Parsing “it’s the cars, stupid” explanation for Detroit’s troubles

Whenever I write about the burden that pension and health care costs place on the Detroit-based automakers, I hear from readers who think that’s a sorry excuse for Detroit’s problems. Here’s a thoughtful example from my e-mail inbox:

Your article on the buyout of Chrysler did a great job highlighting the high costs of healthcare for retirees being shouldered by Chrysler and the other members of the Detroit 3. While this adds to the cost of a vehicle from Detroit, isn’t weak sales the key issue driving the current situation? The Detroit 3 has done very little to address fuel efficiency and the low quality of their products. Aside from sales gimmicks such as Employee Financing, little effort has gone to address the key reasons why Americans don’t want to buy Detroit cars. It doesn’t take alot to see that having your product line geared toward fuel-inefficient SUV’s and trucks aren’t going to increase sales with these gas prices. It’s time for Detroit to stop hiding behind the healthcare bogeyman and start taking concrete steps to reverse these trends.

In a subsequent e-mail, the same reader goes on:

I read that estimates of retiree pension & healthcare expenses add approximately $1,500 to each car sold for the Detroit 3. This would adversely impact sales for entry level models, but shouldn’t have a significant impact for $40K+ SUV’s, $30K+ vehicles, etc… Detroit needs to include the cost of these obligations to the price of its vehicles and then make the needed investments to bring its quality and fuel efficiency up so American consumers have a reason to buy their vehicles.

Profit margins on small, fuel-efficient cars are tiny–even for the Japanese automakers. So with that $1,500 per car health-care burden, isn’t it kind of understandable that Detroit has focused on big, fat, high-margin pickups and SUVs? That’s not making an excuse, it’s just pointing out that there’s a connection between Detroit’s high legacy costs and its product choices. Better, more forward-thinking management in the 1990s would have set aside some of the big profits the Detroit Three were making then to pay for retiree health care now, and done more to prepare for the day when gas prices rose again. But that’s asking an awful lot of executives of publicly traded companies with impatient shareholders.

Also, it’s wrong to say that Detroit has done little to address the quality of its products. As far as defects and durability go, the Detroit Three have made up lots of ground on and in some cases surpassed their foreign competitors. It’s in styling and fuel efficiency where they’ve generally remained behind the curve.

Related Topics: Economy & Policy
  • Latest on Business

    David Paul Morris / Bloomberg via Getty Images

    Facebook IPO: What You Need To Know Now

    [The article was updated at 12:20 pm on 5/16/12.]

    Prom night is almost here for Facebook and its suitors. Here’s a program to the biggest high technology initial public offering ever, and what you should know:

    America’s War on TouristsSlate

    Associated Press

    Spain’s Prime Minister Warns Country Is in Danger of Being Shut Out of Markets

    MADRID  — Spain‘s prime minister warned Wednesday that the country faced the danger of being locked out of international markets as investors continued to fret about the future of the euro and Greece’s place in the 17-country eurozone.

    “Right now there is a serious risk that (investors) will not lend us money or they will do so at an astronomical rate,” Mariano Rajoy told Spanish lawmakers.

  • Chuck

    I think one of the reasons that Japanese automakers do a good job on their entry level cars is that they know the loyalty customers feel about cars and brands. You bought my cheap car today, but 10 years from now you’ll buy my mini-van. In some sense it’s marketing costs.

    Every time my 200,000 mile civic started without a catch, I felt like it was doing me a favor. Now, when it was time to replace it, where do you think I went?

    “But that’s asking an awful lot of executives of publicly traded companies with impatient shareholders.”

    No, we can’t really expect to buy responsibility with that $8.5 million dollar pay package…

  • YMM

    Justin, I can see you’re point in arguing that because of the undue costs that Detroit has to deal with and in planning for the future back in the ’90s they switched to the SUVs that at that time American’s were certainly buying up. The problem really Justin, is that saying that that execs at a public company beholden to public shareholders who all too often seek short term results and they do, is still a cope out. Toyota, Honda and others also made strategic moves into SUVs but at the same time made changes and plans to offer a deeper product line across demographics…the end result:

    http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/top-picks-for-2007-4-07/overview/0704_top-picks-2007.htm

    Not alot of picks from American manufacturers. Unfortunately Detroit execs clearly respond slowly and inefficiently. I would say its because of their size, but its not been a problem for Toyota. And I don’t think its a cultural issue – just look at all the innovation Americans are creating in so many other areas. Detroit has become so sacrosanct they fail to be creative, to be innovative, daring, or to change. They’d like to blame their union, like to blame all of those pesky costs, but they still haven’t done more in terms of their products. I think you’re letting them off the hook here Justin, and clearly the marketplace says the opposite as it buys up more of those imports.

  • Justin Fox

    Thanks for the Consumer Reports link, YMM. It led me to another page where I came across this interesting verdict on reliability:

    “No carmaker does everything right. Volkswagen builds vehicles that perform very well in our testing but vary in reliability. Despite very good reliability, not all Toyota models score well.
    Just because a car is Japanese doesn’t mean it’s a great car. Honda, Toyota, and Subaru make consistently reliable cars, but other Japanese automakers have mixed results.
    U.S. automakers build some good models. But many vehicles are mediocre, and even the best seldom rise to the top of their categories against stiff competition.”

    So maybe I’m giving Detroit a little too much credit on quality. And I agree, the Detroit Three aren’t as well run as Toyota and Honda. But I think the huge distraction posed by their legacy costs is part of the reason for that.

  • Patricia

    I think the issue with reliability and innovation only affects the US branches of the Detroit auto makers. I live in Naples, Italy. After reading a story on CNN earlier this week regarding how the major auto makers are fighting increased fuel efficiency standards proposed to take place in 13 years (2020, if I remember correctly), it occurred to me that all of them, except Chrysler, which is curiously absent from the scene here, already HAVE smaller, much more fuel-efficient cars ON THE ROADS RIGHT NOW in the European Union. Ford, GM, Toyota, Nissan, Hyundai, Subaru, all the big names we know and recognize in the US. I know the next “but” is going to be about differing emissions standards, but those are also quite strict over here. So, exactly what WOULD be the excuse for not having those models quickly available to the US market? Certainly more quickly than 13 YEARS from now! It’s strange that in countries where the auto makers are forced to comply, they manage to do so, and manage to make a profit doing so.

blog comments powered by Disqus