Hmmm....
Toyota expands lineup in push for No. 1
Shooting for top: GM has been the global leader for 73 years, but the Japanese automaker has big plans
The Wall Street Journal
Toyota Motor Corp. is making a big bet that it can ride a host of new models past struggling General Motors Corp. next year to become the world's biggest maker of cars.
Late next month, when the Japanese automaker unveils its 2006 targets, it could set the ambitious goal of producing as many as 9.2 million cars, say people familiar with the plan. That would be an 11 percent leap from the 8.28 million cars Toyota expects to make in its current fiscal year, which ends in March.
GM - which has been the world's No. 1 automaker for more than 70 years - has not outlined its production plans for 2006 and on Monday announced a major restructuring that will involve plant closings as it moves to produce fewer automobiles. It has projected it will build 9.1 million cars this year. GM sold 8.99 million vehicles in 2004, a 14 percent share of the world-wide auto market. Ford Motor Co., the world's No. 3 automaker, sold 6.98 million vehicles world-wide.
With the final release date for their forecast still a month away, Toyota officials warn the company has yet to decide on a final production target. Its plans include a redesigned version of the Camry, America's best-selling car; a spruced-up version of its RAV4 SUV; a new mid-size sport utility vehicle called the FJ Cruiser; and a small car, the Yaris, aimed at energy-conscious drivers. Toyota also will launch more models under its Lexus premium nameplate.
Still, the prospect of a photo finish in the race for No. 1 automaker underscores the profound shift of power occurring in a business increasingly marked by global competition. With the Big Three U.S. automakers struggling under the burden of heavy labor and health-care costs, the industry is migrating away from the unionized U.S. operations that served as a model for decades and toward lower-cost, mostly nonunion factories - many in North America - run by Asian and European manufacturers.
Last week, Ford's new head of North America, Mark Fields, warned staffers that the company plans to cut 4,000 salaried jobs in North America next year, or 10 percent of the total.
GM has long made being No. 1 central to its culture and its business strategy, counting on its massive size to help it recoup the billions spent on development and to help it open new markets. In January, GM Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Rick Wagoner dismissed speculation that GM could fall behind Toyota, saying, ''We've been ahead 73 years in a row, and I think the betting odds are we'll be ahead for the next 73 years.''
But since then, his plans for GM have been derailed by falling sales of high-profit SUVs in the U.S. market and rising costs for U.S. health care. While GM is growing in some markets, notably China and Latin America, and has stabilized its European sales, its gains have been more than offset this year by declines in North America.
And this was pretty interesting too.
GENERAL MOTORS: Modern manufacturing must shed staggering costs
Building our base
What's good for General Motors, they used to say, is good for the country.
Somehow, though, the closure of nine GM production plants and the elimination of 30,000 high-paying jobs would hardly be on anyone's Christmas list for the U.S. economy.
There are some things that would be good for the country that would be good for GM or, if it's already too late, for the next generation of American manufacturing.
They would be improvements in intellectual infrastructure and social safety nets that would help American individuals and corporations innovate, invest and build without being weighed down by the kind of health care, pension and training costs that don't bother the Toyotas and BMWs of the world.
A pure law-of-the-jungle approach would hold that, if GM can't make cars that enough people want to buy, at production costs it can afford to pay, then it ought to be allowed to go the way of companies that made buggy whips and whalebone corsets.
And we'd agree, if it weren't for the number of employees, suppliers, pension investments and whole communities that would be sucked down with it. Such downward pressure on wages and benefits can only reverberate throughout the economy, lowering the standard of living across the board.
Part of the reason our standard of living has been so high, of course, is that big American corporations have paid the freight, not just for their current workers but for legions of aging retirees. Such costs add $1,500 or more to the cost of a GM car, compared to $300 on a Toyota sticker.
The growing realization that that cannot go on has led, for example, to corporate support for such things as prescription drug benefits for Medicare recipients, a shift in responsibility that will save GM millions.
The Japanese government didn't invent the hybrid technology that powers the hugely popular Toyota Prius. The German government didn't craft the lines of the BMW. And the American government won't invent a GM or Ford car that anyone wants to buy.
But those nations did provide health care and pension undercarriages, along with world class educational systems, that helped their automakers leave our automakers in the dust.
If the United States wants to maintain a healthy manufacturing base, for all the economic and security reasons that make it necessary, we are going to have to come up with a uniquely American way of maintaining an industrial foundation
Toyota expands lineup in push for No. 1
Shooting for top: GM has been the global leader for 73 years, but the Japanese automaker has big plans
The Wall Street Journal
Toyota Motor Corp. is making a big bet that it can ride a host of new models past struggling General Motors Corp. next year to become the world's biggest maker of cars.
Late next month, when the Japanese automaker unveils its 2006 targets, it could set the ambitious goal of producing as many as 9.2 million cars, say people familiar with the plan. That would be an 11 percent leap from the 8.28 million cars Toyota expects to make in its current fiscal year, which ends in March.
GM - which has been the world's No. 1 automaker for more than 70 years - has not outlined its production plans for 2006 and on Monday announced a major restructuring that will involve plant closings as it moves to produce fewer automobiles. It has projected it will build 9.1 million cars this year. GM sold 8.99 million vehicles in 2004, a 14 percent share of the world-wide auto market. Ford Motor Co., the world's No. 3 automaker, sold 6.98 million vehicles world-wide.
With the final release date for their forecast still a month away, Toyota officials warn the company has yet to decide on a final production target. Its plans include a redesigned version of the Camry, America's best-selling car; a spruced-up version of its RAV4 SUV; a new mid-size sport utility vehicle called the FJ Cruiser; and a small car, the Yaris, aimed at energy-conscious drivers. Toyota also will launch more models under its Lexus premium nameplate.
Still, the prospect of a photo finish in the race for No. 1 automaker underscores the profound shift of power occurring in a business increasingly marked by global competition. With the Big Three U.S. automakers struggling under the burden of heavy labor and health-care costs, the industry is migrating away from the unionized U.S. operations that served as a model for decades and toward lower-cost, mostly nonunion factories - many in North America - run by Asian and European manufacturers.
Last week, Ford's new head of North America, Mark Fields, warned staffers that the company plans to cut 4,000 salaried jobs in North America next year, or 10 percent of the total.
GM has long made being No. 1 central to its culture and its business strategy, counting on its massive size to help it recoup the billions spent on development and to help it open new markets. In January, GM Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Rick Wagoner dismissed speculation that GM could fall behind Toyota, saying, ''We've been ahead 73 years in a row, and I think the betting odds are we'll be ahead for the next 73 years.''
But since then, his plans for GM have been derailed by falling sales of high-profit SUVs in the U.S. market and rising costs for U.S. health care. While GM is growing in some markets, notably China and Latin America, and has stabilized its European sales, its gains have been more than offset this year by declines in North America.
And this was pretty interesting too.
GENERAL MOTORS: Modern manufacturing must shed staggering costs
Building our base
What's good for General Motors, they used to say, is good for the country.
Somehow, though, the closure of nine GM production plants and the elimination of 30,000 high-paying jobs would hardly be on anyone's Christmas list for the U.S. economy.
There are some things that would be good for the country that would be good for GM or, if it's already too late, for the next generation of American manufacturing.
They would be improvements in intellectual infrastructure and social safety nets that would help American individuals and corporations innovate, invest and build without being weighed down by the kind of health care, pension and training costs that don't bother the Toyotas and BMWs of the world.
A pure law-of-the-jungle approach would hold that, if GM can't make cars that enough people want to buy, at production costs it can afford to pay, then it ought to be allowed to go the way of companies that made buggy whips and whalebone corsets.
And we'd agree, if it weren't for the number of employees, suppliers, pension investments and whole communities that would be sucked down with it. Such downward pressure on wages and benefits can only reverberate throughout the economy, lowering the standard of living across the board.
Part of the reason our standard of living has been so high, of course, is that big American corporations have paid the freight, not just for their current workers but for legions of aging retirees. Such costs add $1,500 or more to the cost of a GM car, compared to $300 on a Toyota sticker.
The growing realization that that cannot go on has led, for example, to corporate support for such things as prescription drug benefits for Medicare recipients, a shift in responsibility that will save GM millions.
The Japanese government didn't invent the hybrid technology that powers the hugely popular Toyota Prius. The German government didn't craft the lines of the BMW. And the American government won't invent a GM or Ford car that anyone wants to buy.
But those nations did provide health care and pension undercarriages, along with world class educational systems, that helped their automakers leave our automakers in the dust.
If the United States wants to maintain a healthy manufacturing base, for all the economic and security reasons that make it necessary, we are going to have to come up with a uniquely American way of maintaining an industrial foundation
