VenSeattle

Ummm... do we really want to get back on topic? Anyhow... I'll speak from experience, but I'm on the other end. I'm the younger one in my 8+ year relationship with my partner. I'm also the one who chose to move from Texas to Washington after dating 1.5 years (voluntary job transfer/career transition with EDS.) Another difference is that I was more financially stable than my partner at the time (he just finished paying off his student loans and was only 1 year young at Microsoft.) Ugh... is there ever a place to begin? It gets easier as the years add up. Age differences only become an issue if there are large gaps in maturity, interests, experiences, etc... If you're both well rounded, responsible, and have good common sense then that's a great start. I've learned that most insecurities that break people up (age, religion, jealousy, family, friends, careers, etc) are really dependant on the maturity of the individual and how well that person can handle those type of (usually irrational) fears. Ups and Downs... buying a house, deaths on both sides of the family, getting pets, maintaining focus on personal goals (financial, career, personal, hobbies, etc) can all become overwhelming. There's only so much a couple can do ahead of time to cope (e.g. What if my office moves to Portland? Will I need to move or work remotely? Am I willing to move? Can I commute? Will we both move? Will we sell the house or buy a second home?) Ugh... it's easy to let a non-existing "crisis" spiral out of control before it ever becomes an issue (if it ever becomes an issue.) There's a big difference between strategic planning/assessing risks and worrying yourself to death over hypothetical scenarios to the point of self-implosion. Outside of the short amount of time you two have known each other, it sounds like you're off to a good start. Hopefully you both are good communicators and have patience. recommendations... Honest communication - Both need to convey (upfront) what is expected out of the relationship/living arrangement - Is Joe moving in temporarily until he gets on his feet or is this potentially permanent? - bills (nuff said) - Dating: FWB? Casual? Serious? Open? Closed? - He'll be meeting a ton of new people since he's just moving there. He'll like some of your friends... some he won't. Same with the new friends he'll make. Do you really know the type of people he likes to hang out with or is drawn to? Will that matter? Patience - Both have different habits and different levels of maturity... Remember “Getting to know you” is supposed to be the fun part… OC, you're older... more set in your ways... and it's your place. Joe's life will be very vulnerable since he's the one moving to a strange place. It won't be so simple to "call it quits" or "kick him out" if it doesn't go well the first few months or year. In the beginning he'll mostly know your friends, and go to only places you already visit. A break up could be devastating to Joe, especially if he doesn't have a job or if it's unstable. Be tolerant. Hopefully Joe will be a gracious partner and respectful of your things. Just remember, he is more than someone renting a room. He can't be considered a stranger in his own home. Space needs to be relinquished to allow him to feel comfortable in his new (and shared) surroundings. Suck it up and try new options and, above all, remember to compromise and find common ground. To sum it all up: It takes two willing individuals to make a relationship work, but only one needs to give up for it to end. If the relationship falls apart, one or both decided to give up before it happened. Usually continuous honest communication between both parties can decide if a relationship is to be dissolved before something can happen to hurt either party. . . . So... There's my feedback on a somewhat similar situation. Almost 9 years and still going... Yay! It hasn't been perfect, but it wasn't expected to be. Living life will be exciting, scary, fun, painful, humiliating, and rewarding. You can do it by yourself, but it's much better if done with someone you love.

Yeah... I'm not looking forward to it myself. I'll be looking closely at the LaCrosse replacement, Excelle replacement, and SAAB 9-3/9-5 replacements over the next year or so. It really depends on style, value, options, and execution for all of the vehicles. I'm still interested in the Lucerne Super.... but.... I'll have to seriously consider paying a $275 penalty to drive a Lucerne Super in addition to the lower Northstar V8 gas mileage compared to my SC 3.8l V6 in the Park Avenue. Here's my Park Avenue on polution/emissions - http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/Detailsre...vehicle_ID=5385 Here's the Fuel Economy ratings - http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2008car1tablef.jsp?id=18726 My car's emission label ID is: 3GMXV03.8044 I drive less than 10,000 miles a year and Premium is around $3.30 a gallon. Based on 31% highway, 69% city driving, 10000 annual miles and a fuel price of $ 3.30 per gallon . Use Your Gas Prices & Annual Miles My Park Avenue appears to be LEV status and the epa.gov website indicates 4.2 grams/mile for CO2. That's far beneath any of the proposed penalties for CO2 Emissions: Am I reading this correctly? Empowah? WMJ?

Toni... that's just a facelift on the existing platform for the Taiwanese market. It was rejected by Buick in China. The article and the discussion is talking about an entirely new model to replace the current Excelle(s) in MY 2009/2010. The question that's still up in the air is if the new model will be on Delta II or Alpha. Since the current Excelle is FWD and based on the Lacetti/Nubira/Forenza it's natural to assume the replacement will be Delta II since that's what the Daewoo/Chevrolet replacement will be on... However there are contradicting reports with the Alpha platform being cited more and more. It's been rumored the new vehicle could be renamed Skylark (at least in China.)

You forgot one... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5ciYEWIkiA It's funny... I don't think Epsilon is to blame. The older SAAB 9-3 convertible does a hell of a lot better than the G6 convertible. For the chart showing how they rank, go here: http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=100 for the win... I'd take the 9-3

If GM's current and upcoming products are good enough to retain loyal buyers and possibly draw some others from competitors, then GM has a very good chance of increasing market share in a declining market. The sales numbers behind January are a good example of that possibility. January's numbers did not occur because of this, but the cold numbers could represent an example of a declining market in general. In January, GM's monthly sales were stable (with a modest increase) while the market in general slumped. If the only thing GM accomplishes in 2008 is stabilize and maintain sales, then GM will gain market share providing the total market does in fact shrink by 1 million+ sales in 2008. If GM reduces fleet sales another 100,000 in 2008 while maintaining retail sales, GM still has a chance to hold onto its current market share because of the potential market drop of 1 million+ sales. But, of course, market share, sales volume, etc still do not equal profitability. It'll be another 2 years before the plant closings, buyouts, and Union Contract negotiations start to reap any benefit. I find it unacceptable that Flint completely ignores the buyouts and Union contract negotiations in his paragraph addressing Legacy Costs: Then he brings it up separately without discussing the actual intentions behind them and negatively touches on the benefits which contradict his original summary in the Legacy Costs paragraph: It's as if he attempts to separate the "failure" here in the US from one of the three main reasons stated in the article: Rebates, Efficiency, Legacy Costs. The man has no ability to maintain a single train of thought… at least not in writing. I do agree with the single positive scrap he throws out: Another theory that I don't agree with is this one: SEVERAL surveys, polls, and reviews indicate that Gen X & the Millennials or "Gen Y" have less (in some cases, none at all) brand loyalty than Baby Boomers. The current and upcoming generations of car buyers don't need to be "angry" to switch teams. They need proven products that meet their current needs. I believe there's an even better chance now for companies who have a tarnished past to prove themselves in the market if executed correctly. Hyundai's recent success is an example. I dare say that Buick's remarkable drop in average buyer's age in 2007 is another. As a Gen X buyer, I may show loyalty to the current brand of vehicle I am driving, but I will be out there test-driving my options before making my next decision. My tastes, needs, & wants change over time and I will address those when I'm ready to trade-in.

No need... I think this car will do fine with the new 4-cyl turbo engine GM has. If anything, the 3.6l could be available as an option, but I wouldn't mind leaving the 3.6l for the LaCrosse replacement or Cadillac Alpha.

Looking at what my state is about to impose... I really wouldn't mind a compact Buick with a smallish displacement. Delta or Alpha doesn't matter to me as long as the car delivers on styling and quality. My point is, I'm not looking for a "cheap" Buick, but a smaller Buick that's still a premium vehicle. An Alpha-based compact would be able to draw a higher price over a Delta-based sedan though. If the LaCrosse replacement starts where I think it will start, there should be room for a premium Alpha-based Buick starting in the mid-$20ks.

Happy Birthday Everyone!

I'll be brief, but think a topic with a list of links that can assist someone with determining their vehicle's impact on the environment would be valuable to the members here. I know several have been mentioned and linked to in the past... some better than others. If you'd like, please post them here. My personal reasoning behind this is a Bill that's been proposed to Washington State Legislation - SB 6900 - 2007-08. I suspect other states will be introducing something similar over time... It will add to the annual vehicle registration the following fees: Vehicle%20Engine%20Displacement%20Fee%20" target="_blank">Vehicle Engine Displacement Fee Vehicle%20Emissions%20Fee" target="_blank">Vehicle Emissions Fee Thank you ahead of time!

Not that I disagree with Croc's point, but a $60-65k V6 XLR would still be a Hard-Top Cadillac convertible with almost all comfort features available compared to a mid-$40's base Corvette coupe.

A few Accord coupes have popped up in my neighborhood. The more I see them the more awkward they appear. From the back, rear 3/4, and side... there's just something off. The Altima coupe still reminds me of the recently departed Monte Carlo…

I think Cadillac needs a V6 roadster, like the SLK, but not for the XLR. The XLR should be improved, and Cadillac should get a smaller roadster to place underneath the XLR. however, if it's a matter of XLR with V6/V8 or NOTHING... then by all means, give the XLR a V6. I'd much rather Cadillac continue to offer the XLR than abandon the market.

Prediction... even with increasing gas prices, trucks are a requirement for many US markets. Last reports indicated Epsilon II debuts this fall and will arrive ahead of schedule. Delta II begins production next year as well. GM will be building several variants off of Gamma. Lucerne is still matching its competitors in sales volume. The LaCrosse will be replaced in a matter of months, not years. Escalade Hybrid just debuted, CT variants on their way, BRX debut, XLR receives refresh, Zeta Cadillac still coming. G8's projected sales are retail sales. The retail sales target exceeds the Grand Prix's which is heavily fleeted. Can't help you with these except new product is coming. If something comes from virtually nothing, then there's a gain. January sales say otherwise. Impala's retail sales were up around 44%?? in January. Only fleet sales were down. Chevrolet is getting new Delta II and Gamma vehicles within the next two(?) years. Camaro. Equinox replacement. Volt in 2010. New large sedan (FWD) in 2010/2011. Can't help you there. Honestly, I think you need to convince your dealer principle(s) to just sell the GM franchises.

Don't know, but I can hope.

Once again, dismissing GM's success where others are failing/ have failed. Using hypothetical reasoning to predict/hope it will fall apart? It’s a legitimate and radical change under RW. Live with it. They’re all dealing with similar issues, but very differently. GM’s leadership has been and still is paving the way for the others. The Success and accomplishments at Ford and Chrysler is gauged by how many years they’re behind GM’s turn-around. Yet GM sold more cars last year than ever before in history? US Market share is just a percentage. How many cars did GM sell in the US back when it had 30%? 40%? 50%? Yeah… HAHA! That’s the case for anyone doing business right now, even financial stable companies. Quit with your sensationalism and come back to reality! Once again, using hypothetical reasoning to predict/hope it will fall apart? GM is an industrial dinosaur that needs RW & Co to bring it into the 21st Century.

How profitable was GM outside of the US 10 years ago? Once again, look at how things looked when he took over. You can’t condemn them without basis. GM is reducing fleet sales in the US where they’re losing money and have too much capacity. GM is reducing fleet sales. GM is reducing capacity. These are positives. Since GM is targeting to consolidate in urban markets, especially where the realestate is expensive, I don’t think too many “for rent” signs will be up. Most of those properties (like in my area) are already sold pending development once the permits are received and zoning laws are changed. And GM is doing it! Is that a complaint? It’s a tough choice but GM is making the right decision. Won’t matter - smaller UAW footprint, lower wages, less plants, balanced demand/capacity. Profitability should be recovering by then as well. You can’t have it both ways. GM’s charitable attributes and dedication to the small communities (that it helped develop) are both part of what trapped GM in the position it's in now. GM must break certain loyalties to survive. As you’ve said often, GM is a business. Now you’re upset because GM is making babies cry. Toyota, Honda, and Nissan would have no remorse closing a plant in a rural community down south if they didn't have a need for it. It's just business. Speed to market was what I commented on. The Kappas took how long? The Traverse was not part of the original Lambda plan, and now it comes out this fall? The GMT900s, Malibu remodel, Aura replacement, Delta II with the Cobalt replacement, etc… etc… etc…. All have come much quicker than the old GM could have ever dreamed. What matters? THE PRODUCT. Quality is extremely important. Considering what was pumped out of GM for 20 years prior, this is a huge accomplishment. As many as everyone else… there hasn’t been much going on that GM wasn’t already involved in. Most manufacturers are 1to2 years within each other these days. GM's R&D is nowhere near the worst either.

You have to take into account what the conditions were before you got the job though. GM announced when the "landmark deal" occurred, it would be 2-4 years before we'd see the impact. I suppose you missed this part: Is GM profitable in all other markets other than the US? Yes Is GM reducing unprofitable fleet sales? Yes Is GM reducing the amount of dealerships in the US? Yes Is GM closing factories in the US? Yes Is GM gaining concessions from the NA Unions? Yes Is GM reducing labor in the US? Yes Is GM increasing the speed it introduces new models? Yes Is GM improving quality, reliability, reputation? Yes Is GM researching and introducing new technologies to help with fuel consumption/emissions? Yes Is GM keeping up with emerging markets overseas? Yes Is GM unifying all global divisions? Yes Is GM in the best shape of the Detroit 3 Manufacturers? Yes Is GM bleeding market share while the US market shrinks? So far, No Is GM on the verge of Bankruptcy? No You expect all the changes to be immediate, but you of all people should know that's impossible. GM is headed in the right direction and Bad news is expected in the midst of restructuring.

For some reason, I still see Hyundai buying Chrysler and possibly Dodge (for the trucks) from Cerberus.

I believe the Chinese Regal and Chinese LaCrosse will be replaced by this vehicle. If the Zeta Buick has indeed been canceled, it may be a wise decision to rename the EPSII-based vehicle something entirely different (Invicta) allowing Buick to reposition it outside of the current LaCrosse/Lucerne structure. The EPSII may be Buick's only sedan until an Alpha-based or Delta-based Buick arrives. If the "Invicta" is on the LWB EPSII platform, it shouldn't have a problem filling the shoes of both the LaCrosse & Lucerne. We'll have to wait and see.

More info... GM posts biggest annual US auto loss February 12, 2008 11:36 AM ET Source: MSN Money; Associated Press DETROIT (AP) - General Motors Corp. reported a $38.7 billion loss for 2007 on Tuesday, the largest annual loss ever for an automotive company, and said it is making a new round of buyout offers to U.S. hourly workers in hopes of replacing some of them with lower-paid help. The earnings report and buyout offer came as GM struggles to turn around its North American business as the economy weakens. But GM Chairman and Chief Executive Rick Wagoner said that the company made significant progress in 2007, reducing structural costs in North America, negotiating a historic labor agreement and growing aggressively in Latin America and Asia. During a conference call with analysts and media, Chief Financial Officer Fritz Henderson said 2008 will be difficult, but the company sees the potential for significant earnings increases by 2010 or 2011 once it reduces its work force and labor costs and transfers its retiree health-care costs to a new UAW-run trust. The Detroit-based automaker said it was offering a new round of buyouts to all 74,000 of its U.S. hourly workers who are represented by the United Auto Workers. GM won't say how many workers it hopes to shed, but under its new contract with the UAW, it will be able to replace up to 16,000 workers doing non-assembly jobs with new employees who will be paid half the old wage of $28 per hour. Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC already have announced similar buyout offers. Henderson said GM's offer is "reasonably attractive," and the company raised the amount it was offering to match Ford and Chrysler. He said GM wants to implement lower wages as well as lower its overall worker headcount. "We have a substantial amount we can do in terms of transformation of the work force," he said. GM shares rose 44 cents to $27.56 in late morning trading. GM's annual loss of $38.7 billion largely was due to a third-quarter charge related to unused tax credits. The 2007 loss topped GM's previous record in 1992, when the company lost $23.4 billion because of a change in health care accounting, according to Standard & Poor's Compustat. Excluding the tax charge and other special items, GM lost $23 million, or 40 cents per share, for the year, compared with a net income of $2.2 billion in 2006, beating Wall Street's expectations. Analysts polled by Thomson Financial expected GM to post a full-year loss of 95 cents per share. For the fourth quarter, GM posted a loss of $722 million, or $1.28 per share, in the fourth quarter, compared with a net income of $950 million in the year-ago quarter. Fourth-quarter charges included $622 million to Delphi Corp., GM's former parts division, for its restructuring efforts, and a gain of $1.6 billion because of tax credits related to GM's pension liabilities and the sale of GM's Allison Transmission unit. GM reported $181 billion in revenues for the year, down from $206 billion in 2006. Its automotive business saw record automotive revenues of $178 billion in 2007, up $7 billion from a year ago thanks to growth in emerging markets and favorable exchange rates. GM was profitable in every region outside North America. GM's Latin America, Middle East and Africa division reported a record $1.3 billion in earnings, more than double that of 2006. GM's Asia Pacific division earned $744 million, up from $403 million in 2006, while GM Europe reported a profit of $55 million, down from a profit of $357 million in 2006. But GM's North American division continued to struggle, posting a $1.5 billion loss for the year, nearly identical to its $1.6 billion loss in 2006. GM's North American division also reported a loss of $1.1 billion in the fourth quarter, compared with a loss of $129 million in the year-ago quarter. Wagoner said the weak U.S. economy and high commodity prices hurt turnaround efforts in North America. He said GM's decision to reduce low-profit sales to daily rental companies by 110,000 in 2007 also affected U.S. sales. "We're pleased with the positive improvement trend in our automotive results, especially given the challenging conditions in important markets like the U.S. and Germany, but we have more work to do to achieve acceptable profitability and positive cash flow," Wagoner said in a statement. GM's results also were dragged down by its 49 percent stake in GMAC Financial Services, which lost $2.3 billion in 2007. GM reported a $1.1 billion loss attributed to GMAC. GM barely retained its title as the world's largest automaker in 2007, selling just 3,000 more vehicles than Toyota Motor Corp. GM sold a total of 9,369,524 vehicles worldwide, up 3 percent from the year before.

GM Offers Buyouts to 74K Hourly Workers February 12, 2008 9:38 AM ET MSN Money; Sourced from Associated Press DETROIT (AP) - General Motors Corp., eager to lower wages and staunch the kinds of losses it saw in 2007, said Tuesday it is offering a new round of buyouts to all 74,000 of its U.S. hourly workers who are represented by the United Auto Workers. Workers will be given the details of the buyouts over the next several weeks. Most of those who accept are expected to leave by July 1, the company said. The UAW represents 98 percent of the company's U.S. hourly workers, with smaller unions representing the rest, GM spokesman Dan Flores said. GM won't say how many workers it hopes to shed or how much it expects the buyouts to cost, but under its new contract with the UAW, it will be able to replace up to 16,000 workers doing non-assembly jobs with new employees who will be paid half the old wage of $28 per hour. UAW President Ron Gettelfinger said he expects fewer than 20,000 workers to take the buyout. Gettelfinger said the union understood that more buyouts would be coming when it agreed to the contract. "We didn't go into the contract blind. We're proud of our membership. There are certain things we cannot control," he said during an interview Tuesday morning with a local radio station. Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC already have announced similar buyout offers. GM had been offering buyouts to about 5,200 UAW workers at service and parts operations and some closed plants since December, but those workers now are eligible for the new, sweetened offer, which raises the incentive payments for retirement-eligible workers by $10,000 for production workers and $27,500 for skilled workers. Retirement-eligible workers will be offered $45,000 for production workers and $62,500 for skilled workers to retire with their full pension and health benefits. Those workers can take the money in a lump-sum payment or take it as monthly payments. They also can roll the money directly into a retirement account or 401k. GM is giving less than Ford and Chrysler, which are offering up to $70,000 in lump-sum payments, but GM said its offer is comparable because workers who roll the money into a retirement account won't have to pay as much in taxes. Workers who are within four years of their 30th anniversary with the company can opt to retire early and get reduced pay until their full retirement kicks in. Workers who are at least 50 with a decade of service can retire with reduced pension and health benefits. Workers also can opt to take up to $140,000 to leave the company with no ties, including pension or health benefits. GM said it has 46,000 workers who qualify for the retirement or near-retirement options, including 21,500 workers who have 30 years of service. It's unclear how many of those will leave. GM conducted a round of buyouts in 2006, when 34,410 workers left the company. The buyout programs are voluntary, and GM can't force any hourly workers to retire. Ford announced last month it will offer buyouts to all of its 54,000 UAW-represented employees. Ford said workers will begin leaving the company in April. Chrysler, which is trying to cut up to 21,000 of its 45,000 U.S. manufacturing jobs, is giving workers on temporary or indefinite layoff up to $100,000 to sever ties with the company. Chrysler said the date workers will leave varies by plant, but some could leave as early as April. GM shares rose 13 cents to $27.25 at the open of trading Tuesday.

BV... had to add the "NWS!" to the topic title... just being cautious.

Happy Birthday Chris!