|
keepsitreal
|
these long posts are boring keep it short and to the point
|
|
Spector
|
Dave wrote: <quoted text>
Spector - Thank you for assuming the worst about me simply because I sold cars.
First, I worked for a one-price dealership where there was no haggling over the price of the car.
Second, I was paid a flat-rate commission. In language you might understand, that means I got paid the same whether they bought a 35 mpg Corolla or a 13 mpg Suburban. I had no incentive to upsell to a more expensive car.
Third, I'm honest, as are many people in the sales industry. I know, the image of the sleazy car salesman is too hard to give up, but some people are actually proud of their jobs. I never, and I mean NEVER tried to convince someone to buy something they could not afford. Just so you understand - I STOOD TO GAIN NOTHING IF I SOLD THEM A MORE EXPENSIVE CAR.
Fourth, why is it always the fault of the seller? Did I drag someone into the dealership and hold a gun to their head to buy a car? No!!! It was not my responsibility to counsel someone and make sure they made the right choice when they bought a car. If they had the money to buy a Corvette when a minivan made more sense, it was not my job (nor anyone else's for that matter) to tell them they were making a mistake. My job was SALESPERSON not GUIDANCE COUNSELOR.
Fifth - Customers can be sleazy, too. I bet there are 10,000 car salespeople who would agree with me that there are plenty of customers who play games, such as lying about their trade-in price at another dealership, making an appointment on your day off only to never show and buying the car somewhere else, lying about their credit, driving like a drunk a** h*** during a test drive, or worse, test driving every car on the lot and then walking away because they don't want to pay the $40 doc fee for the paperwork.
So please do us all a favor and drive your Prius into the lake, you smarmy know-it-all prick. OK. A.) I don't own a Prius, although I wish I did. I have a 4cyl car that barely gets over 30 if I'm lucky. So even I'm questioning what would be a better car to now buy. I appreciate your honesty and explanation about your situation in that dealership. I only know of a places like Saturn or used car Carmax that have one price deals. So I assume Carmax because you talked about Corvettes. But would agree that there are other dealers where salesmen and their dealerships get commission or bonuses that varies based on manufacturer incentives and the sold vehicles' prices? And finally, "It was not my responsibility to counsel someone and make sure they made the right choice when they bought a car." Then what were you doing there? One would hope that a car salesman would have actually had the intelligence and ethics to have acted in the best interests of their customers, giving advice as appropriate. Otherwise what's the point of even having you around? A machine could have done the same thing, after all. I'm sure you're much better off not having to work there anymore. As may be the customers.
|
|
erg
|
keepsitreal wrote: these long posts are boring keep it short and to the point Reality doesn't operate within soundbite parameters.
|
|
erg
|
The Truth wrote: IMHO, the US government helped ruin the US auto industry with excessive regulations. Such as what for example?
|
|
Oshawa_Guy
|
As a salary employee, I agree there are too many salary employees still at GM.
Just look through the corporate head office org charts to see the "old boys" club where people have titles that don't make sense, but clearly indicate they get a huge salary. Unfortunately all the "old boys" making 6 digit salaries will be staying and the 5 digit salary people that help make the plants tick will take the fall.
|
|
Colin
|
John wrote: Now that GM knows they need models of this type, how hard would it be to crank these out again? Better mileage than anything they are selling now.Not knowing all the technical issues, can they just start up a few of these older models? Are the engines still available? Having long since been priced out of the new car market, I haven't kept up. The only complaint I ever heard about the Metro was that it was uncomfortable if you were taller than 6 ft. That would seem to be a small redesign of the driver area. People are looking for functional, not stylish. Problem is they wouldn't pass a single emissions or crash saftey standard these days
|
|
Cam
|
The Boss wrote: Now Main Street's white washed windows
and vacant stores
seems like there ain't nobody
wants to buy SUV's no more
They're closing down the auto plant across the railroad tracks
Foreman says these jobs are going boys and they ain't coming back
to your hometown I love this song! The Boss rocks
|
|
Wenalway
|
The Truth wrote: IMHO, the US government helped ruin the US auto industry with excessive regulations. I'm sure you meant to say this: IMHO, the UAW helped ruin the US auto industry with excessive demands.
|
|
|
|
Splicer is Drunk
AOL
|
Wenalway wrote: <quoted text>
I'm sure you meant to say this:
IMHO, the UAW helped ruin the US auto industry with excessive demands. AMEN
|
|
Barney Rubble
|
Hey pollsters, GM was around in the stone age,aka Flintmobile. Gas mileage was unlimited hee hee hee, but boy my feet certainly did hurt, right Fred. Anyways little has changed in Upper Management, they make their millions, and spent billions relocating American Factories around the world for cheap labor. These people cannot bye a 20 yr old vehicle let alone a 2 bedroom shack. GM has spent their future looking good to their shareholders and still paid them..... tbc
|
|
Barney Rubble
|
and so on.... they paid their shareholders money while they cooked the books. Now they have no more cold cash, so they cut the dividend. I wonder where they are looking to build their next factory.These factories still cost millions to produce, that is why prices of cars is so high not UAW wages. Ok vicious no nothings critique me again.
|
|
Wenalway
|
We could both be right.
And when I think of Flint, I think of people skinning rabbits and cooking them.
|
|
Eric Theodore Cartman
|
Julie wrote: Watch "Who Killed the Electric Car" a documentary made in 2006. It profiles the way GM, the federal gov't and the oil companies trashed the very popular electric car and instead decided to produce Hummers. I have NO pity for them. Greedy sons-of guns. Julie Julie Julie.... methinks you need to look up the term "propaganda". Time and space doesn't allow me to cite all the possible replies to you but if I could build and sell a car that would have buyers lined up at the door, don't you think I would? In addition, regarding the EV1, let's say those who leased the car sign waivers absolving GM of any future liability if they can keep the car. Now then, let's further assume the brakes fail and it plows into a crowd of people. Some are hurt and some die. Do you not think the lawyers of those individuals will have a field day suing GM? After all, THEIR clients signed no such agreement. And so on and so on.....
|
|
Eric Theodore Cartman
|
God how I long for the good old days when we stood outside and pointed loaded shotguns at peoples heads and forced them to stand in line for Tahoe's, Suburban's, Expedition's, LX470's, X5 4.4's and so on. It was soooo much fun. What? We didn't? Oh that's right.... people actually WANTED those vehicles. Hmmmmmm
And keep buying Jananese and German and Korean folks. Our economy thanks you.
|
|
John
|
I would never say stop selling SUVs or trucks. With gasoline prices what they are, it's just time to offer alternatives without us having to go foreign.
We do have to reduce our oil dependency, so we can tell the foreign oil producing countries we can do without them.
Think of how little power these countries would have if the world no longer needed their oil. They would go back to being non-factors in world politics.
Technologically, there is no reason that an American car company can't build a competitive high mileage vehicle for a reasonable price. We had 30 mpg cars 20 years ago, it doesn't make sense we have gone backwards. Cars should be minimum 45 to 50 mpg now.
On a personal note though, I don't understand the desire to sit in something the size of a small tank in my daily commute. It's just me. But, I will not take away your right to drive one. I just ask people to consider alternatives.
|
|
Wenalway
|
Eric Theodore Cartman wrote: God how I long for the good old days when we stood outside and pointed loaded shotguns at peoples heads and forced them to stand in line for Tahoe's, Suburban's, Expedition's, LX470's, X5 4.4's and so on. It was soooo much fun. What? We didn't? Oh that's right.... people actually WANTED those vehicles. Yeah, they were willingly stupid. That excuses everything.
|
|
DaveB
|
Wenalway wrote: <quoted text>
Yeah, they were willingly stupid. That excuses everything. No, they made economic decisions based upon the realities of the time. They bought Tahoes, Expeditions, and Rams because they could afford to fill the gas tank, they needed the capacity for their families or to haul a trailer (yes, they may have also used it for commuting in solitary spendor, but the capacity was there if they needed it) or they wanted the safety of a larger vehicle. GM, Ford, and Chrysler built those vehicles because that was what people would buy. Yes, there were vehicles that would get 30 MPG or better 20 years ago, but they were smaller, less flexible, and we didn't buy those if we could afford something better. If a US company had focused on building those vehicles 20 years ago, we wouldn't be talking about it going out of business today, because it would be gone already. Even the vaunted Japanese, who had such foresight according to the conventional wisdom, have turned to the larger end of the market: the Toyota Land Crusher, the Toyota Sequoia (named after a large tree), the Nissan Armada (appropriately named after a large fleet), the Nissan Titan, and on and on. Now, the realities have changed, and people's decisions will change with them. If the price of gas keeps going up, our car fleet will look more and more like Europe's; no pickups at all, some SUV's, but mostly small sedans. Again, people will make economic decisions based upon the realities of the time.
|
|
Wenalway
|
DaveB wrote: <quoted text>
No, they made economic decisions based upon the realities of the time.
They bought Tahoes, Expeditions, and Rams because they could afford to fill the gas tank, they needed the capacity for their families or to haul a trailer (yes, they may have also used it for commuting in solitary spendor, but the capacity was there if they needed it) or they wanted the safety of a larger vehicle.
GM, Ford, and Chrysler built those vehicles because that was what people would buy. Yes, there were vehicles that would get 30 MPG or better 20 years ago, but they were smaller, less flexible, and we didn't buy those if we could afford something better. If a US company had focused on building those vehicles 20 years ago, we wouldn't be talking about it going out of business today, because it would be gone already. Even the vaunted Japanese, who had such foresight according to the conventional wisdom, have turned to the larger end of the market: the Toyota Land Crusher, the Toyota Sequoia (named after a large tree), the Nissan Armada (appropriately named after a large fleet), the Nissan Titan, and on and on.
Now, the realities have changed, and people's decisions will change with them. If the price of gas keeps going up, our car fleet will look more and more like Europe's; no pickups at all, some SUV's, but mostly small sedans. Again, people will make economic decisions based upon the realities of the time. Like I said, willingly stupid.
|
Judge it!
Pisces
Most Popular