those who have said they can provided it, we will probably throw $100mil R&D at it over a two or three year period.
 
Janus said:
The Tesla worked because Musk marketed to Fortune 500 types who wanted to outdo each other and have 'the next cool status symbol'. I heard that when they initially released it, they gathered all these guys on jets and took them to the testing track, where there was a electronic board that would flash who had just bought one so people would think 'I can't let HIM have one and not me!'. Elon Musk is good at selling dreams and has the right connections. But when you're talking at a consumer level...connections don't get you sales. Performance and reliability do........

What does that tell us? That the electric car horse hasn't bolted. That implies that someone has engineered an electric car that looks good and is cheap enough for the general populace to purchase. Which they haven't. I wouldn't be looking at production at this stage...I'd still be looking at R&D. Make battery life longer, and smaller. Increase efficiency of the motors to increase output and performance. That sort of thing.

The country that can produce a viable, realistic electric car that actually performs (and actively reduces emissions instead of offsetting them to a big, dirty coal power plant) can be the next Germany/Japan in terms of manufacturing. Because that innovation can snowball into other industries.

Then you bring in someone like Musk to sell it to the world.
Click to expand...

Your comments on Musk had me recalling the Charlie Rose show on Bloomberg TV from late 2011 when he had Musk and the quintessential Detroit car guy, GM's Bob Lutz on his show. Lutz admits that it was Musk and his success with the Tesla Roadster that convinced him to push the development of the Chevy Volt and convinced GM to throw money at it to beat Toyota who he was convinced would produce a fully electric car. Said Tesla broke the ice and allowed him to sell the Volt to the GM board. Musk himself says that he wanted to be the catalyst for a transition to the electric car industry.

I don't how big the subsidies really are, but look at the space and defence industries. All those government subsidies in the the 1960's and 1970's where defence and space was combined is an important reason why we have the standard of technology and living we have today. On one level its not much different to what the electric car industry is trying to do and needs a s**t load of money throw at it for R&D and part of R&D is building cars and trying to improve performance of the batteries.

Anyway here is the interview with Musk, Lutz and Charlie Rose. (Musk says back then that the Model S would start at $50,000 base model and top end cost $100,00, looks like its blown out 30-40%).



And here is the full 90 minute doco mention in the interview - the 2011 Revenge of the Electric Car ( as opposed to the 2006 doco Who Killed the Electric Car? which was about the destruction of GM's EV1)




The official trailer is only 2 minutes

 
Portia said:
......
Here are some answers to more relevant questions.

* Do I expect to be working in the same job in four years time? No.
* Do I expect to be working for the same company in four years time? No.
* Have I worked in a workplace with redundancies looming? Yes.
* Have I ever had to move to another city for job opportunities? Yes, and at not much above minimum wage.
* Do I accept that my work future will be full of changes that I can't control? Yes.
* Do I think that is normal and acceptable in Australian society? Yes.
Click to expand...
I can also answer yes to all of the above but does that mean the loss of thousands of jobs is a good thing for the South Australian economy?

So you have never been made redundant then.
 
FishingRick04 said:
Sa Government committed the 500 mil to A.O plus other projects I'm sure they are tapped out :)
Click to expand...
Many posters on BigFooty have whinged that the government did not spend enough on AO.

So it is OK for the government to pay off SACA's debt and build a new football stadium but putting money into saving jobs is just not acceptable. :rolleyes:
 
wharfie_1870 said:
Many posters on BigFooty have whinged that the government did not spend enough on AO.

So it is OK for the government to pay off SACA's debt and build a new football stadium but putting money into saving jobs is just not acceptable. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yes.

One is sustainable, one is not.

Putting more money into Holden is delaying, not preventing.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

wharfie_1870 said:
Many posters on BigFooty have whinged that the government did not spend enough on AO.

So it is OK for the government to pay off SACA's debt and build a new football stadium but putting money into saving jobs is just not acceptable. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Nothing stopping the Labor gov loaning Holden money, wonder they wont? Could it be that Holden themselves are saying they are leaving no matter what
 
Ok let's change the slant of the topic a bit.

What do people believe we as a state can offer to replace the lost jobs.

Do we look at solar panels, get the new mine operating, not sure if that helps the locals area, try and become a green car specialist?

It'ss a massive plant, I'm not sure what Aust business would be interested.
 
Unemployment is a federal issue, not a state issue.
 
FishingRick04 said:
Ok let's change the slant of the topic a bit.

What do people believe we as a state can offer to replace the lost jobs.

Do we look at solar panels, get the new mine operating, not sure if that helps the locals area, try and become a green car specialist?
Click to expand...

Legalise weed.
 
Doctor Feel said:
Yes.

One is sustainable, one is not.

Putting more money into Holden is delaying, not preventing.
Click to expand...
I agree that putting more money into Holden is delaying not preventing.

With the SA economy already down the toilet is it better for the government to prop up the economy a little while longer in the hope that some alternative sources of employment may develop or instead spend the money on luxuries like new football stadiums, footbridges and paying off SACA's debt? Sure the first two provide a short term boost for the construction industry but are the longer term effects comparable?

Time will tell.
 
Portia said:
Unemployment is a federal issue, not a state issue.
Click to expand...


No its not. Unemployment in SA is just as much about piss weak state governments over the last 40 years stopping things happening because some whinger jumps up and down and the government can't handle it, as much as any federal issue. So its also about local government as well because they love stop stuff which leds to employment.
 
The govt should provide incentives for new industries which can export to the world. Brazil did it with now the 3rd largest aircraft factory in the world.
 
wharfie_1870 said:
I agree that putting more money into Holden is delaying not preventing.

With the SA economy already down the toilet is it better for the government to prop up the economy a little while longer in the hope that some alternative sources of employment may develop
Click to expand...

Its not like theyve closed the doors today. There is 3-4 years for their employees to find alternative employment or develop a new skill that will see them employed.

And I doubt there is a single person in the state (that doesnt work for SACA) whos happy that SACAs debt got paid by the government.
 
Macca19 said:
Its not like theyve closed the doors today. There is 3-4 years for their employees to find alternative employment or develop a new skill that will see them employed.

And I doubt there is a single person in the state (that doesnt work for SACA) whos happy that SACAs debt got paid by the government.
Click to expand...

I would wager there is a fair percentage who will retire from the workforce all together, and especially after the gradual lay-offs over the past few years, it should wind down in a steady taper. Or so we hope.

They will pull out well before the 2017 date though.
 
Macca19 said:
Its not like theyve closed the doors today. There is 3-4 years for their employees to find alternative employment or develop a new skill that will see them employed.

And I doubt there is a single person in the state (that doesnt work for SACA) whos happy that SACAs debt got paid by the government.
Click to expand...


I reckon there might be a few Port (current and ex) employees and board members who are happy enough otherwise there would be redeveloped AO
 
The mentality in any workforce of only leaving a job with a payout other than normal entitlements kills me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top