6 ms·

It's obvious they are betting heavily on automation being the future. It's risky but if it becomes true it's going to be world-shaking.

sdinsn 8y ago
Not really, they are trying to build more cars overseas (cheaper labor + developing markets for their cars) and they are expecting a global economic slowdown in the next couple years.
- DeonPenny 8y ago
  Except for the fact they haven't been building new factories overseas, their' reports to their investors points to automation, and they shut down many of their overseas factory. Maybe they are doing this in expectation of a slowdown and will move production overseas, but currently, they have done that. You can look at their capital expenditure though. All of their M&A, research, and investment have been in electric cars and automation. If there weren't going for this goal they are going about it in a strange way.
endofcapital 8y ago
Not at all. Read the article, GM themselves said they needed to free up cash after all the recent share buybacks. "GM has said the job cuts and plant closings will free up $6 billion in cash, but the automaker has spent $10.6 billion since 2015 buying back its own shares" This is a direct transfer of money from workers and worker obligations (like pensions, health insurance, etc) to shareholders. This has been happening a lot lately in several industries as Wall Street demands everyone buy back shares or get punished.
- wutbrodo 8y ago
  That's only looking at liquidity though, which isn't the only factor that goes into these decisions. It's plausible that they made these decisions because they weren't getting a good return on that investment.
  - endofcapital 8y ago
    Sure, maybe, but one fact doesn't really relate to the other. The fact remains that they just spent $10B on share buybacks, and they are now laying off thousands and closing a few factories because they want to save $6B. Even if they waited a few more years, the optics are just really bad. Not that optics seem to matter like they used to, most companies just shamelessly do this now.
    - wutbrodo 8y ago
      > they are now laying off thousands and closing a few factories because they want to save $6B. This is the part that I'm saying isn't necessarily true. The fact that they will save $6B by shutting down these factories doesn't imply that saving $6B was the reason they did it. If you're saying that the stock buyback demonstrates that they clearly had the money to keep these factories open, even in the absence of an economic case for doing so.... Well sure, but if we're talking about better contributions to global utility they could have made than the stock buyback, subsidizing unproductive factories is a horrible use of this money, compared to donating to homeless initiatives or malaria nets or any of a billion other things.
    - RhysU 8y ago
      I could spend $10B retiring shared and also trim an underperforming $6B investment. They can both happen without it being a sinister equality gap event.

sdinsn 8y ago

Not really, they are trying to build more cars overseas (cheaper labor + developing markets for their cars) and they are expecting a global economic slowdown in the next couple years.

DeonPenny 8y ago
Except for the fact they haven't been building new factories overseas, their' reports to their investors points to automation, and they shut down many of their overseas factory. Maybe they are doing this in expectation of a slowdown and will move production overseas, but currently, they have done that. You can look at their capital expenditure though. All of their M&A, research, and investment have been in electric cars and automation. If there weren't going for this goal they are going about it in a strange way.

endofcapital 8y ago

Not at all. Read the article, GM themselves said they needed to free up cash after all the recent share buybacks. "GM has said the job cuts and plant closings will free up $6 billion in cash, but the automaker has spent $10.6 billion since 2015 buying back its own shares" This is a direct transfer of money from workers and worker obligations (like pensions, health insurance, etc) to shareholders. This has been happening a lot lately in several industries as Wall Street demands everyone buy back shares or get punished.

wutbrodo 8y ago
That's only looking at liquidity though, which isn't the only factor that goes into these decisions. It's plausible that they made these decisions because they weren't getting a good return on that investment.
- endofcapital 8y ago
  Sure, maybe, but one fact doesn't really relate to the other. The fact remains that they just spent $10B on share buybacks, and they are now laying off thousands and closing a few factories because they want to save $6B. Even if they waited a few more years, the optics are just really bad. Not that optics seem to matter like they used to, most companies just shamelessly do this now.
  - wutbrodo 8y ago
    > they are now laying off thousands and closing a few factories because they want to save $6B. This is the part that I'm saying isn't necessarily true. The fact that they will save $6B by shutting down these factories doesn't imply that saving $6B was the reason they did it. If you're saying that the stock buyback demonstrates that they clearly had the money to keep these factories open, even in the absence of an economic case for doing so.... Well sure, but if we're talking about better contributions to global utility they could have made than the stock buyback, subsidizing unproductive factories is a horrible use of this money, compared to donating to homeless initiatives or malaria nets or any of a billion other things.
  - RhysU 8y ago
    I could spend $10B retiring shared and also trim an underperforming $6B investment. They can both happen without it being a sinister equality gap event.