3 ms·
> Saab died Under GM management.
by brtkdotse 3y ago
> Saab died
Under GM management.
- foooorsyth 3y agoSaab was facing insolvency when GM bought 50% of the company. Would you have preferred the brand to die sooner?
- brtkdotse 3y agoFrankly? Yes. The drawn out death rattle was annoying to follow. But if you list the causes of SAABs demise you get pretty far down the list before coming to "2 months vacation and 36 hour workdays" (it's 25 days and 39 hour work weeks btw).
- DennisP 3y agoSo what were the causes? I was a Saab fan so I'm curious.
- brtkdotse 3y agoI'm sure someone has a good writeup¹, but as to my understanding they had a really weird lineup where the 9-5 competed with 9-3 and both were basically low-end luxury sedans marketed as family cars. ¹) Yep, see dagw's sibling comment.
- dagw 3y agoSAAB was never really a car company. It was an aerospace company that ended up owning a car and truck manufacturer due to some mergers and ran its car division more like an eccentric hobby. The car part was never really well run or financially self-sufficient and that just became more obvious when the car part was eventually split off from the aerospace part.
- dagw 3y agoedit: Just correcting my history slightly. SAAB actually started their eccentric car hobby before merging with a car manufacturer, partially due to to the end of WW2 leaving them with a surplus of engineers and capacity and wanting to put them to some use. The rest of my point basically stands
- malfist 3y ago> The drawn out death rattle was annoying to follow You're saying that a company that employees thousands of people should have died earlier and cost those folks their jobs because....it annoyed you personally?
- brtkdotse 3y agoYou’re right. That was a poor choice of words on my part. My point was that it was obvious SAAB cars (neé SAAB Weapon Systems) wasn’t a viable business and the last few years were extremely drawn out and full of drama.
- nordsieck 3y ago> Under GM management. There's a reason they ended up as a GM brand.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- DrThunder 3y agoWhy did GM have to buy them out? More socialist countries are inherently bad a creating and maintaining profitable businesses.
- dagw 3y agoSo selling off a failing company on the open market to the highest bidder is socialist. But governments bailing out a failing car manufacturer to the tune of billions of tax payer dollars is free market capitalism? Got it.
- DrThunder 3y agoThey sold it off because they were bad at making money and keeping it running. Your second sentence it a strawman. Of course it's not capitalism to bail out manufacturers. How's that working out for the US? All you've proven is that when the US implements socialist policies it's detrimental. So, thanks for proving my point.