BA4

Here are the General Motors Supplier of the Year award winners, country represented and number of SOY wins including 2009:

·  Acumuladores Moura    Brazil    1·  ADAC Plastics DBA ADAC Automotive US 2·  AP Plasman Corporation Canada 3·  Asia Co., Ltd. South Korea  3·  Auma S.A. de C.V Mexico 7·  Autoline Industries USA US  1·  BASF SE Germany 6·  Bend All Automotive Inc Canada 4·  Bose Corporation US 3·  Central Corporation South Korea 1·  Chemico Mays, LLC. / Chemico Systems, Inc. US 1·  Clark-Cutler-McDermott Company (CCM)   US 1·  Compuware  US 3·  Cosma International     Canada 6·  Daedong System South Korea 2·  Daewon Kang Up South Korea 4·  Denso Corporation   Japan  17·  Detroit Technologies Inc.   US 3·  DLH Industries   US 3·  Dongwon-Tech Co., Ltd.    South Korea 2·  Dynamic Manufacturing Co.  US 11·  ECM (Vehicle Delivery Service) Ltd.   UK  2·  EMC   US  6·  E-Won Solutech  South Korea  2·  FANUC LTD   Japan 6·  ICAHN ENTERPRISES LP    US 4·  FedEx Corporation US 10·  Fujitsu Ten Japan 1·  GENTEX Corporation US 14·  George P. Johnson Company   US  1·  Cartera Gestamp S.L.  Spain 13·  Grand Traverse Plastics    US 2·  Grimaldi Group Italy  9·  Ground Effects Ltd.    Canada 1·  Guangdong Hongtu Technology Co., Ltd  China 3·  Hanwha TechM Co., Ltd South Korea 2·  Henan THB Electric Co. Ltd.  China 3·  Hirotec Corporation   Japan 6·  LEIF HÖEGH & CO.AS Norway 7·  International Automotive Components (IAC) US 2·  Johnson Controls  US 4

·  Jones Lang LaSalle US 3·  Jaeyoung Solutec Co., LTD   South Korea 2·  Kafus    South Korea 3·  Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd. (K-Line) Japan 4·  Kirchhoff Automotive GmbH & Co KG Germany  7·  Kwang Jin Sang Gong  South Korea  9·  L&W Group US 3·  Laird Group PLC US  5·  LAKESIDE PLASTICS  Canada  1·  Lear Corporation US 4·  Mando Corporation South Korea 5·  Mann+Hummel     Germany 18·  Mett Pty Ltd      Australia 6·  Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Climate Control, Inc Japan 6·  Mitsubishi Electric Japan  11·  Mold Masters Company US 1·  MRM Worldwide US 1·  MWM International  US 1·  NGK Spark Plug Co., LTD.  Japan 9·  Nippon Seiki Corporation, Ltd Japan 3·  Posco South Korea 3·  PST Eletronica SA     Brazil   2·  Pyeong-Hwa Automotive Co. South Korea  4·  Ryder US   5·  Saint Jean Industries France 1·  Shape Corp.  US 7·  SL Corporation   South Korea 14·  Starcom MediaVest Group  France 1·  SUNDRAM FASTENERS LIMITED India 6·  Sungwoo Hitech Co., ltd   South Korea 2·  TMS Transport- und Montagesysteme Gmbh Austria 1·  TV Minority Company US 7·  Van-Rob Canada 13·  Wooshin Systems Co., Ltd South Korea 6·  YEONG HWA METAL CO LTD.   South Korea 2

All eyes on Chrysler

General Motors, for one, will be watching closely to see how Chrysler's bankruptcy plays out. GM may face the same fate in just a month, when its deadline from the government approaches.

But all automakers have an interest, because they share a supply chain. If the idle Chrysler cuts suppliers' volumes so much they can't stay in business, that could halt production lines at Toyota, Honda and Ford.

Ford said Thursday it is closely monitoring the situation. "Our industry is highly interdependent, and the health of the supply base and dealer network is critical for all automakers," Ford said.

Lemos-Stein predicts there will be a lot of bumps in the road, including many auto-supplier bankruptcies in the coming months. Many suppliers already were reeling from the news that GM is shutting down many of its assembly plants for up to nine weeks starting this month.

Despite pledges of a quick court process, no one can guarantee it. The case was filed in the Southern District of New York, which has experience with speedy bankruptcy cases. Still, judges are obliged to listen to each interested party that wants to be heard, which could drag out the process.

The automaker's bankruptcy filing listed assets of $39 billion. Its top 25 unsecured creditors — suppliers, attorneys and advertising firms — are owed $575 million.

The line's already forming. According to documents filed with the court, 14 auto suppliers say they are interested parties. Ford and Mercedes-Benz have filed asking to be notified of anything going on in the court. A group calling itself the Committee of Consumer Victims of Chrysler LLC and also the Ad Hoc Committee of Mesothelioma and Lung Cancer Claimants have filed.

The list will likely keep growing.

There are other big questions, such as what happens to Chrysler's financial services arm? The government named GMAC as Chrysler's new financing company, and it's still unclear what that means for Chrysler Financial. That company is now at risk of bankruptcy, too, Lemos-Stein says.

There is also concern that the bankruptcy filing will scare away consumers, who might wrongly believe it means Chrysler is going out of business. Thursday, Obama pointed out that the government is backing Chrysler's warranties.

"No one can blame car buyers who shied away from brands that were mentioned in the same breath as the word 'bankruptcy,' " said Philip Reed, consumer advice editor for Edmunds.com. "Now that their warranties are being guaranteed, Chrysler and GM vehicles are good deals which are worth considering."

But it may get harder to find a dealer. Chrysler has 3,200 dealers, and the company believes it needs no more than 1,500.

John McEleney, chairman of the National Automobile Dealers Association, says he hopes Chrysler doesn't use its bankruptcy filing as a way to get rid of dealers.

"Dealers generate more than 90% of manufacturer revenue and are not a cost to the automaker," he says. "A rapid reduction in dealer numbers would not only do absolutely nothing to improve Chrysler's viability in the short term, but it would actually work against Chrysler's stated objective to increase revenue and cut costs."

History of troubles

The last American automaker to file for bankruptcy was Studebaker in 1933. After emerging from bankruptcy, it continued operating, albeit struggling at times, until the mid 1960s.

This isn't the first time Chrysler has found itself in trouble. In 1979, then-CEO Lee Iacocca persuaded the government to guarantee $1.5 billion in loans that the automaker wouldn't have otherwise been able to get. Chrysler returned to profitability in 1983 and repaid the loans early.

David Lewis, professor emeritus of business history at the University of Michigan's Ross School of Business, says Chrysler can turn itself around: "It has a way of coming through. Particularly now, with the government committed."

And with Fiat on board.

Obama criticized Chrysler for having moved too slowly in the past, and for building cars that aren't fuel-efficient. Fiat has promised to bring a car to the U.S. that gets 40 miles per gallon, likely the Fiat 500, which could be imported within 18 months.

The automaker celebrated Cerberus' takeover of the company from Germany's Daimler in 2007 with a big party on the front lawn. Just 21 months later, with the company in shambles, Nardelli says he can't help but ponder what went wrong.

"You always as a management team look back and say, 'Coulda, woulda, shoulda.' But I think the rate at which the industry fell off due to the financial crisis … I don't know if we could've done more than we did."

Contributing: James R. Healey in Northern Virginia

Doomed GM plant is most productive

Rankings show GM plant slated to close takes least time of any in North America to assemble a car.

By Chris Isidore, CNNMoney.com senior writerMay 31 2007: 3:59 PM EDT

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The most productive auto plant in North America is doomed - it's on the list of plants that General Motors is closing as the world's largest automaker slashes capacity in a bid to stem losses.

The annual ranking of auto plant productivity by Harbour Consulting found GM's Oshawa No. 2 plant is the most productive in the North American auto industry.

GM narrowed the productivity gap with its Japanese rivals in 2006, according to a study released Thursday, but its most productivity plant is slated to close next year.

That plant is among the plants that GM (Charts, Fortune 500) plans to close in coming years as it seeks to get capacity closer in line with demand.

3 big questions for Detroit's Big Three

The Ontario plant, which makes the Pontiac Grand Prix and Buick LaCrosse and Allure, took only 15.68 hours on average to build a vehicle in 2006. That's an improvement from the 16.08 hours it took in 2005, and is better than the 16.34 hours it takes to build a vehicle at the neighboring Oshawa No. 1 GM assembly line.

The No. 2 plant was originally slated to close when it's done making 2008 models about this time next year. But GM now plans to keep some production going there for an undetermined amount of time as it modernizes the Oshawa No. 1 plant to give that facility a more flexible assembly line.

Oshawa No. 2 was the second most productive plant in last year's rankings but the only plant that was more productive, an Atlanta plant that built the Ford Taurus, was closed last year when Ford (Charts, Fortune 500) discontinued production of that model. GM announced in November 2005 that it would close Oshawa 2, as well as a dozen other facilities.

A spokesman for GM was not immediately available for comment Thursday. But a year ago when the rankings showed that a plant slated for closure was its most productive, GM spokesman Dan Flores said the decision to close the Ontario assembly line was based on a number of factors, not just productivity.

"We obviously do have plants that perform well in the Harbour report being impacted," he said at that time. "We faced a very difficult fact that we have too much manufacturing capacity compared to what the market wants."

Subprime woes bite General Motors

The rankings also showed that GM has the most productive engine plant in the North American industry in Spring Hill, Tenn., and the most productive transmission plant in Toledo, Ohio.

GM put out a statement talking about its gains in productivity, but not mentioning that the Oshawa No. 2 plant is one of those slated for closure.

"GM's leadership in three of the four manufacturing categories demonstrates we are transforming the company for sustainable, long-term success," said a statement from Gary Cowger, GM group vice president of global manufacturing and labor relations. "This success is a result of our people being involved in the business like never before."

Even with productivity improvements at the traditional Big Three automakers, Toyota Motor (Charts) led Harbour's ranking of productivity for all auto facilities, while Honda Motor (Charts) had the most productive assembly plants, with an average of 21.13 hours per vehicle.

But the report showed that GM, Ford and Chrysler Group, which is being sold by DaimlerChrysler, made gains and narrowed the productivity gap with the Japanese automakers' U.S. plants.

"Improving productivity in the face of lower production is a huge accomplishment, but none of the domestic manufacturers can afford to let up," said Ron Harbour, president of Harbour Consulting. "General Motors essentially caught Toyota in vehicle assembly productivity."

Ford lost an average of $5,234 on every North American-produced vehicle, according to the Harbour study, while GM lost $1,436 and Chrysler lost $1,072. Meanwhile, Japanese automaker Nissan (Charts) earned a pretax profit of $1,575 for each North American vehicle, while Honda earned $1,368 and Toyota, $1,266.

The cuts by the U.S.-based automakers mean that they're likely to continue to show gains in productivity.

"Considering that they will be building vehicles in 2007 with dramatically fewer hourly employees in the U.S., GM, Ford and Chrysler likely will reduce their hours per vehicle significantly," said Harbour. 

Record gas: Dirty Dozen

Chapter 3: For General Motors and its Workers, Bad News Comes in Three WaysGeneral Motors has long been the world's largest manufacturer of automobiles, and consequently a major employer in the United States. As large as they are, GM certainly does not possess monopoly power, facing heavy competition from Ford and Daimler-Chrysler and a host of foreign carmakers, so the modeling of employer behavior under competitive conditions, as presented in Chapter 3 of Modern Labor Economics is applicable to the GM case. Viewed somewhat simplistically, that modeling suggests that firms seeking to maximize profits need to look at three factors in making their labor market decisions: 1) the productivity of their workers (marginal product); 2) the revenue-generating capacity of the firm in selling its output (marginal revenue); and 3) the cost of employing additional workers (marginal expenditure). For General Motors and its workers, there is bad news to report on all three fronts, according to recent articles in The Wall Street Journal.

There is a bit of good news to report, so let's begin there first. An article by Joseph B. White reports that GM improved worker productivity more than both Ford and Daimler-Chrysler AG's Chrysler Group over the past five years. Citing an industry report, he noted that GM also had the most efficient plant in North America, its Oshawa No. 1 in Ontario.

Unfortunately, that's about it for the good news, and even the good news silver cloud seems to have a dark lining. While GM's productivity was up 2.5 percent in 2004, Ford and Chrysler both increased their productivity by 4.2 percent for the same year. And despite their productivity improvements over the past five years, it still takes an average of 6.4 hours longer to make a GM vehicle than it does to make a Toyota produced in North America. That difference gives Toyota a cost advantage of $300 to $500 per vehicle because of lower labor costs, according to the article.

But the bad news doesn't stop there. Higher productivity means that more cars can be produced with fewer workers, but it's questionable whether GM should want to produce more cars: they lost an average of $2,311 on each vehicle sold in North America during the first quarter of 2005. Two factors are at play in this: poor generation of revenues and higher than average labor costs.

Toyota's cost advantage might suggest that they would have lower prices than GM, but greater demand for Toyota vehicles-or perhaps more accurately, weaker demand for GM vehicles--allowed Toyota to generate almost $6,000 more per vehicle in revenue than GM. A finding reported that should be of great concern to GM is that their average revenue per vehicle has hardly changed for five years, suggesting a

worsening problem. GM also lagged behind Ford by nearly $2,000 per vehicle, and behind Chrysler by nearly $3,500 per vehicle. Not surprisingly, both Ford and Chrysler managed to earn profits on their vehicles, while GM was losing money on each of its sales, on average.

An added reason for the profit disparity is the higher labor costs that GM has compared to its competitors. An article by Lee Hawkins, Jr. and Joseph White reported that GM's production workers enjoy a much better health care benefit than even its own white-collar, salaried workers, not to mention those of its competitors. Having been the largest automaker for so long, GM is also burdened by having a larger pool of retired workers who continue to receive health benefits through GM. While health care costs are rising for everyone, the increased bill for GM in 2005 was reported to be about $1 billion, to a total of $5.6 billion. According to Hawkins and White, citing industry sources, United Auto Workers pay only about 7 percent of their health care costs, while salaried workers pay 27 percent, and the average American worker pays 32 percent. General Motors has indicated that they will seek cost savings from the UAW in their next contract negotiations, but also indicated that they believe that productivity increases have in part been the result of good cooperation between the union and the company. GM lost $1.3 billion in the first quarter of 2005, and along with Ford, had its corporate debt downgraded to junk status.

Sources:"GM to Seek Sweeping Cutbacks in Union Health-Care Benefits," by Lee Hawkins, Jr. and Joseph B. White, The Wall Street Journal, March 24, 2005 (p. A2)"GM's Productivity Growth Does Little For Woes," by Joseph B. White, The Wall Street Journal, June 3, 2005 (pp. B3).

Key StatisticsGet Key Statistics for:

Data provided by Capital IQ, except where noted.Valuation Measures  

Market Cap (intraday)5: 34.37B

Enterprise Value (Oct 10, 2011)3: 13.66B

Trailing P/E (ttm, intraday): 4.64

Forward P/E (fye Dec 31, 2012)1: 5.05

PEG Ratio (5 yr expected)1: 0.42

Price/Sales (ttm): 0.24

Price/Book (mrq): 1.09

Enterprise Value/Revenue (ttm)3: 0.09

Enterprise Value/EBITDA (ttm)6: 1.10

Financial Highlights  

Fiscal Year

Fiscal Year Ends: Dec 31

Most Recent Quarter (mrq): Jun 30, 2011

Profitability

Profit Margin (ttm): 6.78%

Operating Margin (ttm): 4.24%

Management Effectiveness

Return on Assets (ttm): 2.75%

Return on Equity (ttm): 27.82%

Income Statement

Revenue (ttm): 146.51B

Revenue Per Share (ttm): 97.51

Qtrly Revenue Growth (yoy): 18.70%

Gross Profit (ttm): 16.65B

EBITDA (ttm)6: 12.45B

Net Income Avl to Common (ttm): 7.86B

Diluted EPS (ttm): 4.75

Qtrly Earnings Growth (yoy): 94.80%

Balance Sheet

Total Cash (mrq): 32.77B

Total Cash Per Share (mrq): 20.98

Total Debt (mrq): 12.05B

Total Debt/Equity (mrq): 28.68

Current Ratio (mrq): 1.23

Book Value Per Share (mrq): 20.47

Cash Flow Statement

Operating Cash Flow (ttm): 5.77B

Levered Free Cash Flow (ttm): 4.98B

View FinancialsIncome Statement - Balance Sheet - Cash Flow

Abbreviation Guide: K = Thousands; M = Millions; B = Billionsmrq = Most Recent Quarter (as of Jun 30, 2011) ttm = Trailing Twelve Months (as of Jun 30, 2011) yoy = Year Over Year (as of Jun 30, 2011) lfy = Last Fiscal Year (as of Dec 31, 2010) fye = Fiscal Year Ending1 Data provided by Thomson Reuters2 Data provided by EDGAR Online3 Data derived from multiple sources or calculated by Yahoo! Finance4 Data provided by Morningstar, Inc.5 Shares outstanding is taken from the most recently filed quarterly or annual report and Market Cap is calculated using shares outstanding.6 EBITDA is calculated by Capital IQ using methodology that may differ from that used by a company in its reporting

Currency in USD.

Opinion

Did General Motors Really Repay Its Taxpayer Bailout?By Sen. Charles "Chuck" Grassley

Published April 23, 2010

| FOXNews.com

  Print   Email   Share

General Motors announced this week that it repaid its multibillion-dollar taxpayer-backed TARP loans. GM even bragged that it was able to “repay the taxpayers in full, with interest, ahead of schedule, because more customers are buying [GM] vehicles.” There was great fanfare, including expensive, around-the-clock GM TV commercials nationwide. But, the hype is not the reality. In fact, GM did not repay the loans with money it earned from selling cars. Instead, GM repaid the TARP loans with money it withdrew from another TARP fund at the Treasury Department.

The day before the GM story broke, Neil Barofsky, the government TARP watchdog, testified before the Senate Finance Committee. He explained that GM did not use earnings to repay its TARP debt. The April quarterly report to Congress from his office stated: “The source of funds for these quarterly [debt] payments will be other TARP funds currently held in an escrow account.”

GM filings with the SEC reveal that GM was paying 7 percent interest on a $6.7 billion TARP debt. The filings also confirm that the source of funds for GM’s debt repayments was a multibillion-dollar TARP-funded escrow account at Treasury; that means it was taxpayer money — not earnings.

Meanwhile, in all the fanfare and patting themselves on the back, Treasury and GM made no mention of what happened to the $2.5 billion loan GM owes its union health care plan. The union loan carries a 9 percent interest rate and runs until 2017. Don’t most Americans try to pay off their higher-interest debts first? Well, the union loan was not paid off. Why not? Does the union get to keep collecting 9 percent from GM until 2017, courtesy of the American taxpayer, while taxpayers give up a 7 percent return over the next five years in exchange for the hope that GM stock will be worth more than what we paid for it, someday down the road?

It is far from clear how GM and the Obama administration could honestly say, much less trumpet in prime time television ads, that GM repaid its TARP loans in any meaningful way. The reality is that GM got additional TARP billions from a Treasury escrow account filled with taxpayer dollars. Taxpayers have not been paid back “in full” and are still on the hook for the TARP stock investment in GM. Whether taxpayer funds are ultimately recovered depends upon the

administration’s ability to sell GM stock at a profit some day. Of course, we all hope it works out that way, and it might. But, the American people deserve more than puffed-up press releases and misleading commercials claiming that GM paid its loans back to the government with money it earned. I recognize that one of the goals of the GM ad campaign is to build trust, but GM did it all wrong, apparently with some help from the administration. Shifting bailout money from GM debt to GM stock is not the same as repaying it. Stock is riskier than debt. Maybe it’s a good idea. Maybe it’s a step in the right direction, maybe not. Only time will tell. But, we should be clear with the American people about what happened here.

The Wall Street Journal reports that Treasury is beginning to admit the truth. Treasury claims the source of the funds was “clearly disclosed” all along. Well, that might be technically true. However, to understand the disclosure you have to be a sophisticated investor with time to pore over the fine print buried in massive SEC filings and government reports prepared by independent watchdogs with teams of auditors. The average citizen, on the other hand, just sees the GM CEO saying that GM has paid back the taxpayer “in full.” The truth is that GM originally received over $49 billion from the US government and many billions remain to be recouped. That is why we were told at the Senate Finance Committee hearing that TARP losses related to the auto companies are expected to exceed $30 billion.

The timing of this maneuver also is troubling. The administration’s so-called Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee, a TARP excise tax intended to recover TARP losses, was the subject of the Finance Committee hearing. The Office of Management and Budget, and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, estimate that overall taxpayer TARP losses will exceed $100 billion, and the auto companies will account for over 30 percent of that amount, more than $30 billion. So why does the president exclude the auto companies from his TARP excise tax proposal? I raised this issue at the hearing. I noted that GM refused to testify. The next day we learned that GM, with the permission of Treasury, withdrew billions from the TARP escrow fund and accelerated the repayment of the entire GM TARP loan. Immediately, GM and the administration launched a public relations campaign touting “repayment.”

Regardless of the motive, this situation is a perfect example of the shenanigans caused by excessive government intervention in the economy. Being honest with the American people is not optional. The sooner these extraordinary entanglements between taxpayers and the private sector are over, the better.

U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa is the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee and a senior member of the Judiciary and Budget Committees.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/04/23/did-general-motors-really-repay-taxpayer-bailout/#ixzz1aLYZOQfJ

General Motors shares rise in stock market debut

Money & Company

Tracking the market and economic trends that shape your finances.

« Previous Post | Money & Company Home | Next Post »

General Motors shares rise in stock market debut

November 18, 2010 |  7:28 am   General Motors Co. stock jumped $3 in early trading to $36, a sign that investors are eager for shares in the formerly bankrupt automaker.

GM executives rang the bell on the New York Stock Exchange and than revved the engine of a high-performance Chevrolet Camaro to open trading Thursday morning in what became the largest public share offering in financial history.

Owners of the Detroit automaker, including the federal government, raised $15.8 billion in the offering and are expected to sell additional shares to bring the total to as much as $23.1 billion Thursday as the stock goes public in its highly anticipated debut.

The offering reduces the government's ownership stake to as low as 33% from 61%. And it will help the company shed the derisive title of “Government Motors,” which has turned away some potential buyers, Mark Reuss, GM's North American president, told The Times on Thursday shortly after the shares began trading. “It is an important step and a milestone here. But what really matters is that we deliver products that customers want.  That’s where we have to focus our energy,” Reuss said.

“There are an awful lot of employees who never gave up. We have to keep our head down and keep making great products,” he said. GM's turnaround, enabled by the taxpayer bailout, has been impressive, considering that it emerged from a government-sponsored bankruptcy proceeding only last year.

The automaker reported its third consecutive profitable quarter last week and is on track to have its first full-year profit since 2004. Bolstered by better sales and cost-cutting measures, GM earned $2 billion in the third quarter. Revenue rose to $34.1 billion, up 27% from the same

quarter last year, which included nine days when the company was in bankruptcy. From 2005 through 2009, the automaker had about $88 billion in losses.

The stock sale included a $500-million stake taken by the Chinese SAIC Motor Corp.

The previous record for an initial public offering was $22.1 billion set by a Chinese bank this year. -- Jerry Hirsch

Demographic Statistics

United States

Demographic · Economic · Housing ·

Social

Number PercentTotal population 281,421,906 100.0

SEX AND AGEMale 138,053,563 49.1Female 143,368,343 50.9Under 5 years 19,175,798 6.85 to 9 years 20,549,505 7.310 to 14 years 20,528,072 7.315 to 19 years 20,219,890 7.220 to 24 years 18,964,001 6.725 to 34 years 39,891,724 14.235 to 44 years 45,148,527 16.045 to 54 years 37,677,952 13.455 to 59 years 13,469,237 4.860 to 64 years 10,805,447 3.865 to 74 years 18,390,986 6.575 to 84 years 12,361,180 4.485 years and over 4,239,587 1.5Median age (years) 35.3 (X)18 years and over 209,128,094 74.3Male 100,994,367 35.9Female 108,133,727 38.421 years and over 196,899,193 70.062 years and over 41,256,029 14.765 years and over 34,991,753 12.4Male 14,409,625 5.1

Number PercentFemale 20,582,128 7.3

RACEOne race 274,595,678 97.6White 211,460,626 75.1Black or African American 34,658,190 12.3American Indian and Alaska Native 2,475,956 0.9Asian 10,242,998 3.6Asian Indian 1,678,765 0.6Chinese 2,432,585 0.9Filipino 1,850,314 0.7Japanese 796,700 0.3Korean 1,076,872 0.4Vietnamese 1,122,528 0.4

Other Asian 1 1,285,234 0.5Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 398,835 0.1Native Hawaiian 140,652 0.0Guamanian or Chamorro 58,240 0.0Samoan 91,029 0.0

Other Pacific Islander 2 108,914 0.0Some other race 15,359,073 5.5Two or more races 6,826,228 2.4Race alone or in combination with one or more other races 3

White 216,930,975 77.1Black or African American 36,419,434 12.9American Indian and Alaska Native 4,119,301 1.5Asian 11,898,828 4.2Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 874,414 0.3Some other race 18,521,486 6.6

HISPANIC OR LATINO AND RACETotal population 281,421,906 100.0Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 35,305,818 12.5Mexican 20,640,711 7.3Puerto Rican 3,406,178 1.2Cuban 1,241,685 0.4Other Hispanic or Latino 10,017,244 3.6Not Hispanic or Latino 246,116,088 87.5White alone 194,552,774 69.1

RELATIONSHIPTotal population 281,421,906 100.0In households 273,643,273 97.2Householder 105,480,101 37.5Spouse 54,493,232 19.4Child 83,393,392 29.6Own child under 18 years 64,494,637 22.9

Number PercentOther relatives 15,684,318 5.6Under 18 years 6,042,435 2.1Nonrelatives 14,592,230 5.2Unmarried partner 5,475,768 1.9In group quarters 7,778,633 2.8Institutionalized population 4,059,039 1.4Noninstitutionalized population 3,719,594 1.3

HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPETotal households 105,480,101 100.0Family households (families) 71,787,347 68.1With own children under 18 years 34,588,368 32.8Married-couple family 54,493,232 51.7With own children under 18 years 24,835,505 23.5Female householder, no husband present 12,900,103 12.2With own children under 18 years 7,561,874 7.2Nonfamily households 33,692,754 31.9Householder living alone 27,230,075 25.8Householder 65 years and over 9,722,857 9.2Households with individuals under 18 years 38,022,115 36.0Households with individuals 65 years and over 24,672,708 23.4Average household size 2.59 (X)Average family size 3.14 (X)

HOUSING OCCUPANCYTotal housing units 115,904,641 100.0Occupied housing units 105,480,101 91.0Vacant housing units 10,424,540 9.0For seasonal, recreational, or occasional use 3,578,718 3.1Homeowner vacancy rate (percent) 1.7 (X)Rental vacancy rate (percent) 6.8 (X)

HOUSING TENUREOccupied housing units 105,480,101 100.0Owner-occupied housing units 69,815,753 66.2Renter-occupied housing units 35,664,348 33.8Average household size of owner-occupied unit 2.69 (X)Average household size of renter-occupied unit 2.40 (X)(X) Not applicable1 Other Asian alone, or two or more Asian categories.2 Other Pacific Islander alone, or two or more Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander categories.3 In combination with one or more other races listed. The six numbers may add to more than the total population and the six percentages may add to more than 100 percent because individuals may report more than one race.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 1, Matrices P1, P3, P4, P8, P9, P12, P13, P,17, P18, P19, P20, P23, P27, P28, P33, PCT5, PCT8, PCT11, PCT15, H1, H3, H4, H5, H11, and H12.

Read more: United States Demographic Statistics http://www.infoplease.com/us/census/data/demographic.html#ixzz1aLdk7365

a > United States > Education View full size

Average years of schooling of adults 12 [1st of 100]

Duration of compulsory education 12 years [12th of 171]

Duration of education > Primary level 6 [83rd of 181]

Duration of education > Secondary level 6 [109th of 181]

Education spending (% of GDP) 5.7% [39th of 132]

Educational attainment > Tertiary 37% [2nd of 18]

Enrolment ratio > Secondary level 88.1% [21st of 135]

Grade 12 advanced students math 442 [15th of 15]

Grade 12 advanced students science 423 [16th of 15]

Literacy > Adults at high literacy level 19% [9th of 17]

Literacy > Adults at low literacy level 49.6% [7th of 17]

Mathematical literacy 493 [18th of 27]

Primary teacher salary > Starting $25,707.00 [5th of 22]

Reading literacy 504 [15th of 27]

School life expectancy > Male 14.8 years [16th of 97]

School life expectancy > Total 15.2 years [14th of 110]

Scientific literacy 499 [14th of 27]

Student attitude > Dislike of school 35% [5th of 17]

DEFINITION: Percentage of schoolgoing children who do not like going to school (2000). SOURCE: OECD

Student attitude > Find school boring 61% [2nd of 17]

Tertiary enrollment 72.6% [1st of 151]

... View all Education stats

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

The Census reports on the level of education attained by adults age 25 and older. Our elderly population grew up in a time when education attainment was typically lower, and college attendance was less widespread. As this population is succeeded by younger and increasingly well-educated cohorts, the percent of the population that has attained higher levels of education slowly increases. Not only has the number of diplomas and degrees increased, but their percentage in the population has also increased, indicating a growth in attainment greater than the relative growth in national population.

Educational Attainment in Population 25 Years and Over, 1990-2000

1990 2000

Number Percent of Total Number Percent of Total

Total Population Age 25+ 158,868,436 100.00% 182,211,639 100.00%

Less than 9th grade 16,502,211 10.39% 13,755,477 7.55%

Some high school, no diploma 22,841,507 14.38% 21,960,148 12.05%

High school graduate* 47,642,763 29.99% 52,168,981 28.63%

Some college, no degree 29,779,777 18.74% 38,351,595 21.05%

Associate degree 9,791,925 6.16% 11,512,833 6.32%

Bachelor's degree 20,832,567 13.11% 28,317,792 15.54%

Graduate or professional degree 11,477,686 7.22% 16,144,813 8.86%

* "High school graduate" includes people with the G.E.D. and similar equivalents.

Source: Census 2000 analyzed by the Social Science Data Analysis Network (SSDAN).

Buying preference

Gas prices that hover near $4 a gallon may have Americans questioning their love affair with their cars. But in the rest of the world, millions of upwardly mobile people are just beginning to feel four-wheeled "first love."

Whether it's a Muscovite driving a Chevy Niva or a resident of Mumbai purchasing her first Tata Nano, the demand for cars is skyrocketing. It took a century for the world to get to 500 million passenger vehicles on the roads. In the next 20 years that number is expected to double to 1 billion, according to a recent report from J.D. Power and Associates.

The demand will come largely from the so-called emerging markets, led by Brazil, Russia, India, and China. Already last year, for the first time ever, consumers in those nations bought more than half of the autos and light trucks sold in the world. Except for the United States and Canada, Chevrolet's top 10 markets last year were all emerging nations.

That growth abroad has ramifications for American consumers. In the near term, it means more auto exports for US and other established automakers. Thus, styling in the future may be driven by consumers in those nations, rather than by the tastes and preferences of US drivers. In the long term, Americans may be choosing between a General Motors and a Chinese-made Geely.

RELATED: Gas prices: 10 ways you can save at the pump

There's still "a fairly big gap" between South Korea, the latest country to storm the US market, "and whoever the next big player might be," says Bill Visnic, analyst and senior editor at Edmunds.com, an online auto research hub based in Santa Monica, Calif. But "China in particular has a really strong emphasis on improving their automobile manufacturing capabilities."

The focus on China's auto industry is particularly intense because of its market potential. In 2009, China passed the US to become the world's biggest auto market. By 2020, car sales in that Asian giant are expected to be double those in the US.

That represents a huge opportunity for established automakers. While GM has been interring brands in North America (R.I.P. Oldsmobile, Pontiac, Geo, Hummer, and Saturn), it's been creating new ones in China, including Jiefang, a truck brand, and Wuling commercial vehicles, which join familiar nameplates such as Chevrolet, Cadillac, and Buick. Volkswagen's stated goal of becoming the world's largest automaker by 2018 depends heavily on its success in these emerging markets, especially China.

China is hardly the only story. India's Tata Motors has made a bold move to upgrade Indian commuters from their bicycles and motor scooters into low-cost cars designed and made domestically. The Tata Nano, a basic minicar that sells for about $3,000, has had a rocky debut, including a few that have burst into flames.

The Nano "has had quality problems, they've had legal problems ... they've had a number of things go wrong," says Alan Baum, principal of Baum & Associates in West Bloomfield, Mich., a market research firm specializing in the auto industry. "But [Tata] will get it right. [It's] a global company that is up to world standards."

In Russia, well-known global brands are coming in to form joint ventures with Russian companies or going it alone, Mr. Baum says. "They've kind of left in the dust the Russian companies" such as Lada, which he calls "not quite ready for prime time." Chevrolet sold 116,233 vehicles in Russia last year, up from 104,398 in 2009. The Chevrolet Niva is one of the most popular foreign models there.

Quality control

EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) protects public health and the environment by regulating air pollution from motor vehicles, engines, and the fuels used to operate them, and by encouraging travel choices that minimize emissions. These "mobile sources" include cars and light trucks, heavy trucks and buses, nonroad recreational vehicles (such as dirt bikes and snowmobiles), farm and construction machines, lawn and garden equipment, marine engines, aircraft, and locomotives.

Consumer Laws

For Consumers

The Office of Consumer Protection enforces Montana's consumer protection laws and regulations related to:

deceptive and misleading advertising, including "bait and switch" and false claims unfair acts by a business, including changing a contract after a sale, abusive arbitration and debt

collection misconduct door-to-door sales telemarketing, including running Montana's do-not-call list car and truck sales and repair, including the New Vehicle Warranty Act (or Lemon Law)

violations antitrust issues, including price fixing, monopoly abuse and restraint of trade

For Business

The Office of Consumer Protection enforces Montana's laws and rules related to:

consumer protection – preventing unfair and deceptive conduct towards consumers antitrust – bid rigging, price fixing and monopoly abuses telemarketing – registration and do-not-call lists the Personal Solicitation Sales Act – regulation of door-to-door sales other issues such as credit counseling, gift certificates, home inspectors and Montana's Lemon

Law

Businesses wishing to advertise or do business in Montana are strongly encouraged to read the chapter of the Administrative Rules of Montana that relates to the Consumer Protection Act.

Protecting Customer Information

The Impediment of Identity Theft Act requires businesses to take a number of steps to help protect consumers' personal information and prevent identity theft. The law specifically requires:

Records Destruction – When businesses dispose of their customer records, they are required to make a reasonable effort to destroy records containing personal information.

Notification of Security Breaches – Businesses that maintain electronic records (like those stored on a computer) containing personal information are required to notify consumers if an unauthorized person gains access to their personal information.

Partial Credit Card Numbers on Receipts – By 2008, if a business accepts credit card sales, all credit card receipts must display no more than the last five digits of the credit card number.

Corporate tax rates

Federal corporate income tax is imposed at graduated rates from 15% to 35%. The lower rate brackets are phased out at higher rates of income, with all income subject to tax at 34% to 35% where taxable income exceeds $335,000. All income is taxed at the same rate. Additional tax rates imposed below the federal level vary widely by jurisdiction, from under 1% to over 16%. State and local income taxes are allowed as tax deductions in computing Federal taxable income.

[edit] Deductions for corporations

Corporations are not allowed the personal deductions allowed to individuals, such as deductions for exemptions and the standard deduction. However, most other deductions are allowed. In addition, corporations are allowed certain deductions unique to corporate status. These include a partial deduction for dividends received from other corporations, deductions related to organization costs, and certain other items.

Some deductions of corporations are limited at Federal or state levels. Limitations apply to items due to related parties, including interest and royalty expenses.

HR Laws

Wages & Hours

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) prescribes standards for wages and overtime pay, which affect most private and public employment. The act is administered by the Wage and Hour Division. It requires employers to pay covered employees who are not otherwise exempt at least the federal minimum wage and overtime pay of one-and-one-half-times the regular rate of pay. For nonagricultural operations, it restricts the hours that children under age 16 can work and forbids the employment of children under age 18 in certain jobs deemed too dangerous. For agricultural operations, it prohibits the employment of children under age 16 during school hours and in certain jobs deemed too dangerous.

The Wage and Hour Division also enforces the labor standards provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) that apply to aliens authorized to work in the U.S. under certain nonimmigrant visa programs (H-1B, H-1B1, H-1C, H2A).

Summary of the Clean Air Act

42 U.S.C. §7401 et seq. (1970)

The Clean Air Act (CAA) is the comprehensive federal law that regulates air emissions from stationary and mobile sources. Among other things, this law authorizes EPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect public health and public welfare and to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants.

Summary of the National Environmental Policy Act42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq. (1969)

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was one of the first laws ever written that establishes the broad national framework for protecting our environment. NEPA's basic policy is to assure that all branches of government give proper consideration to the environment prior to undertaking any major federal action that significantly affects the environment.

NEPA requirements are invoked when airports, buildings, military complexes, highways, parkland purchases, and other federal activities are proposed. Environmental Assessments (EAs) and Environmental Impact Statements (EISs), which are assessments of the likelihood of impacts from alternative courses of action, are required from all Federal agencies and are the most visible NEPA requirements.

Summary of the Pollution Prevention Act42 U.S.C. §13101 et seq. (1990)

The Pollution Prevention Act focused industry, government, and public attention on reducing the amount of pollution through cost-effective changes in production, operation, and raw materials use. Opportunities for source reduction are often not realized because of existing regulations, and the industrial resources required for compliance, focus on treatment and disposal.

The first path is to “get it into the product now”. This route is taken if the technology is ready and getting it into a product is just a matter of final development and vehicle integration. In this case, it is targeted for a production date and becomes part of the product plan.

Figure 1. GM R&D’s sense–respond–learn model.

When a technology is not yet mature, it is the responsibility of the R&D Center to develop it to the point where it is ready for integration into a future product—a process that I describe later.

The intent of the innovation process is to ensure that a steady stream of product and technology options is developed on the basis of the company’s sense of where the market is headed. These options are potential responses that GM can use to capitalize quickly on new opportunities. The process is designed to be dynamic, with new information and ideas moving continuously through the system. Each time the company goes through an innovation cycle, we gain knowledge and discover new ways to apply it to subsequent product and technology programs.