Letters to the Editor
-
This is a difficult issue for the "Big Thinkers"
I can make a case that sales of new SUVs (and other fuel-inefficient vehicles) should be slapped with a prohibitive excise tax to discourage their sale. These same vehicles should be subject to very high annual registration penalty charges. At the same time, it would be fair to announce that the federal tax on gasoline will increase $0.25/yr. for the next 10 years.
These two steps would help wean us off dependence on oil (especially imports from unstable/unfriendly regimes) and would help reduce the emission of greenhouse gasses. Unfortunately, they would also be untenable.
There are a lot of people who can't even afford a full tank of gas at current prices. And a lot of other people who have jobs building cars that some consider to be unsound transportation choices. These people will not accept easily the idea that energy must become more expensive and that we will be travelling in smaller cars.
At some point, the democrats/progressives need to work more closely with the "hard working white voters" to educate them on how the current approach to doing things is hurting them and their children. One approach to winning the "dumb hillbilly" vote is pander and offer a gas tax holiday. Another approach is to say that we have to win without these "low-information" voters.
How about education. Workshops and teach-ins where it can be shown how this helps them. Ultimately, the UAW and other unions have to start pressuring their employers to build cars that make sense and that people will want to buy. It's a matter of their own job security.
-
Not the First Time a Union Has Been Shortsighted
As a longtime union member (AFSCME), I've become pretty sanguine about poor endorsement and unrealistic policies on the part of unions, but this complaint takes the cake. So any effort to prevent the oceans from rising up and swallowing my state are bad for SUV manufacturers? It makes me pine for the days when the mob controlled the UAW...at least they had brains. I hope the locals speak out to save the American auto industry, because obviously their leadership is too shortsighted.
-
The sad thing is ...
... that our present predicament might not have been so bad if we'd discouraged the gas guzzlers a little sooner. Auto makers might have made less money, but they wouldn't be stuck with large inventories of vehicles that aren't wanted anymore and a shortage of vehicles they can sell.
We let the free market solve the problem, and this is what we got. The free-market enthusiasts usually don't tell you that the market's "solutions" to problems can be pretty painful.
-
Honestly...
I think ship sailed on TPTB that these folks work for. Departure time was probably in the late 90s when some big three exec looked at an early hybrids, emitted a condescending "cute", and pointed folks to their newest luxobarge.
I'm certainly sorry for the folks hurt by this, which definitely aren't TPTB in their respective companies. However, at this point I wonder how long it will be before "Big" no longer prefixes "Three". Probably much longer than anyone considers, barring intervention, but the mistakes made are at least a decade past and likely longer than that to fix.
-
Incomprehensible
Wouldn't higher-tech automobile construction require more advanced skills and a better-trained (ie higher-paid, harder to outsource) workforce? You'd think the UAW would be into that.
And of course as Andrew Leonard points out the US automobile export industry suffers hugely because of poor domestic emissions standards. That can't help.
In fact, it's sort of hard to see how the UAW rank and file benefit at all from keeping the US auto economy lagging behind the rest of the world. The union's website doesn't seem to mention the recent complaint, or if it does it's buried somewhere.
So could this be another one of the buyoffs of union leadership by industry that's plagued the US labor movement over the past generation or so?
Maybe the SEIU and the AFSCME had the right idea after all. Forget these guys.
-
Joel29028 on education and new ideas
Education and engagement — can't go wrong there. But...
These people will not accept easily the idea that energy must become more expensive and that we will be travelling in smaller cars.
Why must it, necessarily? Obviously a big, heavy SUV is never going to get as good mileage as a lightweight smartcar, whether it's gas mileage or electric mileage or whatever else.
But the problem we're facing is not that energy in general is expensive. The issue is that petroleum is expensive, and we're not as good as we should be at getting energy other ways.
The all-electric 4x4 experience would be a little different from the gasoline equivalent. You couldn't jump into your truck with the needle on E and figure on a quick 5 minute stop to fuel up on your way to work — until the advent of high-power recharging stations, anyway. And you'd (still) be less efficient than the little 1-seater.
But you'd probably have a big, macho battery rack that could still take you a long way on a single charge. And you'd get more power in low gears than you would with gas (which you'd think would make the concept more of a selling point right there, but that's another issue).
Sounds like a fairly painless tradeoff, if not a downright improvement on the experience (such as it is). I would fully expect to see zero-emissions SUVs (and other signs of conspicuous consumption) as part of any migration to sustainable energy, and I see no reason why they shouldn't be part of the sell if that makes it happen sooner.
-
Short Sighted is Exactly Right
The problem with the UAW is the problem that plagues America. Short sightedness. Too often the rational short term decision is exactly the wrong long term decision. This is not only true of unions who are protecting their current self interest, but true of the nation as a whole. Just look at the rancor over summer gas vacation. Until we have leaders who can actually lead, we are all doomed.
-
Union Myopia
The cart has already left the barn, but where were the unions 4 or 8 years ago when the future was clear, and they negotiated contracts with no demands on future product development directions for thier companies?
Can you imagine if, instead of focusing so much on benefits, that had demanded a business strategy that kept the big three in business? Like cars with modern technology; premium small cars, and cars that got high mileage? Where were the unions as the management teams at their employess were auguring these companies into the ground? Worrying about $5 on prescription copays? I believe so. Did they think thier jobs would exist if the companies were not successful in the market?
Now, unions, if your contracts are coming up for renewal, be sure to fight for a say in company strategy, instead of more leftovers as your employers disappear. You would be helping out America, too.
Having just read a Business Week article on GM running after high mileage years after it was clear the market was heading this way, they imagine they can some how make up a $10,000 cost adder per car for hybrid technology, vs. $4000 per car for Toyota, which will be in its third generation by the time GM has its first on the market. What can the unions do to ensure GM survives with a $6000 cost penalty, if they can't seem to stem the tide of defections with a relatively puny $1000 health care penalty?
The best thing that could happen to Detroit is for those companies to leave Detroit and relocate to more forward thinking locales.