Ford to Fund Its EV Efforts in Part by Laying Off 8,000 Workers (caranddriver.com) 121
Up to 8,000 Ford employees could be hit by job cuts, according to a Wednesday report from Bloomberg. The move could be part of a plan to cut $3 billion in operational costs from the company's gasoline-powered business operations in order to boost profit and invest more into Ford's electric-vehicle endeavors. Car and Driver reports: The cuts will reportedly come in the Ford Blue division, which handles production of Ford's internal-combustion-engine vehicles, and primarily come from salaried positions. There are approximately 31,000 salaried workers at Ford currently. Ford CEO Jim Farley announced in March a radical restructuring of Ford called the Ford+ plan, creating the Ford Blue division and the Model e division, which handles electric vehicles. As part of the plan, he also boosted spending on EVs to $50 billion, which he said in an interview with Bloomberg Television was "based on our core automotive operations." Farley also added that "We need [Ford Blue] to be more profitable to fund this."
Previously, in February at a Wolfe Research conference appearance in reference to Ford's ICE operations, Farley said, "We have too many people, we have too much investment, we have too much complexity, and we don't have expertise in transitioning our assets." Ford lost $3.1 billion in the first quarter of 2022, although much of that was driven by a sharp value decline in its stake in EV startup Rivian. Operating profit, meanwhile, was at $2.3 billion, down from $3.9 billion in the first quarter of 2021.
Previously, in February at a Wolfe Research conference appearance in reference to Ford's ICE operations, Farley said, "We have too many people, we have too much investment, we have too much complexity, and we don't have expertise in transitioning our assets." Ford lost $3.1 billion in the first quarter of 2022, although much of that was driven by a sharp value decline in its stake in EV startup Rivian. Operating profit, meanwhile, was at $2.3 billion, down from $3.9 billion in the first quarter of 2021.
Henry rolling in his grave (Score:3, Funny)
Ford to its workers over 100 years ago: "We want you to stick around, here's a crazy high wage!" [npr.org]
Ford to its workers today: "GTFO, this Tesla knock-off isn't gonna pay to design itself."
Re:Henry rolling in his grave (Score:5, Insightful)
The refocus is an excuse to lay off workers as we plunge headlong into a massive recession.
Re:Henry rolling in his grave (Score:4, Interesting)
In the past, Ford has laid off workers, then rehired them in a non-union area. That is possibly what is happening here.
Re:Henry rolling in his grave (Score:5, Interesting)
Before that, Henry Ford tried to break the unions by recruiting blacks from the South and moving them to Detroit. The UAW was "white-only" at the time but soon realized that was not a good policy. So they opened up to their membership and unionized the black workers. It was only then that Ford offered higher wages.
Ford was virulently anti-Semitic but got along well with African-Americans and always paid them equal wages.
Re: Henry rolling in his grave (Score:2)
No, just like they said publicly, they are winding down to TWO product lines, EV cars (Mustang) and EV trucks (Lightning), but to get there they need to sell a shit-ton of ICE cars to cover the expense of re-working production lines.
Kind of amazing that the only way ford can produce EV cars/trucks is to keep pumping out ICE cars/trucks for the next few years.
Re: (Score:2)
Kind of amazing that the only way ford can produce EV cars/trucks is to keep pumping out ICE cars/trucks for the next few years.
I don't know, sales of their EVs have been solid. You haven't been able to order a 2022 electric mustang for a few months now.
Re:Henry rolling in his grave (Score:5, Insightful)
I did more research, and it turns out I was wrong. The assembly line workers are not going to be laid off by this.
It's the engineers, sales teams, etc and other salaried workers related to designing ICE engines that are going to be laid off. Presumably because they don't have experience related to building electric cars. A lot of them reportedly will be given a payment to go into early retirement.
Basically Ford is saying, "We aren't going to improve our ICEs at all anymore. What we have is what we have."
Re: (Score:3)
The day is inevitable; you have the skill mismatch on one side and the need to save a lot of money to invest in new technologies on the other... I had expected this to happen at Ford last year, but they dragged it out a bit longer.
Re: (Score:2)
I can understand asking the ICE engineers and other ICE related technical staff to leave.
Sales teams? Can't they sell EV as well? I thought a good salesman is able to sell a freezer to an eskimo in alaska.
Interesting if they getting rid of people who were not in EV related technical teams.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeap. So the argument would be that there is more to the situation than Ford is conveying on the surface.
Re: (Score:2)
I can understand asking the ICE engineers and other ICE related technical staff to leave.
Sales teams? Can't they sell EV as well? I thought a good salesman is able to sell a freezer to an eskimo in alaska.
Interesting if they getting rid of people who were not in EV related technical teams.
Part of Ford's publicly stated transition plan is to move to a direct-to-consumer fixed-price sales format with EVs. Marketing people are still need, sales wonks... not so much.
It is one of the big reasons why they are splitting into two business entities -the dealership agreements stay with the blue (internal combustion) division, and the electric (green?) division makes new agreements with service centers instead. No stealerships for the new EV Ford Motor Company...
Re: (Score:2)
When you have a back log of people wanting to buy your cars while also producing fewer cars then prior years, you do not really need to spend more on advertising, because you are already tapped out.
I'm sure in a few years when we get our supply chains figured out we will move back to having larger inventories, deeper discounts and better prices. The only reason they may not happen is the shift to EV and we clearly cannot meet demand for the EV market so we may not get back to trying to selling more cars at
Re:Henry rolling in his grave (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with your general idea, but that approach implies a much reduced mechanical engineering team for ICEs. As you said, modular. You need fewer engine variants. One for big vehicles. One for small vehicles. Done. And these are simpler designed, too, because an ICE for a hybrid runs at the optimal RPMs and does not have to have an attractive power curve. In the long run, it is something that can be outsourced because: modular. You are not differentiating your vehicles in your market space by the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you have to imagine that? Based on the headlines I see I'm inclined to think that Twitter explodes every single day.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The refocus is an excuse to lay off workers as we plunge headlong into a massive recession.
Ford doesn't need an excuse. Ford needs a business case. And it apparently has one. Why would they be paying 8000 workers they will not need? US economy is shrinking, inflation decreases the purchasing power, so people will buy fewer cars and, in particular, still fewer Ford cars, That means that they have to lower the car production and that they need fewer workers. Welcome to the transition to green energy.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Ford raised wages mainly as an incentive to keep his own workers. The auto industry in Detroit at the time was crazy -- people would jump from company to company and just take unannounced vacations knowing that they could easily find a new job when they returned. Ford raises his wages above his competitors, making it costly for employees to jump ship or to get fired. He ended up getting more reliable employees, and was driven by his business needs, not a desire to help his workers.
From your article:
Re: (Score:2)
driven by his business needs, not a desire to help his workers.
He should have had them sign non-compete contracts. I guess hindsight is 20/20.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Henry rolling in his grave (Score:2)
The job market of today is not like it was 100 years ago in Detroit.
Forcing "Hot Dog on a stick" to pay high school workers a "living wage" to cover their housing, food, and medical expenses DOES absolutely drive up the cost of hot dogs on a stick.
Re: Henry rolling in his grave (Score:2)
Ford had a few other interesting interactions with employees you sorta glossed over, typically around unionizing, oh, and he had great admiration for all of Hitler's work in taking care of the "Jewish problem", but other than that, ol' Henry Ford was a great guy, a friend of the non-union white worker.
Am I missing something? (Score:5, Insightful)
No wants to be terminated involuntarily. But cutting jobs in a division where you don't see future growth is a pretty straightforward thing to do. I'm not sure why this is front page news.
Re: Am I missing something? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: Am I missing something? (Score:4, Informative)
You have no idea what a loss leader is, do you? A loss leader is an item that a retailer will sell at a loss in order to lead people into the store where hopefully they will also buy more profitable items. There is no way an EV is a loss leader. You also seem to have missed the fact that the cuts are from salaried positions, which generally aren't unionized. But other than that your post makes perfect sense.
Re: (Score:2)
You have no idea what a loss leader is, do you? A loss leader is an item that a retailer will sell at a loss in order to lead people into the store where hopefully they will also buy more profitable items. There is no way an EV is a loss leader. You also seem to have missed the fact that the cuts are from salaried positions, which generally aren't unionized. But other than that your post makes perfect sense.
EVs used to be loss leaders / halo products to get you in the door so the salesmen can talk you into an ICE where the traditional companies have an edge. The game has changed though and now EVs are becoming commodity cars.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a hard time believing, based on past history, that anyone involved in the "Capitalist class" as you call it, would do ANYTHING that attempts to develop profits anywhere other than the short term. Most don't think beyond their next month. The real far-thinkers sometimes think about the next quarter. Nobody's thinking long-term when it comes to business decisions. The long-term simply doesn't exist to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody's thinking long-term when it comes to business decisions. The long-term simply doesn't exist to them.
I have lots of problems with Ford, some of the ones I'm having in my life right now have even dampened my enthusiasm for the F-150 Lightning, but as far as major US automakers go they are probably the most forward-thinking. As an example, take the aforementioned electric pickup truck; Ford moved the entire unibody of the F150 to using Aluminum years ago. They also have been moving the engine back towards the firewall. The combination has let them build an EV on the platform now without making it spectacular
Re: (Score:2)
My Nissan Frontier nods sagely in your general direction.
Re: (Score:2)
(er, not unibody, just body. I got to thinking about another vehicle. doesn't change the point, but I should use preview harder)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
OK, how is 'just laying off workers' NOT 'cutting jobs'?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:4, Insightful)
You fundamentally do not need as many employees if you are building EVs. Motor winding is done by machine, and there are very few parts to put together. There are many special and expensive machines used, with human operators guiding them, in building ICEs. Battery construction is also largely automated. They are just fundamentally simpler things, mechanically. If you want them to be smooth and efficient they need a fair amount of complexity in the motor control hardware, but it's worth mentioning that the simplest modern production EV is actually fantastically overwrought compared to the simplest example that would offer good performance. Hobby-grade equipment can literally do that if simply scaled up.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it is news because Ford released a press release making it seem like a tradeoff. It was either that or two separate news stories: 1) Ford invests money in new EV production facilities to increase future profitability, and 2) Ford lays off workers to improve current profitability.
You are correct. A more accurate title would be "For cuts workforce, blames it on EVs". These two things are separate decisions.
Re: (Score:3)
You are missing the R word that the media is trying so hard to avoid saying out loud -- Recession.
Recession is coming, and every company is trying to cut costs now to help survive through it, while making up all kinds of excuses to keep their stock prices up.
Re: (Score:3)
You are missing the R word that the media is trying so hard to avoid saying out loud -- Recession.
What are you talking about? I've been reading lots of media speculation about recession for the past couple of months.
Re: Am I missing something? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not much of an alternative. Hopefully it is engineered as a mild recession to help things correct a little bit, rather than just chaos.
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:4, Insightful)
No wants to be terminated involuntarily. But cutting jobs in a division where you don't see future growth is a pretty straightforward thing to do. I'm not sure why this is front page news.
Ford's strategy seems to be shifting resources from Blue to Model e. To see the big picture, the question should consider the 8,000 jobs cut from Blue along with the jobs that will be created in Model e. $3 billion cut annually from Blue, but $50 billion invested in Model e over the next four years. Will there be a total job loss from the combined Blue and Model e?
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on the nature of the jobs..
If you're an expert at designing internal combustion engines, then there won't be much use for you in model e.
On the other hand if you're an assembly worker, or working on things like interiors or suspension systems then there's not a huge difference between electric and ICE..
Re: (Score:2)
And that's why the robots won't be taking our jobs. We'll just retrain and find plenty of other work for the existing employees.
No problem (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
They can all just get one of the millions of better "green" jobs that have been created.
...like manufacturing EVs.
Too soon?
Re:No problem (Score:5, Insightful)
If Ford is serious about their EV efforts, they'd move these workers to those units.
What they're actually doing is they're just looking for an excuse to layoff workers, and they're blaming their EV efforts for it. And you fell for it.
Re: (Score:1)
we don't have expertise in transitioning our assets
I'm not sure why you think it would be easy-peasy to transfer a bunch of people from the ICE division to the EV division. Their EV division is already staffed. Do you want to make up a ton of positions for the ICE people? Do ICE people have enough generic knowledge to be useful in an EV division?
The article doesn't say where their $50bn investment is going. Maybe it's going towards equipment. Maybe they have enough people they just need to execute the ideas and plans those people have.
They may be us
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, you don't need as many mechanical engineers, either, because an air pump engine is very complicated, and an electric motor is very simple. With just three moving parts if you count the two bearings, or a few dozen if you were to count every pin in every bearing, they are trivially mechanically engineered compared to the simplest practical production regulation-meeting ICE — which has hundreds or thousands of parts if measured by the same standards.
And then there's the transmission. And tha
Re: (Score:2)
Plenty of things still need re-engineering, and maintenance, especially if you want to increase development and production on EVs.
If they want to catch up to and exceed other EV makers, they need to develop (and keep improving) their own stuff. They can't just buy an EV producing factory off the shelf.
Re: (Score:2)
All that's true, but the point is that the most complicated and expensive-to-build part of the car is going away, and so is the second most complicated and expensive part. And engines and transmissions take substantial human labor to assemble, and the parts that replace them don't. It would be more surprising if they weren't laying people off as they transition to EVs.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just not buying their blame.
They were going to lay those people off whatever the situation was.
Re: (Score:2)
What is all this blame? This is how capitalism works. Either they need you or they don't need you. If you want to get mad at Ford for laying off workers, that's your prerogative, but that's literally just part of capitalism. Instead, perhaps you should be mad at them for spending over $3M/year lobbying against your best interests.
There's no reason for businesses to employ people they don't need. This is why we need social programs which protect people when they lose their jobs. If you're going to have capit
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they could pay them to stand around scratching themselves.
I literally told you where they could move those employees.
Re: (Score:2)
I literally told you where they could move those employees.
You were literally wrong. They already have employees doing those jobs, and what's more, they have actual experience doing those jobs. They do not need as many engineers to refine their old products while they fade away, and they certainly don't need some engineers with experience in a different area of the vehicle to do them. The ICEs will be used in less and less platforms, and therefore there will be less and less changes, and then they will be gone, and the headcount will taper off to that point and the
Re: (Score:2)
So, if EV's are so much simpler, why do EV's always cost so much more than the equivalent ICE?
Because the batteries contain expensive ingredients, mostly. Engines are mostly made out of iron and/or aluminum, neither of which is very expensive, and with steel components. And also because there is a lot of R&D in continually reinventing the motor and speed controller, rather than just licensing it in. The prices on the electronics are also at a peak right now. The EVs are mechanically simpler, but the electronics are still complicated. They don't have to be very complicated as electronics go, but
Re: (Score:2)
So, if EV's are so much simpler, why do EV's always cost so much more than the equivalent ICE?
They don't. For example, Tesla's models have generally cost about the same as an equivalent BMW. Electric cars appear to be more expensive than ICE cars because there isn't yet an all-electric equivalent to the Honda Accord or the Toyota Camry.
Re:No problem (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a lot of things to consider here.
One of those things is the EV market may end up quite a bit smaller than the ICE market was. There are lots of reasons for that.
Body and frame materials are getting better all the time. Modern cars don't really have to rust (at least no the degree most of the cars we have known have/do). There hasn't been a huge incentive to fix those problems though because well the drive lines have had a finite life span too. Excluding the batter and all electric drive line should be cheaper to manufacture. There are just a lot few moving parts which means a lot less stuff with really fine mechanical and temperature tolerances. Industry knows how build a long lived brush-less electric motor, and I have differentials, drive shaft joints, and steering racks on 50 year cars now that have never been rebuilt and work great. Industry has this stuff down; for all the problems you hear about with Tesla quality issues, its not the main drive-line components with issues usually. In short I think we can probably expect to see 1-million mile EVs with the only major maintenance been a couple battery swaps along the way pretty often.
The other question is who is going to own these things? It really does look like there may be a whole class of urban drivers who own a car today but shift into the short term rental market in the future. That could mean a lot higher utilization for a large portion of the fleet and in turn mean fewer vehicles are needed. While I doubt very much suburban and rural dwellers will give up ownership of their cars anytime soon, there is potential there as well for reduced feet. Even though its an extra trip and more miles if dad can take the car to work in the morning and it can drive it self home for mom and the kids to use during the day and then return itself to the parking lot for him, that might make economic sense for a lot families vs owning/insuring/maintaining/housing a second vehicle.
For these reasons and others the auto industry might have 'right-size' itself to some degree. Its very possible after the uptake/transition to EVs might find themselves looking at a market that decreases in demand, at least in their more lucrative market places. Nominally the strategy if you believe that is where things are going would be staff up now, push product to market and capture as much market share as you can, and layoff the excess people and sell off the excess capital later. However this is the auto-industry. Unions make restructuring hard and costly, you can't just turn lose the overhead. That affects what you do with non-union workers as well. Because you need those people to get some return out of the manufacturing work force. A lot of auto-industry capital plant isnt super liquid, you can't find buyer for facility and equipment any time you want one, like if you decide to liquidate many other types of business. So some of this is certainly to avoid being caught bag-holding with a lot of extra overhead.
Re: (Score:2)
What they're actually doing is they're just looking for an excuse to layoff workers
Capitalism doesn't work that way. They don't need an excuse to lay off workers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
> Capitalism doesn't work that way. They don't need an excuse to lay off workers.
public relations; noun (plural noun: public relations)
1) the professional maintenance of a favorable public image by a company or other organization or a famous person
They need an excuse to reduce the damage to their public image, which in turn effects their sales and their stock prices, which makes the shareholders upset and also makes it harder to raise money if they need it. Public relations is a vital part of any busine
Re: (Score:2)
No one buying a Ford is suddenly not going to buy a Ford because 8000 people they don't know got laid off.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure it wouldn't have much of an impact on their core market, but it might have some effect on sales.
In this specific case it's not so much how many, but who. Ford is cutting back their ICE development division which I'd imagine the shareholders might get worried about. Tempering that by framing it as a restructuring and refocus, rather than letting it be seen as a desperate move to reduce operating costs, will absolutely help their stock value.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Why the hell do you think they need an "excuse"?
Because PR is a thing, dipshit.
Re: No problem (Score:2)
Companies pay insurance to cover things like unemployment. If they regularly hire then fire people because they mismanaged, they get hit on their insurance premiums. If instead they only "right-size" the company in big chunks with valid business reasons, that can help keep those insurance premiums down.
This is why many companies try to get lots of people to quit before layoffs.
Proper title (Score:4, Informative)
This is no doubt the machinations of the bean counters who don't understand the business. Most, if not all, the 8000 workers can be moved to different/new units and use their skills, adapt to the new skills required and organizational knowledge. Any retraining would cost less than hiring new workers and waiting until they adapt to a completely new working environment.
These aren't even new skills (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: These aren't even new skills (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
EVs have a lower part count and require fewer workers.
Re: (Score:2)
How many will be transfers to Model E rather than net cuts? How many will happen at all? We don't know. And the less sensational the actual truth is the less likely the press will even bother to report it.
Re: (Score:2)
The stuff about IBM laying off remote and old employees at scale came out long before it was confirmed.
The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour, and big companies are the most predictable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What retraining? Why retrain people you don't need? EVs are no where near as complex and the new factories being built to make them have a higher degree of automation.
8000 people are being made redundant because they aren't needed, not because of some lack of awareness that people can learn new stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
What retraining? Why retrain people you don't need?
Spoken like a true bean counter.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want people to have jobs without a job to do I'm sure you could send them to China. Companies who don't count beans are companies that don't exist. Wasting money isn't a good financial strategy and if not wasting money on pointless employees with nothing to do makes me a bean counter then I'm not only proud of that designation, but really worried about how you think the world works.
Assuming we are talking about engineers mostly (Score:2)
Why retrain them? Why not get rid of them and bring in a new batch of graduates who are much cheaper, and essentially start with a clean piece of paper?
Re: (Score:2)
Still under the assumption that these people are being replaced with humans rather than machines or more efficient work practices. They don't need 8000 people full stop. If you want a mandatory payment program it's called social security and normally is the job of governments.
With apologies to Billie Holiday (Score:3, Interesting)
Am I Blue, am I Blue
Ain't these tears in my eyes telling you
Am I Blue, you'd be too
If each plan with your van done fell through
Was a time ICE was the only one
But now Blue's the sad and lonely one, lonely
Was I gay till today
EV's here and it's clear, ICE is through
Was I gay till today
Now ICE's gone and we're through, am I Blue
ICE is gone, gas is done, am I Blue
Wouldn't you need them (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The engines are simpler?
No Harm No Foul (Score:2)
The bet on EVs is a LONG play..... (Score:2)
Like I was just telling some people earlier tonight? Tesla has been exclusively building and selling electric vehicles since 2012. And yet, despite them building several gigantic factories for making their own battery packs, they still have the Tesla semi truck, the new version of the Roadster and the Cybertruck in 3 variants that probably won't see mass production for YEARS - all because they're just not able to produce enough battery packs for all of them.
The idea that Ford can just jump in with both feet
Re: (Score:3)
... Even that F-150 EV pickup seems like a mistake to me, right now. That's a product that should have waited until batteries were more plentiful and less costly, and then they could have sold it with a larger capacity one. (Right now, it's getting slammed in most truck enthusiast publications for the lousy range when towing.)
Ford has a century of experience building gasoline powered engines. Better to leverage that than to dump it all and try to pivot to EVs when that's still a new thing for them.
As long as we're armchair quarterbacking here, I should probably point out a couple of things. First, long-term success in business requires a bit of gambling; if Ford doesn't start transitioning to electric now - in spite of a current battery shortage - then their lunch will have been eaten for breakfast by their competitors. Both technology and geopolitics are changing so rapidly right now that standing still is likely a death sentence.
Second, because of AGW the handwriting is on the wall for ICE engines;
Re: (Score:2)
Both technology and geopolitics are changing so rapidly right now that standing still is likely a death sentence.
And investors actually recognize this, which is why the ones who wanted to invest in auto companies invested in Tesla, instead of GM or Ford. Auto CEOs have whined that when they turned in a good quarter, the market failed to respond, while Tesla stock was shooting into the stratosphere. But it was based on Tesla trying something new, while they were still plodding along with a fundamentally unsustainable business model of selling ecosphere-burning machines.
Automotive industry hindered by Biden admin policy (Score:1, Insightful)
To build more electric cars will take more micro-controllers, more batteries, more rare earth magnets, and so much else that must come from China and other Asian nations. There's been a mess at West cost seaports and the Biden appointed secretary of transportation is on paternity leave. The excuse has been that the adoption is important to the secretary and his deputy is supposedly capable to fill in. But then if the secretary knew he was taking a two month leave then maybe he should have stepped down as
Re: (Score:3)
The Biden administration is opposed to domestic energy production, domestic mining, domestic manufacturing, which comes with trying to convince foreign nations to supply these goods. That is driving up prices on everything... We are in a recession that was created by Biden. Putin may have force certain choices on Biden but Biden still has many options to get the USA out of a recession. Biden instead chose a recession. If he doesn't change course soon then voters will make choices that should get us out of this recession. The election may not remove Biden from office but it may remove Congress from his control. After that Biden may lose the ability to veto anything. Harris will also be quite powerless as the Senate won't need her to break any tied votes.
I was nodding along with your post - disagreeing with significant parts of it, but counting it as rational and thoughtful - until I got to the bits I quoted above. Then I felt compelled to say "Give your head a shake and get a grip man!". First off, the Biden administration isn't "opposed" to the things you listed. They're opposed to how they're currently being done, for valid and important reasons such as sustainability and AGW.
Second, Biden didn't "choose" a recession - he doesn't have that much power. A
EVs have less components (Score:2)
Accounting restructuring reserve (Score:2)
It's easy... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would I do that when I can import JDM Kei trucks [mitsuicoltd.com] from Japan for less than $5K??
Re: (Score:2)
The F-150 starts at $29,990 for a minimal-features XL. That's a ways off your ask, but not spectacularly. It costs relatively little to stuff more content in there, so if Ford can make a profit selling them for that, imagine what they make selling a fully optioned $80k model. It only makes sense for them to push the high end models. What I don't get is why people buy them. Even the best-handling trucks drive like crap compared to a sedan that costs that much, and a nice roomy LWB sedan is way more comfortab
Re: (Score:2)
Just figure out how to build a no-frills gas pickup for $20-$25k.
Nah... I want a moderate frills, small to medium size PEV pickup. The Ford Maverick truck is about the right size I'm looking for, but a bit bigger wouldn't be terrible. Towing would not be an issue, but the ability to haul some bulky items on occasion would be nice.
Sad for Ford workers (Score:2)
Another stupid CEO (Score:2)
Farley will get his bonus even though he pushed for Ford to take a big stake in Rivian which most of their $3.1B loss in Q1 [cnn.com]
but according to the great dumpster fire that is Farley...
"We have too many people, we have too much investment, we have too much complexity, and we don't have expertise in transitioning our assets."
Meaning, "we're not retraining staff, we're getting rid of those people who are making us money in an attempt to be all green and shit."
He also said.
"We need [Ford Blue] to be more profitable to fund this."
The blue division is profitable, hell they're selling $50K+ pickup trucks [motor1.com] but the idiot wants more profitability from them? In essence, "Let's sacrifice profitability and loyal emplo
Gee, Ford, make up your mind (Score:2)
From 2021: Ford To Add 11,000 Jobs Making Electric Vehicles, Batteries [news9.com]