NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/10/AR2008121001679.html

Looks like that vote is probably happening today. Out of curiosity, how does NSG feel about tax payer money bailing out American Auto companies?

Silly, but I'm not affected.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/10/AR2008121001679.html

Looks like that vote is probably happening today. Out of curiosity, how does NSG feel about tax payer money bailing out American Auto companies?
I'm no laissez-faire purist, but the notion of actively subsidizing companies involved in the production of fossil-fuel-burning automobiles doesn't sound all that appealing to me. Couldn't they use that money to create jobs elsewhere?

the US has an auto industry?
Detroit needs the money only now?
Detroit?

it won't work of course because all thats going to happen is a few new hummers and POS "affordable" muscles cars will suddenly appear

I think the only reason it's passing is because of union pressure. "Save union jobs" and all that.

Well, the UAW has gotten so many nice things over the years that the companies that employ them are insolvent. Mix that with CEOs and designers who can't design a decent, reliable, efficient car and whose marketing force only wants to peddle SUVs and pickup trucks - and you have a recipe for "going out of business".

I think that bankruptcy would be better.

Toyota and Honda build cars (and the component parts) right here in the US, with non-union labor. I don't see those companies going out of business, or asking for a bailout.

I'm no laissez-faire purist, but the notion of actively subsidizing companies involved in the production of fossil-fuel-burning automobiles doesn't sound all that appealing to me. Couldn't they use that money to create jobs elsewhere?

Yeah, thats my thought too. Id rather the money used to create jobs elsewhere than prop up companies that, frankly, were poorly managed.

I think the only reason it's passing is because of union pressure. "Save union jobs" and all that.

Well, the UAW has gotten so many nice things over the years that the companies that employ them are insolvent. Mix that with CEOs and designers who can't design a decent, reliable, efficient car and whose marketing force only wants to peddle SUVs and pickup trucks - and you have a recipe for "going out of business".

I think that bankruptcy would be better.

Toyota and Honda build cars (and the component parts) right here in the US, with non-union labor. I don't see those companies going out of business, or asking for a bailout.
I wonder if the Japanese work ethic might have something to do with it. o.o

I wonder if the Japanese work ethic might have something to do with it. o.o

I repeat:

There are Honda and Toyota factories in the US.

With US managers.
With US workers (non-union).

They aren't Japanese.

I wonder if the Japanese work ethic might have something to do with it. o.o

Perhaps also the fact that employees dont need to unionize because Japanese companies dont go out of their way to screw the worker as often?

The Japanese government also is very directly involved in the Japanese market and companies.

Perhaps also the fact that employees dont need to unionize because Japanese companies dont go out of their way to screw the worker as often?

The Japanese government also is very directly involved in the Japanese market and companies.

I'm talking about Honda and Toyota factories IN THE UNITED STATES

I'm talking about Honda and Toyota factories IN THE UNITED STATES

No shit, but Im explaining why people working for Japanese companies may not unionize.

Perhaps also the fact that employees dont need to unionize because Japanese companies dont go out of their way to screw the worker as often?
That's kinda what I was trying to tie to the work-ethic thing...

I repeat:

There are Honda and Toyota factories in the US.

With US managers.
With US workers (non-union).

They aren't Japanese.
Ah, I thought they were with Japanese managers; didn't really know what I was talking about anyway, more so just guessing.

Perhaps also the fact that employees dont need to unionize because Japanese companies dont go out of their way to screw the worker as often?

The Japanese government also is very directly involved in the Japanese market and companies.

The people working for Honda and Toyota get paid less.
They get fewer benefits (no pensions, no lifetime medical care like the UAW).
No real job security (if efficiency drives a process change that eliminates workers, you're gone, unlike at a UAW plant)

The UAW was, in ancient times, necessary. Since the 1950s, they haven't been necessary at all, and have only been an extortion mechanism designed to make GM, Ford, and Chrysler incredibly inefficient.

KOL, believe it or not, it could be (might be) that the reason those plants don't unionize has something to do with why a lot of places DO.

Management. As in Honda, Toyota, and Subaru have good managers who actually want to build cars, whereas GM, Ford, and Chrysler have management cultures very akin to Dilbert's Pointy-Haired-Boss.

Well-managed outfits don't have labor problems, and are profitable. Badly run outfits have labor problems, and lose money in spite of all the "cost saving" measures that the suits impose without thinking.

GM, Ford, and Chrysler have some of the worst examples of corporate management you can find outside of Wall Street or Washington D.C.

I think the only reason it's passing is because of union pressure. "Save union jobs" and all that.

Well, the UAW has gotten so many nice things over the years that the companies that employ them are insolvent. Mix that with CEOs and designers who can't design a decent, reliable, efficient car and whose marketing force only wants to peddle SUVs and pickup trucks - and you have a recipe for "going out of business".No, it's pretty much solely the last part. They can't sell cars.

Toyota and Honda build cars (and the component parts) right here in the US, with non-union labor. I don't see those companies going out of business, or asking for a bailout.Or being decent places to work.

If I were a tax paying American I would be pissed my money's going into saving an industry that has been slowly sunken by retarded CEOs and horrible decisions.

No, it's pretty much solely the last part. They can't sell cars.

The UAW has had GM, Ford, and Chrysler paying 50% more wages than Toyota or Honda.

They get lifetime medical benefits, which Toyota and Honda do not.

They get lifetime pensions, which Toyota and Honda do not.

That adds billions in expense to running GM, Ford, and Chrysler.

That's why it would be better to go bankrupt (it would invalidate permanently all of those arrangements) and reorganize.

I am a laissez-faire purist, so I dislike any form of government funding of private business.

I am a laissez-faire purist, so I dislike any form of government funding of private business.

I do understand that, auto building, is one of the industries that moves the US's economy. It's understandable that the government wishes to help it get up on it's feet once again. But... to use tax payers' money for it?

Wouldn't it be better to loan them the money? Or is that that a loan won't do it anymore?

The industry has failed. Don't give a bailout, it'll still collapse somewhere down the line and the money will have been wasted. But also don't just refuse to take any action to mediate the effects on those who will be thrown into unemployment through no fault of their own. Use the money that would have been put in the bailout to offer incentives for other businesses to come into the area and offer free retraining to the workers so those without the skills to do any other work aren't made to suffer. That would be a better way to spend the money and provide better long-term prospects to those who had been working for these companies

Unlike the bank bail out, this looks like its going to be a temporary blip on a downward decline - the companies will fail and the government won't see any of their money again. I don't think they could even sell them off unless the government agrees to take on the health care liabilities.

I do understand that, auto building, is one of the industries that moves the US's economy. It's understandable that the government wishes to help it get up on it's feet once again. But... to use tax payers' money for it?

Wouldn't it be better to loan them the money? Or is that that a loan won't do it anymore?

Its pretty unlikely they will be able to pay back a loan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/10/AR2008121001679.html

Looks like that vote is probably happening today. Out of curiosity, how does NSG feel about tax payer money bailing out American Auto companies?

The same way I feel about taxpayer money bailing out the banks. I say we send them all to Guantanamo and let the "terrorists" out to make room. Tarring and feathering and drawing and quartering are not unreasonable either. (Of the banks and automakers, not the "terrorists." If we haven't brought the latter up on charges yet and have been holding them without a trial, they didn't do anything wrong and it's time to let them go.)

It blows my mind that if anyone so much as suggests that a social safety net is a good idea, the pro-business set goes into apoplectic fits, but when they fail in their businesses because they're greedy and stupid, they go to Congress with their hands out.

I would love to see all the greedy b?!tards fail. The banks' business can be taken up by credit unions; we already have foreign automakers with factories in the U.S. and I'm sure they'd love to do business in Detroit. I would rather we had American-made American-owned automakers here, but not if they're gonna be arrogant prigs.

At minimum that money should have gone into very-low-interest business loans to companies making American-owned alternatives to the big three automakers. There's a lot of innovation out there and we're stifling it by hand-feeding the Big Three.

And I feel bad for Detroit but bad social and economic policy are what got them where they are today, not losing automakers. It's like Latin American countries and the sugar industry--if your whole economy depends on one or two major commodities then expect it to fail sooner or later.

The UAW has had GM, Ford, and Chrysler paying 50% more wages than Toyota or Honda.

They get lifetime medical benefits, which Toyota and Honda do not.

They get lifetime pensions, which Toyota and Honda do not.

That adds billions in expense to running GM, Ford, and Chrysler.

That's why it would be better to go bankrupt (it would invalidate permanently all of those arrangements) and reorganize.All three of those companies are seeing their sales slipping.
It isn't the result of the union negotiations that is is occurring.

All three of those companies are seeing their sales slipping.
It isn't the result of the union negotiations that is is occurring.

They wouldn't be viable even if they were selling cars.

Toyota and Honda don't have those enormous costs.

I should add that the first time the CEOs of the Big Three went before Congress, they flew into Washington in private jets. WTF? "Oh, we're broke. My private jet? Give it up? Don't be silly!" This last time, they drove to D.C. in hybrids. Day late and not nearly enough dollars short.

I think it's funny hearing conservatives condemning the whole idea of a bailout, though. You guys are all OK with that stuff when it's only the employees they're screwing, just don't screw over the almighty taxpayer. Well guess what? The employees are taxpayers too. At least til they're all laid off.

Yeah, we ought to be shipping the conservatives and libertarians out too. Shoot, the authoritarian "liberals" (I don't believe they're real liberals) can go as well. Let the rest of us sort out your mess as best as we're able. Good riddance.

All three of those companies are seeing their sales slipping.
It isn't the result of the union negotiations that is is occurring.

The unions are a major part of the big US carmaker's problems. The added cost from employment benefits mean that they either have to sell cars at higher prices than the Japanese or take a very small margin to compete on price. That's why they were in trouble even when the economy was strong and its also why it will be hard to sell off the companies.

They wouldn't be viable even if they were selling cars.

Toyota and Honda don't have those enormous costs.

And yet both Toyota and Honda are being affected by recession, not only in the US, but also in Japan. The CEOs of both Honda and Toyota have even gone ahead and started cutting in production and laying off employees.

They wouldn't be viable even if they were selling cars.If they were selling enough cars to be profitable, why wouldn't they be viable?

Toyota and Honda don't have those enormous costs.Toyota sells more cars than anyone else. If their sales slipped enough, they'd have the same problems.

All three of those companies are seeing their sales slipping.
It isn't the result of the union negotiations that is is occurring.

When CEOs make a thousand times more than the lowest-paid union worker in a GM plant, don't tell me the company failed because of the union.

Oh... didn't know that, did you? I don't have the exact proportion in front of me but it is a well-known fact these guys are way overcompensated. Sheds a whole new light on it, don't it?

You can't possibly tell me an automaker CEO is a thousand times more important than the guy actually making the cars on the factory floor. Well, you could, but you'd be lying.

I would love to see corporations arranged in more of a cooperative model as far as how people are paid. Each group of employees (and the CEO is an employee) contributes in an equally important way. The pay disparities ought to be a lot less than they are. Then it wouldn't cost so much to stay in business. If you need to be bribed with large amounts of money before you'll get up for work every day then you're in the wrong d?!n business anyhow.

(edit) My bad, the average is about 262 times the average worker's pay. Don't know how that translates to lowest-echelon worker; the term "average" can be misleading.

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_20060621

It's still ridiculous. Making automobiles is not an extractive industry and there's no excuse for this kind of discrepancy. It's worth noting that American businesses fared a LOT better when the discrepancy was a LOT lower.

Toyota sells more cars than anyone else. If their sales slipped enough, they'd have the same problems.

They have.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/1310ap_as_japan_toyota.html

The unions are a major part of the big US carmaker's problems. The added cost from employment benefits mean that they either have to sell cars at higher prices than the Japanese or take a very small margin to compete on price. That's why they were in trouble even when the economy was strong and its also why it will be hard to sell off the companies.They were in trouble because they were churning out hummers even as gas prices rose.

They were in trouble because they were churning out hummers even as gas prices rose.

The product line is also a major problem. It doesn't mean their employment costs aren't a problem.

The product line is also a major problem. It doesn't mean their employment costs aren't a problem.The product line is by far the biggest problem. GM was enormously profitable in the late '90s. Are you suggesting that these supposedly lucrative employment benefits are something new?

From here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors#GM_in_the_new_century

When CEOs make a thousand times more than the lowest-paid union worker in a GM plant, don't tell me the company failed because of the union.

Oh... didn't know that, did you? I don't have the exact proportion in front of me but it is a well-known fact these guys are way overcompensated. Sheds a whole new light on it, don't it?

You can't possibly tell me an automaker CEO is a thousand times more important than the guy actually making the cars on the factory floor. Well, you could, but you'd be lying.

I would love to see corporations arranged in more of a cooperative model as far as how people are paid. Each group of employees (and the CEO is an employee) contributes in an equally important way. The pay disparities ought to be a lot less than they are. Then it wouldn't cost so much to stay in business. If you need to be bribed with large amounts of money before you'll get up for work every day then you're in the wrong d?!n business anyhow.

(edit) My bad, the average is about 262 times the average worker's pay. Don't know how that translates to lowest-echelon worker; the term "average" can be misleading.

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_20060621

It's still ridiculous. Making automobiles is not an extractive industry and there's no excuse for this kind of discrepancy. It's worth noting that American businesses fared a LOT better when the discrepancy was a LOT lower.

You're arguing the symptom as the cause. A profitable company made profitable by being well-managed can compensate those managers according to their results-but th is is not what you get with GM, Ford, Chrysler (or Boeing, for that matter).

The Executive overcompensation problem is a Problem, because those executives are overcompensated in spite of non-performance.

Carl Icahn defined it pretty well Here (http://www.icahnreport.com/), just read the site.

When CEOs make a thousand times more than the lowest-paid union worker in a GM plant, don't tell me the company failed because of the union.

Oh... didn't know that, did you? I don't have the exact proportion in front of me but it is a well-known fact these guys are way overcompensated. Sheds a whole new light on it, don't it?

You can't possibly tell me an automaker CEO is a thousand times more important than the guy actually making the cars on the factory floor. Well, you could, but you'd be lying.

I would love to see corporations arranged in more of a cooperative model as far as how people are paid. Each group of employees (and the CEO is an employee) contributes in an equally important way. The pay disparities ought to be a lot less than they are. Then it wouldn't cost so much to stay in business. If you need to be bribed with large amounts of money before you'll get up for work every day then you're in the wrong d?!n business anyhow.

(edit) My bad, the average is about 262 times the average worker's pay. Don't know how that translates to lowest-echelon worker; the term "average" can be misleading.

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_20060621

It's still ridiculous. Making automobiles is not an extractive industry and there's no excuse for this kind of discrepancy. It's worth noting that American businesses fared a LOT better when the discrepancy was a LOT lower.

The Toyota and Honda CEO's make a shitload of money, and their workers are paid far less than what UAW workers make. Those companies are also going to survive the downturn without a bailout. They employ thousands of Americans in America.

How much does a UAW worker make?

Base wages average about $28 an hour. GM officials say the average reaches $39.68 an hour, including base pay, cost-of-living adjustments, night-shift premiums, overtime, holiday and vacation pay. Health-care, pension and other benefits average another $33.58 an hour, GM says

Almost 70 dollars an hour, all told. That's pretty good, for bolting shit on a car and no education.

Toyota and Honda workers in America make about 20 dollars an hour, and forget the other benefits. They make better cars, with higher quality, and they don't bitch, moan, strike, and demand lifetime benefits after they retire.

The product line is by far the biggest problem. GM was enormously profitable in the late '90s. Are you suggesting that these supposedly lucrative employment benefits are something new?

From here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors#GM_in_the_new_century

Not to mention that the difference in benefit costs to UAW workers is a negligible sap on worker productivity. Toyota workers in the US get paid the same wages (http://www.aftermarketnews.com/Item/28594/uaw_losing_pay_edge_foreign_automakers_bonuses_boost_wages_in_us_plants_as_detroit_car_companies_str uggle.aspx) as UAW workers precisely to keep out the union. They may not get the same extended benefits package, but those costs are trivial compared to the massively inefficient management system in GM.

GM has about 25 levels of management between the CEO and the line worker. Toyota has about 10. GM is a top-heavy organization that has also made some very stupid decisions about what cars to make.

Not to mention that the difference in benefit costs to UAW workers is a negligible sap on worker productivity. Toyota workers in the US get paid the same wages (http://www.aftermarketnews.com/Item/28594/uaw_losing_pay_edge_foreign_automakers_bonuses_boost_wages_in_us_plants_as_detroit_car_companies_str uggle.aspx) as UAW workers precisely to keep out the union. They may not get the same extended benefits package, but those costs are trivial compared to the massively inefficient management system in GM.

GM has about 25 levels of management between the CEO and the line worker. Toyota has about 10. GM is a top-heavy organization that has also made some very stupid decisions about what cars to make.


Not to mention, Toyota doesn't outsource key functions or product lines that GM DOES.

I despise the Big Three for having killed the US car industry years ago. But just at the present moment, I think it would be very bad across a very broad cross section of society to let them fail outright. If we have to prop them up to get through the current acute phase of the economic crisis, then I say do it, even though I hate it. In six months or so, if we've managed to stabilize a bit, then I say cut their worthless asses loose.

I'm gonna take a radical position here: both the UAW and the Big Three Mismanagement suck. Having read up on the travails of the US car industry, I think the UAW sucks more -- they are a monopoly after all -- but the posters who've said that Mismanagement has made a lot of its own problem are right: they have.

I've read that the so-called "car czar" is gonna be able to knock UAW leadership and Mismanagment heads together . That would be a good first step. Replacing both would be a good second one. (With a few exceptions, of course. They're not all lazy, greedy bastards.)

I could add that the crap quality of American (GM, Chrysler, Ford) cars is because the workers don't give a crap. They're standing around waiting to get a paycheck, and that's it.

The product line is by far the biggest problem. GM was enormously profitable in the late '90s. Are you suggesting that these supposedly lucrative employment benefits are something new?

From here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors#GM_in_the_new_century

No, its not new. But it grows quickly when you have to cover retirees as well as new employees and it also means that even though you have similar revenues to your foreign rivals you make a loss while they make a profit.

Not to mention that the difference in benefit costs to UAW workers is a negligible sap on worker productivity. Toyota workers in the US get paid the same wages (http://www.aftermarketnews.com/Item/28594/uaw_losing_pay_edge_foreign_automakers_bonuses_boost_wages_in_us_plants_as_detroit_car_companies_str uggle.aspx) as UAW workers precisely to keep out the union. They may not get the same extended benefits package, but those costs are trivial compared to the massively inefficient management system in GM.

Its not the wages, its the healthcare. I wouldn't call GM's $60 billion health care liability 'trivial'.

I could add that the crap quality of American (GM, Chrysler, Ford) cars is because the workers don't give a crap. They're standing around waiting to get a paycheck, and that's it.

And that has a lot to do with Corporate Culture, Hotwife. If your supervisor doesn't give a shit, and your next-levels up the chain don't give a shit, it's hard to give a shit on the line. Honda and Toyota make Cars, the big three asking for a bailout? they make Careers instead, and it shows.

KOL, believe it or not, it could be (might be) that the reason those plants don't unionize has something to do with why a lot of places DO.

Management. As in Honda, Toyota, and Subaru have good managers who actually want to build cars, whereas GM, Ford, and Chrysler have management cultures very akin to Dilbert's Pointy-Haired-Boss.

Well-managed outfits don't have labor problems, and are profitable. Badly run outfits have labor problems, and lose money in spite of all the "cost saving" measures that the suits impose without thinking.

GM, Ford, and Chrysler have some of the worst examples of corporate management you can find outside of Wall Street or Washington D.C.

Basically, if you fuck over the workers, you will probably get a union.

I maintain that no industry ever got union issues that didn't deserve them. Just like happy citizens don't start revolutions, happy workers don't unionize, as there is no need to do so. If you don't give a shit, chances are, the workers aren't going to be happy, as why should they give a shit if you don't? People will work for a bit less money if they give half a damn about what they're doing. That's more likely if their boss seems to actually have some interest in what the factory being managed is producing.

Example: There was no teachers' union in California before Reagan fucked them over while he was governor.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/10/AR2008121001679.html

Looks like that vote is probably happening today. Out of curiosity, how does NSG feel about tax payer money bailing out American Auto companies?

I am completely opposed to it. While to some extent, I could tolerate having US taxpayer money being used to bailout banks, I cannot at all tolerate US taxpayer money being used to bailout the car industry.

Obama should have the balls to let GM, Ford and Chrysler collapse, and also pin the blame where it belongs - to the UAW who extracted all the healthcare, pension and other benefits from them back in the 1960s. An alternative is that the UAW should have to support all these schemes - that will see unions shut up very quickly.

I wonder if the Japanese work ethic might have something to do with it. o.o

its because the Japanese Automakers build in right to work states.

I feel the US auto industry needs to be broken so it can reform away from Michigan and the unions that run the state.

I could add that the crap quality of American (GM, Chrysler, Ford) cars is because the workers don't give a crap. They're standing around waiting to get a paycheck, and that's it.

They don't give a crap cause their managers don't give a crap. It's hard to care about something if your boss clearly doesn't. Maybe if GM designed some cars that weren't shit, people might care about building them.

its because the Japanese Automakers build in right to work states.

I feel the US auto industry needs to be broken so it can reform away from Michigan and the unions that run the state.

No, actually, they don't all the time. California is not a "right to work" state.

I am completely opposed to it. While to some extent, I could tolerate having US taxpayer money being used to bailout banks, I cannot at all tolerate US taxpayer money being used to bailout the car industry.

Obama should have the balls to let GM, Ford and Chrysler collapse, and also pin the blame where it belongs - to the UAW who extracted all the healthcare, pension and other benefits from them back in the 1960s. An alternative is that the UAW should have to support all these schemes - that will see unions shut up very quickly.

your right an auto worker for the big three averages over 70,000 a year in pay. not bad for a job that doesn't require a high school degree.
of course the jobs are highly sought after that the only way to get a job is normally be the son of a long term auto worker.

All the companies asking the government for bailout have been nothing short of extortion so far.

Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG: Give us money or the world economy blows up.

Chrysler, Ford, General Motors: Give us money or the country's unemployment figures blows up.

All the companies asking the government for bailout have been nothing short of extortion so far.

Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG: Give us money or the world economy blows up.

Chrysler, Ford, General Motors: Give us money or the country's unemployment figures blows up.

I think the executives of all these companies should be fired.

No, its not new. But it grows quickly when you have to cover retirees as well as new employees and it also means that even though you have similar revenues to your foreign rivals you make a loss while they make a profit.But that's the point - why were they doing so well in the late '90s but only making similar revenues now?

Obama should have the balls to let GM, Ford and Chrysler collapse, and also pin the blame where it belongs - to the UAW who extracted all the healthcare, pension and other benefits from them back in the 1960s. Have you been reading the thread?

An alternative is that the UAW should have to support all these schemes - that will see unions shut up very quickly.You mean kind of like this?:

"A new labor contract was ratified by UAW members exactly one week after the tentative agreement was reached, passing by a majority 62% vote. In the contract are several product and employment guarantees stretching well into the next decade. One of GM's key future products, the Chevy Volt, was promised to the GM Poletown/Detroit-Hamtramck plant in 2010. Also included is a VEBA (Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association) which will transfer retiree health care obligations to the UAW by 2010. This eliminates more than 50 billion dollars from GM's healthcare tab. It will be funded by 30 billion in cash and 1.4 billion in GM stock paid to the UAW over the next 4 years of the contract. It also eliminates 70% of the labor cost gap with GM's Japanese rivals."

From here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors#2007_United_Auto_Workers_strike

But that's the point - why were they doing so well in the late '90s but only making similar revenues now?

Have you been reading the thread?

You mean kind of like this?:

"A new labor contract was ratified by UAW members exactly one week after the tentative agreement was reached, passing by a majority 62% vote. In the contract are several product and employment guarantees stretching well into the next decade. One of GM's key future products, the Chevy Volt, was promised to the GM Poletown/Detroit-Hamtramck plant in 2010. Also included is a VEBA (Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association) which will transfer retiree health care obligations to the UAW by 2010. This eliminates more than 50 billion dollars from GM's healthcare tab. It will be funded by 30 billion in cash and 1.4 billion in GM stock paid to the UAW over the next 4 years of the contract. It also eliminates 70% of the labor cost gap with GM's Japanese rivals."

From here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors#2007_United_Auto_Workers_strike

It eliminates 70 percent of the labor cost gap - at a cost to GM of 30 billion in cash, and 1.4 billion in stock.

Hmm, still sounds like GM spending billions. The UAW should have taken over the entire thing themselves, right now, at no cost to GM.

If I was the GM CEO, I would say you have to disband the union and tear up the contracts, or I'll file for bankruptcy before lunchtime.

Once I file for bankruptcy, it would be the end of days for the UAW.

It eliminates 70 percent of the labor cost gap - at a cost to GM of 30 billion in cash, and 1.4 billion in stock.

Hmm, still sounds like GM spending billions.As they should be. The UAW is doing them a favor as it is.

The UAW should have taken over the entire thing themselves, right now, at no cost to GM.Incorrect. If anything, there should have been a greater stock transfer to the union.

If I was the GM CEO, I would say you have to disband the union and tear up the contracts, or I'll file for bankruptcy before lunchtime.

Once I file for bankruptcy, it would be the end of days for the UAW.And for GM.

And for GM.

Even if the CEO and execs are not compensated from here on out, they lose nothing if they declare bankruptcy.

The union, on the other hand, loses.

GM is just a piece of paper. The execs should destroy the union.

It would be easy - just declare Chapter 11, reorg, invalidate all union agreements, and restart the company after firing 8 out of 10 people. Smaller, and with people desperate for employment.

You won't have any union after that.

Even if the CEO and execs are not compensated from here on out, they lose nothing if they declare bankruptcy.

The union, on the other hand, loses.

GM is just a piece of paper. The execs should destroy the union.

It would be easy - just declare Chapter 11, reorg, invalidate all union agreements, and restart the company after firing 8 out of 10 people. Smaller, and with people desperate for employment.

You won't have any union after that.
You sure seem to have a lot of hatred for labor unions.

You sure seem to have a lot of hatred for labor unions.

I used to to trade shows (I develop software).

In some states, the electrician's union is a pile of steaming annoying shit.

Setting up the booth, I was about to plug our computers into a power strip set into the floor of our location just for that purpose.

I was told by a union rep that "you can't plug anything into anything without an electrician". This included plugging my cell phone charger into a power strip.

"Hiring" an electrician cost 25 dollars "per" plug-in - half of which went to the union.

I made a point of not going to those states for conventions anymore. I didn't lose any business, and I didn't have to deal with extortionists anymore.

But that's the point - why were they doing so well in the late '90s but only making similar revenues now?

Because their sales fell. The problem is that with their current health expenses they have to massively out sell foreign competitors, as they did in the 90s. You can't sell similar cars to Toyota and Honda and expect to significantly outsell them.

My friend's family has a business. They work hard, usually putting in extra hours to make sure their company is competitive. Taxes are a burden. I believe it is downright evil to take away money from honest and competent companies like them and giving it to big companies that already have the advantages of being huge. As for the unemployment blowing up, the taxes required to pay for the Big Three will make up for any savings in the unemployment rate. Ford may not need it, so maybe I can see an insurance, but the others should sink like a rock.

Even if the CEO and execs are not compensated from here on out, they lose nothing if they declare bankruptcy.

The union, on the other hand, loses.

GM is just a piece of paper. The execs should destroy the union.

It would be easy - just declare Chapter 11, reorg, invalidate all union agreements, and restart the company after firing 8 out of 10 people. Smaller, and with people desperate for employment.

You won't have any union after that.That's the point, though, that they wouldn't be able to reorganize. People will have simply shifted their business to other car companies.

Because their sales fell. The problem is that with their current health expenses they have to massively out sell foreign competitors, as they did in the 90s. You can't sell similar cars to Toyota and Honda and expect to significantly outsell them.You can't churn out gas-guzzlers as gas prices rise and expect to sell them either.

You can't churn out gas-guzzlers as gas prices rise and expect to sell them either.

No, but you might expect to sell as many cars as your competitors and still make a profit like them.

Before I clicked on this thread, I thought it would be a topic about an extensive and complex computer system that immediately detects when a bank is going to go bust, and will automatically bails them out. That would have been an interesting topic.

I used to live near Detroit. I can remember when the auto companies were not doing so well last time. Detroit looked like something out of the Movie the Road Warrior. I think we have to because it is not just 3 companies it is also all those companies that supply the big 3. It is the ripple effect. I don't think we have a choice. 8 Mile would become 80 Mile.

Not just Detroit check this out.

http://www.gm.com/corporate/responsibility/environment/plants/index.jsp

Click on the USA in the map a see how many states have a GM plant. That is a lot of states to be upset. You would never get elected or re-elected.

If we just let them go under it would be the beginning of the Depression of 2008, no doubt in my mind.

That's the point, though, that they wouldn't be able to reorganize. People will have simply shifted their business to other car companies.

Even in that case, the CEO and execs win. The union and its members are truly fucked.

Even in that case, the CEO and execs win. The union and its members are truly fucked.They win by killing the company?
That's a strange definition of 'win'.

You know, all of those that say "Let them go bankrupt"; do you guys realize that some 3 million jobs will be lost if the big three were to go out of business? Not only the auto makers themselves are affected, but all those companies that provide parts to build the cars are affected too. No more cars = no more demand for new parts = no more jobs. It will hugely affect the economy in America, not to mention overseas as well.

Everything from electronic parts, to engine parts, to paint, to tires; every part of that car is produced somewhere. Without a demand for that part on a specific vehicle, there's no demand period.

If anything, the UAW has to be abolished. They're the main reason the automakers are in the way they are now. Ridiculous salaries for putting a screw in a door, along with full benefits and pensions, that's a lot of freaking money. GM has the right idea though, they're cutting wages for all new employees with limited benefits. Sure the unions were helpful back in the day for worker's rights, but now they're just leeches.

No, but you might expect to sell as many cars as your competitors and still make a profit like them.Why would they expect to sell as many cars under such a situation?

If anything, the UAW has to be abolished. They're the main reason the automakers are in the way they are now.Simply repeating this fallacy doesn't make it any less untrue, you know.

Sure the unions were helpful back in the day for worker's rights, but now they're just leeches.And they still are helpful for workers' rights, among other things.

Sounds similar to when the UK had British Leyland - in the end despite the job losses you need to stop throwing good money after bad.

I don't think that production was ever the problem. You need to sell them. Nobody is buying because they are too worried where they are going to live or work.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/10/AR2008121001679.html

Looks like that vote is probably happening today. Out of curiosity, how does NSG feel about tax payer money bailing out American Auto companies?

It absolutely sickens me. I have the opportunity every day to invest in these car companies if I want. I choose not to because they are poorly run, the union work costs are too high, and the probable return on my investment capital is lower than in other investments.
Now, the federal government wants to FORCE me to invest in them......and every other taxpayer. It's not right.
There are already bankruptcy and restructuring laws on the books to help these failed business endeavors, Chapter 7, chapter 9 and chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. That's where they should turn.

Simply repeating this fallacy doesn't make it any less untrue, you know.


I haven't read much after the OP. How is it a fallacy? The bottom line is, a lot of assembly line workers are making much more money in salaries, and having better benefits than many college graduates. Let me remind you, you just need to graduate high school to join a union.

What's wrong with that picture?

And they still are helpful for workers' rights, among other things.

How? There's more labor laws, and stricter ones at that. What other things are unions helpful for?

Why would they expect to sell as many cars under such a situation?

Er... because they do sell as many cars as their profitable competitors?

From the business side I think one thing they could do is Bring back the Lease. If you go to GM today and ask for a Lease the salesperson will tell you that they do not do that anymore?

Can anyone explain that to me?

Er... because they do sell as many cars as their profitable competitors?

Good point here. In 2007, GM and Toyota both sold 9.37 million cars worldwide. GM lost $17 billion and Toyota made $11.5 billion.

I haven't read much after the OP. How is it a fallacy? The bottom line is, a lot of assembly line workers are making much more money in salaries, and having better benefits than many college graduates. Let me remind you, you just need to graduate high school to join a union.

What's wrong with that picture?
What's wrong with blue collar work? Is there something shameful about working in a factory? They deserve to get paid less because they are manual labor and not white collar office types?

It never ceases to amaze me the double standard that people apply to companies and unions. A corporation's entire raison d'etre is to make as much money as possible for it's shareholders. This is never questioned.

But, when workers dare unionize to bargain a better deal from the corporation, they're the bad guys. They're trying to make as much money as possible for their members, and ensure good workplace standards. Such behaviour is no different that the corporation. Yet only the union will ever get chastised for it.

I suppose the workers are supposed to shut up, bend over, and take it up the ass from management for the rest of eternity. Adam Smith had some pretty strong words to describe this: "All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind."

Corporations will abuse their workers. They will do anything to increase profits unless some outside force stops them. Unions will always be a necessity under capitalism.

From the business side I think one thing they could do is Bring back the Lease. If you go to GM today and ask for a Lease the salesperson will tell you that they do not do that anymore?

Can anyone explain that to me?

Glad to explain it!
It was a loser for the car companies. Let me give you an example:

You get a lease for 5 years, then turn the car in. The problem was that there was not enough money paid into the lease for the auto maker to offer a cheap price on the pre-leased car. These cars went, for the most part, unpurchased. People wouldn't buy the car for the price that the auto companies had to charge to recoup their costs. It was a nice thought, but economically.....a real travesty, realized much too late!

Hope this helps!

Er... because they do sell as many cars as their profitable competitors?For now. If their sales continue to slide in relation to their competitors, they won't.
Not to mention the huge slide that's already happened.

I don't think that production was ever the problem. You need to sell them. Nobody is buying because they are too worried where they are going to live or work.GM's problems aren't solely the result of the credit crunch, though that was the straw that broke the camel's back. The problem was that too much of their production was in larger cars that weren't selling.

I haven't read much after the OP. How is it a fallacy?See above.

The bottom line is, a lot of assembly line workers are making much more money in salaries, and having better benefits than many college graduates. Let me remind you, you just need to graduate high school to join a union.

What's wrong with that picture?And the workers were making a lot of money in the late '90s, when GM was doing well. Was GM doing well because of the unions?

How? There's more labor laws, and stricter ones at that. What other things are unions helpful for?Securing wages, health benefits, and other benefits, such as job security.
Dealing with safety issues that labor laws don't cover.
Providing a way to deal with grievances.
Placing a check on bosses who would ask workers to do illegal things.
Etc.

What's wrong with blue collar work? Is there something shameful about working in a factory? They deserve to get paid less because they are manual labor and not white collar office types?

There's nothing wrong with it. The UAW is taking advantage of the auto companies though. You seriously support giving someone at least a 40k a year salary, full medical benefits, and a retirement pension for screwing a screw into a door panel?

Sounds like a great business plan to me:rolleyes:

GM's problems aren't solely the result of the credit crunch, though that was the straw that broke the camel's back. The problem was that too much of their production was in larger cars that weren't selling.

See above.

And the workers were making a lot of money in the late '90s, when GM was doing well. Was GM doing well because of the unions?

Securing wages, health benefits, and other benefits, such as job security.
Dealing with safety issues that labor laws don't cover.
Providing a way to deal with grievances.
Placing a check on bosses who would ask workers to do illegal things.
Etc.

Yeah, GM was selling cars.

But now how many people have retired in the past 10 years? How many people are collecting their pensions, and using the health care that GM is still providing because of union contracts? How much has health care increased in the past 10 years? Add that in with the loss of sales, and you have a shit storm. The union contracts are eating GM alive right now. If GM didn't have to pay up because of the contracts, they would be able to weather the slowing sales much, much better.

For now. If their sales continue to slide in relation to their competitors, they won't.

And now back to the point - if you sell as many cars as your competitors you might expect to make a profit like them as well, no? The fact that the big 3 have seen car sales fall has nothing to do with the fact that they sell as many cars as their rivals but make a loss. It has everything to do with their fixed costs, like health care benefits.

Here's a raw figure that will sum it up. A typical line worker at Toyota, with wages, unemployment compensation, benefits, retirement pensions, FICA contributions (the whole package) earns $48/hour.
At General Motors, that same worker earns $74/hour. Do they earn it? Hell yes! They work damn hard for it.
However, there is no way GM will be able to make the type of cars that Toyota does at the same profit margin....just can't be done.
With the EPA standards the FEDS are trying to hand down on GM, the small, crappy cars will be what GM has to produce to get the money........we see they can't do it at a profit! We have proven that! Yet, that's what the federal government is trying to impose; to get you, the taxpayer, into another plan that is doomed to fail, even before it starts.

Yeah, GM was selling cars.

But now how many people have retired in the past 10 years? How many people are collecting their pensions, and using the health care that GM is still providing because of union contracts? How much has health care increased in the past 10 years? Add that in with the loss of sales, and you have a shit storm. The union contracts are eating GM alive right now. If GM didn't have to pay up because of the contracts, they would be able to weather the slowing sales much, much better.I don't know. How many people have retired since then?

And now back to the point - if you sell as many cars as your competitors you might expect to make a profit like them as well, no? The fact that the big 3 have seen car sales fall has nothing to do with the fact that they sell as many cars as their rivals but make a loss. It has everything to do with their fixed costs, like health care benefits.I wouldn't expect to make a profit if alongside my car sales I was churning out a bunch of additional cars that weren't selling.

Here's a raw figure that will sum it up. A typical line worker at Toyota, with wages, unemployment compensation, benefits, retirement pensions, FICA contributions (the whole package) earns $48/hour.
At General Motors, that same worker earns $74/hour. Do they earn it? Hell yes! They work damn hard for it.
However, there is no way GM will be able to make the type of cars that Toyota does at the same profit margin....just can't be done.
With the EPA standards the FEDS are trying to hand down on GM, the small, crappy cars will be what GM has to produce to get the money........we see they can't do it at a profit! We have proven that! Yet, that's what the federal government is trying to impose; to get you, the taxpayer, into another plan that is doomed to fail, even before it starts.
Not exactly.
If they keep up the same business model, then no, they won't be able to sell the same number of cars.
However, if they continue to innovate their cars as often or even more so than Toyota, then they might have a chance.

Or, alternatively, if they hadn't killed their electric car program... Or was that the union's fault, too?

I don't know. How many people have retired since then?

I wouldn't expect to make a profit if alongside my car sales I was churning out a bunch of additional cars that weren't selling.


Not exactly.
If they keep up the same business model, then no, they won't be able to sell the same number of cars.
However, if they continue to innovate their cars as often or even more so than Toyota, then they might have a chance.

Or, alternatively, if they hadn't killed their electric car program... Or was that the union's fault, too?

Glad you brought that up! The electric car wasn't killed by GM, and GM does make compact cars already today. They sell as many as Toyota. They just can't sell them profitably. When you sell an item for less than it costs you to produce it, your company loses money......hate to take you back to ECON 101, but it's that simple.
Is that the fault of a union? Partly, but labor costs alone are only part of the ugly equation?

Let them file for federal bankruptcy protection, restructure their "business model" and go from there.

I wouldn't expect to make a profit if alongside my car sales I was churning out a bunch of additional cars that weren't selling.

The foreign car makers also have big piles of unsold cars in American ports. This isn't unique to the American car makers. What I want to know is, why do you consider the $1200 extra that American carmakers spend on healthcare costs per car compared to rivals to not matter?

But, when workers dare unionize to bargain a better deal from the corporation, they're the bad guys. They're trying to make as much money as possible for their members, and ensure good workplace standards. Such behaviour is no different that the corporation. Yet only the union will ever get chastised for it.

The problem in this case is that the unions were greedy and demanded too much even though it was clear as far back as the early 1980's (the last time automakers were bailed out...good to see they've learned) that the situation was unsustainable and would lead to perpetual financial problems. The sheer amount of legacy costs built in to each vehicle eats away at their profit margins and forces them to rely on higher-margin SUVs and trucks, both of which are not going to be the cash farms they were in years past both due to increased competition and the utter necessity of higher fuel economy standards in the years to come.

I would personally prefer the money in question go towards guaranteeing pensions and benefits for the workers and allow the companies to go under. The sheer arrogance and poor decisionmaking of the Big Three is staggering and deserves to be punished; the fundamental difference between the financial industry and them is that the banks failed because they were too successful and overleveraged themselves for massive profit whereas the Big Three are failing because they make poor quality automobiles, show absolutely no concern or respect for their customers and have consistently opposed the very measures and production decisions that would have enabled them to compete domestically and globally.

The banks failed due to irrational exuberance while the automakers failed due to exuberant irrationality.

I don't know. How many people have retired since then?

Good sidestep.

I wouldn't expect to make a profit if alongside my car sales I was churning out a bunch of additional cars that weren't selling.


Not exactly.
If they keep up the same business model, then no, they won't be able to sell the same number of cars.
However, if they continue to innovate their cars as often or even more so than Toyota, then they might have a chance.

Or, alternatively, if they hadn't killed their electric car program... Or was that the union's fault, too?

What are you talking about? The Chevy Volt is set to come out in 2010. It's a fully electric vehicle. GM is finally stepping up the innovation, and they're making great progress on fit and finish and reliability.

It's too little too late though. Along with the bad reputation (which obviously doesn't help sell cars), the UAW is bleeding them.

The main purpose of the bailout is to get GM through 2009, to 2010, the time when these new innovative vehicles are being released. In the meantime though, GM doesn't have enough funds to make it that far (because of UAW contracts mostly).

Is this making sense yet?

Glad you brought that up! The electric car wasn't killed by GM, and GM does make compact cars already today. They sell as many as Toyota. They just can't sell them profitably. When you sell an item for less than it costs you to produce it, your company loses money......hate to take you back to ECON 101, but it's that simple.
Is that the fault of a union? Partly, but labor costs alone are only part of the ugly equation.

They may produce as many cars as Toyota, but that hides some very ugly truths behind it that show consumer preference for GM vehicles has collapsed over the years.

To put it in perspective, their market share has plummeted from 60% back in the 1960's to only 46% in 1980 and from there has declined to under 24% by 2007. That works out to a loss of market share of more than 1% per year since 1980, and yet the company has done nothing about it. The only things enabling them to even keep production constant have been the SUV boom of the 1990's and the ongoing rise in global vehicle demand, producing the "rising tide" effect that lifts all automakers due to sheer demand.

The problem in this case is that the unions were greedy and demanded too much even though it was clear as far back as the early 1980's (the last time automakers were bailed out...good to see they've learned) that the situation was unsustainable and would lead to perpetual financial problems. The sheer amount of legacy costs built in to each vehicle eats away at their profit margins and forces them to rely on higher-margin SUVs and trucks, both of which are not going to be the cash farms they were in years past both due to increased competition and the utter necessity of higher fuel economy standards in the years to come.

I would personally prefer the money in question go towards guaranteeing pensions and benefits for the workers and allow the companies to go under. The sheer arrogance and poor decisionmaking of the Big Three is staggering and deserves to be punished; the fundamental difference between the financial industry and them is that the banks failed because they were too successful and overleveraged themselves for massive profit whereas the Big Three are failing because they make poor quality automobiles, show absolutely no concern or respect for their customers and have consistently opposed the very measures and production decisions that would have enabled them to compete domestically and globally.

The banks failed due to irrational exuberance while the automakers failed due to exuberant irrationality.

See I agree with all of this, but even if the money went to taking care of the employees instead of the employers, it would seriously hurt the economy for many years to come. How long would that money be able to take care of all these employees while they look for a job, assuming they could even find a job now? Ultimately you wouldn't be punishing the company, you'd be punishing the employees along with a big part of the economy.

The main purpose of the bailout is to get GM through 2009, to 2010, the time when these new innovative vehicles are being released. In the meantime though, GM doesn't have enough funds to make it that far (because of UAW contracts mostly).

Is this making sense yet?

The problem is, the Chevy Volt won't save them. It's a single model of car that will cost $33,000 (after tax credits) and will be released during what will likely be recessionary conditions that have already ripped a gigantic hole in automobile sales as is. The goal is to produce 10,000 in the first year and then ramp up to 60,000. Even if the entire $33,000 were pure profit, that would only generate an additional $1,980,000,000 per year of cash...not even enough to last them another quarter at their current rate.

They're going to need to release an entire line of profitable vehicles and sell huge numbers of them to save themselves. They'd likely need hundreds of billions of dollars to even have a chance of surviving.

Glad you brought that up! The electric car wasn't killed by GM,The idea of the electric car itself wasn't, no.
GM's EV1 electric car program was eliminated by GM. If GM didn't eliminate the program, who did?

and GM does make compact cars already today. They sell as many as Toyota.According to this source, (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122669956277929471.html?mod=yahoo_hs&ru=yahoo) they don't.

They just can't sell them profitably. When you sell an item for less than it costs you to produce it, your company loses money......hate to take you back to ECON 101, but it's that simple.
Is that the fault of a union? Partly, but labor costs alone are only part of the ugly equation?

Let them file for federal bankruptcy protection, restructure their "business model" and go from there.It might be that they are losing money. They are, after all, selling their cars for 3,000 or more less than comparable Hondas and Toyotas.

This is because "Detroit's marketers and product designers [need to] develop small cars that consumers value as highly as they do a Honda Civic."

Is it the union's fault that customers don't like GM cars as much?

The foreign car makers also have big piles of unsold cars in American ports. This isn't unique to the American car makers. What I want to know is, why do you consider the $1200 extra that American carmakers spend on healthcare costs per car compared to rivals to not matter?The last quote of the article I link to above says it best:

"If the Detroit Three lower their labor costs, and retool to build more compact and subcompact cars, but still have to get by on $3,000 to $4,000 per car less than Honda takes in for each Civic, they will face a painful struggle to survive."

Good sidestep.It's not a sidestep.
Your argument. You source it.

What are you talking about? The Chevy Volt is set to come out in 2010. It's a fully electric vehicle. GM is finally stepping up the innovation, and they're making great progress on fit and finish and reliability. I'm talking about the EV1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1), the electric car GM had in the late 1990s.

See I agree with all of this, but even if the money went to taking care of the employees instead of the employers, it would seriously hurt the economy for many years to come. How long would that money be able to take care of all these employees while they look for a job, assuming they could even find a job now? Ultimately you wouldn't be punishing the company, you'd be punishing the employees along with a big part of the economy.

The company will go under no matter what we do; they would need years, maybe even decades of intensive aid and subsidization to restructure and emerge as profitable entities again, and I can guarantee you that other automakers around the world aren't going to sit still and allow them to intrude on their market share. The end result would be a trade war that would simply produce the same result while costing us hundreds of billions of dollars. The very fact that an incompetent moron like Rick Wagoner could remain in his position despite the total evisceration of the company during his tenure says a lot about how screwed the company actually is; he has literally done nothing but contract the business and halt innovation in to new sectors, finally realizing it might have been a good idea to produce hybrids and electric vehicles ten years after they should have been gearing up for production.

The kind of restructuring measures and business reorganization they'll need are simply too late. These problems needed to be fixed in the 1980's but they did nothing but sit on their asses and churn out SUVs that were ultimately self-limiting as a business segment. By now, they've deteriorated so far that no amount of money could possibly save them.

There's nothing wrong with it. The UAW is taking advantage of the auto companies though. You seriously support giving someone at least a 40k a year salary, full medical benefits, and a retirement pension for screwing a screw into a door panel?

Sounds like a great business plan to me:rolleyes:

Someone has to do it. Why shouldn't they get a living wage? 40K a year is pretty damn low, at least here. You seem to be implying that people who do physical work for a living don't deserve to make decent money.

Someone has to do it. Why shouldn't they get a living wage? 40K a year is pretty damn low, at least here. You seem to be implying that people who do physical work for a living don't deserve to make decent money.

The average compensation after benefits is somewhere around $90-$100K. Compared to other people making $40K, a lot more of that money is disposable income because so many of their other expenses are already covered so it's hardly a low wage at all. In fact, it's very high.

However, the fact is that people don't "deserve" to make anything. Their wages should be determined first and foremost by the market; originally, the unions acted as a way to create an equal position for workers to negotiate with their employers, but by now the UAW has become so greedy that it is willing to drive these companies in to the ground and cost their members hundreds of thousands of jobs rather than make needed concessions on their bloated and unrealistic benefits packages.

Unions also resisted the kinds of changes necessary for competition, barring innovations in productivity and new designs that might reduce the number of workers needed. The end result was that GM continued to churn out the same dated shit they had been making for years with new innovation only getting through by luck or through sheer necessity. They are as responsible as GM's management for this situation.

Perhaps also the fact that employees dont need to unionize because Japanese companies dont go out of their way to screw the worker as often?
It depends on what you mean by "screw the worker (http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f37/gm-vs-toyota-tale-two-auto-plants-31822/)"?

In Arlington, GM pays union-scale wages of $26.50 to $30.50 an hour to its 2,800 hourly workers there. On average, GM pays $81.18 an hour in wages and benefits to U.S. hourly workers, including pension and retiree medical costs. At that rate, labor costs per vehicle at Arlington are about $1,800, based on the Harbour Consulting estimate of labor hours per vehicle.

In San Antonio, Toyota will use non-union labor and will start its 1,600 hourly workers at $15.50 to $20.33 per hour, which will grow after three years to $21 to $25. Harbour Consulting President Ron Harbour estimates Toyota's total hourly U.S. labor costs, with benefits, at about $35 an hour -- less than half of GM's rates. The brand-new plant won't have any direct retiree costs for many years. So if the San Antonio factory does no better than match the Arlington plant in productivity, it could still enjoy a labor cost advantage of about $1,000 per vehicle, a substantial sum in industry terms. That's money Toyota could translate into extra standard features -- such as stability control -- that could make its trucks more appealing.
Toyota can afford to "screw the worker" less then GM because they screwed them before they came in the door?

The article is good in detailing all the other advantages that NEW car plants have over existing ones, especially regarding logistics.

The article is good in detailing all the other advantages that NEW car plants have over existing ones, especially regarding logistics.

The irony being, of course, that while GM is shipping its jobs and suppliers to China the Japanese automakers are investing in the United States and creating good jobs at all levels of education and technical expertise. I mean, where is GM's scholarship funding for a new generation of automotive engineers? The only people I see funding the majority of them are Honda and Toyota, and GM is flat out invisible on our campus.

The irony being, of course, that while GM is shipping its jobs and suppliers to China the Japanese automakers are investing in the United States and creating good jobs at all levels of education and technical expertise. I mean, where is GM's scholarship funding for a new generation of automotive engineers? The only people I see funding the majority of them are Honda and Toyota, and GM is flat out invisible on our campus.
If you read the article, you can readily see why newer auto companies in the US have the extra cash to sponsor outreach programs.

Perhaps also the fact that employees dont need to unionize because Japanese companies dont go out of their way to screw the worker as often?
However, the idea to "unionize" Japanese car companies in the US is out there:

In Kentucky, Toyota Faces Union Rumblings (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/25/AR2007052502458_2.html?hpid=moreheadlines)

It is all about dollars and sense.

I don't know how I feel about this. A sudden collapse of the Big Three would be very bad around here. But we've been watching their "slow, 'ORRIBLE death!" for so long, bailing them out seems a little like keeping Terri Schiavo on the machine.

Unions also resisted the kinds of changes necessary for competition, barring innovations in productivity and new designs that might reduce the number of workers needed. The end result was that GM continued to churn out the same dated shit they had been making for years with new innovation only getting through by luck or through sheer necessity.Do you have specific examples of this?

I don't know how I feel about this. A sudden collapse of the Big Three would be very bad around here. But we've been watching their "slow, 'ORRIBLE death!" for so long, bailing them out seems a little like keeping Terri Schiavo on the machine.

Ford I think might survive. GM is doomed, though.

It never ceases to amaze me the double standard that people apply to companies and unions. A corporation's entire raison d'etre is to make as much money as possible for it's shareholders. This is never questioned.

But, when workers dare unionize to bargain a better deal from the corporation, they're the bad guys. They're trying to make as much money as possible for their members, and ensure good workplace standards. Such behaviour is no different that the corporation. Yet only the union will ever get chastised for it.

I suppose the workers are supposed to shut up, bend over, and take it up the ass from management for the rest of eternity. Adam Smith had some pretty strong words to describe this: "All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind."

Corporations will abuse their workers. They will do anything to increase profits unless some outside force stops them. Unions will always be a necessity under capitalism.
Unions or at least the threat of unions. Absolutely bang on!!

Perhaps also the fact that employees dont need to unionize because Japanese companies dont go out of their way to screw the worker as often?


LOL/ please go work in Japan then say that.
I can honestly say I would rather take a US Walmart screwing up the ass to a screwing the Japanese tend to give to an Expat English teacher.


and I cant even imagine what factory workers conditions are like. I know 47 dollar a day minimum wage and 10-12 hour days are common. along with a higher cost of living.


and while the Japanese government has some say in business its more accurate to say business has stake in government. the LDP has with one very short exception held power in japan for over 50 years and is a right of center (think republican party).
It would basically be like if Dewey defeated Truman and the republicans held power in the Us ever sense.

I used to live near Detroit. I can remember when the auto companies were not doing so well last time. Detroit looked like something out of the Movie the Road Warrior. I think we have to because it is not just 3 companies it is also all those companies that supply the big 3. It is the ripple effect. I don't think we have a choice. 8 Mile would become 80 Mile.
^^This. The Big Three don't really deserve to survive because of abysmally bad management, but right now, we need them just to stave off another massive blow to the economy. When other aspects of the national economy stabilize a bit, as they inevitably will, I would want any support for the Big Three cut off, and if they fail, they fail. But, please not this winter. The ripple effect will be just too bad. To me, it's kind of like, when you're on a sinking ship, you don't stop bailing and pumping until you manage to limp back to port. Then you get off the boat and let it sink. But you don't let it sink while you're still on it in the middle of the ocean.

It never ceases to amaze me the double standard that people apply to companies and unions. A corporation's entire raison d'etre is to make as much money as possible for it's shareholders. This is never questioned.

But, when workers dare unionize to bargain a better deal from the corporation, they're the bad guys. They're trying to make as much money as possible for their members, and ensure good workplace standards. Such behaviour is no different that the corporation. Yet only the union will ever get chastised for it.

I suppose the workers are supposed to shut up, bend over, and take it up the ass from management for the rest of eternity. Adam Smith had some pretty strong words to describe this: "All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind."

Corporations will abuse their workers. They will do anything to increase profits unless some outside force stops them. Unions will always be a necessity under capitalism.
^^ And this. Especially the bolded part. I am getting pretty fed up with this blaming of the underlings for everything. First it was the private homebuyers who were to blame for the financial melt down. Now it's the union to blame for the auto industry. It's never the bosses or executives in the expensive suits, taking credit for all the decisions and pocketing the huge bonuses until their shit hits the fan, though, is it?

snip

I agree with Mur.

maybe if they didn't make shitty cars with low gas mileage, they wouldn't be in this situation
If this happens, every company is going to ask for bailout money
With the wasted money, we could have a decent healthcare system

http://i38.tinypic.com/n3n3t3.jpg





Wait, what am I doing here? Who are all you people?

snippage

Lol, yes. Maybe if Detroit had spent all that money on designing better cars instead of lobbyists, they wouldn't have to beg for our tax dollars.

well for one thing, its small chainge, to people who are actually doing something, even if its not exactly the right thing, compared to the monsterous amounts that are being throwen to the absolute con artists of financial services, with few strings attatched, on the pretense, and in the hope, that they will again be more willing to extend the same easy credit that is very near to the root of the whole problem they created in the first place.

so really, this, i think isn't anywhere near as big of a deal, except, that it really was a golden opportunity, and i haven't heard whether and to what extent its being done, to perhapse suggest to the american auto industry, something about the kind of product they need to be making.

of course this bailout totally defeats the supposedly redeaming quality, what there is of it, of how capitolism is supposed to work. that making crap people don't want, that doing that needs to be allowed to fail.

yes there are a lot of jobs involved, but the thing is about that, that we've somehow got to chainge about that, is that most of what most people are currently employed by and doing, is, and i mean most of it, directly contrary to the intrests of humanity and life on this earth.

So, between the shitty car designs, the shitty cars themselves, the shitty unions, and the shitty executives who ran GM, Ford, and Chrysler into the ground, it seems that most of us agree that the bailout would be pointless, and a waste of time and money.

If that's the case, and so many here are those who favor the Democrats in the US, why is the Democratic Party so big on trying to save these shitty companies, while the most hard line Republicans want to let the companies fail?

So, between the shitty car designs, the shitty cars themselves, the shitty unions, and the shitty executives who ran GM, Ford, and Chrysler into the ground, it seems that most of us agree that the bailout would be pointless, and a waste of time and money.

If that's the case, and so many here are those who favor the Democrats in the US, why is the Democratic Party so big on trying to save these shitty companies, while the most hard line Republicans want to let the companies fail?

Because the auto industry is so tied up with the rest of the economy that if they let the auto industry collapse, a big chunk of the rest of the economy will also collapse. This would be bad in the current economic situation.

Because the auto industry is so tied up with the rest of the economy that if they let the auto industry collapse, a big chunk of the rest of the economy will also collapse. This would be bad in the current economic situation.

I see no guarantee that bailing these companies out will do anything at all to make them viable.

They have no chance of restoring enough market share in a short period of time (say a few years) to make them viable on their own.

In other words, they are a black hole into which money will only disappear forever.

I see no guarantee that bailing these companies out will do anything at all to make them viable.

They have no chance of restoring enough market share in a short period of time (say a few years) to make them viable on their own.

In other words, they are a black hole into which money will only disappear forever.

You are assuming that the government doesn't know that. The bailout might not be intended to keep them from failing ever, it may be intended to keep them from failing right now, as that would be very very bad.

You are assuming that the government doesn't know that. The bailout might not be intended to keep them from failing ever, it may be intended to keep them from failing right now, as that would be very very bad.

If it would be "that bad" now, it would be "that bad" at any time.

Even if the economy were great, people who build cars who are suddenly out of work aren't going to find more jobs building cars.

You are assuming that the government doesn't know that. The bailout might not be intended to keep them from failing ever, it may be intended to keep them from failing right now, as that would be very very bad.

So the auto industry bailout is just some sort of New Deal-esque plan to keep jobs around while we weather this recession?

If it would be "that bad" now, it would be "that bad" at any time.

Even if the economy were great, people who build cars who are suddenly out of work aren't going to find more jobs building cars.

You don't seem to get this. On top of the mess we already have, it will be much much worse.

Wait a minute. Why the hell am I arguing with Kimchi?

*sigh* Never mind.

So the auto industry bailout is just some sort of New Deal-esque plan to keep jobs around while we weather this recession?

Perhaps.

Perhaps.

So what happens in 15-30 years when the auto industry is insolvent again? Bail them out again? Let them collapse and drag half the country into another recession?

So what happens in 15-30 years when the auto industry is insolvent again? Bail them out again? Let them collapse and drag half the country into another recession?

Better than dragging three quarters or seven eighths of the country into one, as letting them collapse now would.

Better than dragging three quarters or seven eighths of the country into one, as letting them collapse now would.

Let them file for federal bankruptcy protection, like every other failed company.

Better than dragging three quarters or seven eighths of the country into one, as letting them collapse now would.

Eight eighths of the country is in a recession now already, so the question is whether you believe letting the auto companies fail, and as a consequence driving the country deeper into recession, would be better or worse than letting the auto companies fail in 25 years and drag us into a second recession not long after we'd recovered from the first.

Eight eighths of the country is in a recession now already, so the question is whether you believe letting the auto companies fail, and as a consequence driving the country deeper into recession, would be better or worse than letting the auto companies fail in 25 years and drag us into a second recession not long after we'd recovered from the first.

Not actually true, for example Buffalo isn't in a recession, we continually deal with shitty growth, but that hasn't really changed. Buffalo is like the antithesis of the US, when the country was booming we did poorly, and now that theres a "recession" we're doing the same as before :p

Anyway, the car companies will probably fail again a lot sooner than 25 years, unless we put hundreds of billions that don't have to be repaid within the next ten years, they will go bankrupt. However, this would mean that some jobs will stay on, and not all 3 million or whatever figure is usually cited jobs will be lost. I think we should all view this as a productive destruction, retooling is a necessary part of a down economy.

So what happens in 15-30 years when the auto industry is insolvent again? Bail them out again? Let them collapse and drag half the country into another recession?

yeah pretty much. slight variable depending on who is in office.
democrats will do it 90% of the time due ot need for Union votes.
Republicans will only do it 75% of the time due to need for auto maker campaign donations. (before fiance reform they were at 90% too)

Auto executives = ignorant and greedy.

UAW/unions = overreaching and greedy.

US auto companies need re-invention, and one of them needs to go. I nominate Chrysler.

Auto executives = ignorant and greedy.

UAW/unions = overreaching and greedy.

US auto companies need re-invention, and one of them needs to go. I nominate Chrysler.

Why Chrysler, might I ask?

I would choose GM. Their leadership is the most retarded. And they made hummers.

Why Chrysler, might I ask?

I would choose GM. Their leadership is the most retarded. And they made hummers.

Yeah, I agree with GM. I mean, Id pick Ford, but they arent in as much money trouble. So of the two that are suffering the most, I guess GM.

Yeah, I agree with GM. I mean, Id pick Ford, but they arent in as much money trouble. So of the two that are suffering the most, I guess GM.

Also I'm less pissed at Ford. Maybe a little irritated that they discontinued the T-bird. But our car is nice.

As far as I can see, GM isn't making anything good right now, except for maybe the Pontiac Solstice.

Why is Chrysler suffering as bad as GM? They actually have designs that at least aren't hideous.

Also I'm less pissed at Ford. Maybe a little irritated that they discontinued the T-bird. But our car is nice.

As far as I can see, GM isn't making anything good right now, except for maybe the Pontiac Solstice.

Why is Chrysler suffering as bad as GM? They actually have designs that at least aren't hideous.

Chrysler made the goddamn PT Cruiser. What a horrible little car.

Chrysler also has been bailed out once.

There is no Strike Three.

Can't you just keep them long enough to not destroy the economy and then let them all die?

Can't you just keep them long enough to not destroy the economy and then let them all die?

I see no proof that:

a) it would destroy the economy
b) that keeping them afloat would prevent any more destruction of the economy
c) that keeping them afloat would result in any viablility of any of the companies involved

Can't you just keep them long enough to not destroy the economy and then let them all die?

That's what I'm saying/hoping, well my first post anyway. Then it got derailed into unions. With some 3 million people out of work all over the country, we'd be fucked.

That's what I'm saying/hoping, well my first post anyway. Then it got derailed into unions. With some 3 million people out of work all over the country, we'd be fucked.

Source for the 3 million?

Also, I don't see how paying these people their wages can be much more expensive than just putting them on welfare which would be much less money. Besides, if congress is smart it'll do a road construction project as most our roads are due to be rebuilt and have passed their design life. Its something that needs to be done anyway, and will employ quite a few people.

Source for the 3 million?

Also, I don't see how paying these people their wages can be much more expensive than just putting them on welfare which would be much less money. Besides, if congress is smart it'll do a road construction project as most our roads are due to be rebuilt and have passed their design life. Its something that needs to be done anyway, and will employ quite a few people.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081210/ap_on_bi_ge/autos_whacking_the_taxpayers

The Center for Automotive Research, a non-profit organization in Ann Arbor, Mich., estimates that if Ford Motor Co., General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC completely stopped making cars next year but returned to 50 percent production levels in 2010 and 2011, it would still wipe out nearly 2.5 million jobs next year.

In the article it states 530k jobs have been lost in November alone, there's your 3 million.

Sure, you can institute other government run jobs like you suggest, but how long would it take for that infrastructure to get created and get all those people in those jobs? I don't think the money would last long enough...

So what happens in 15-30 years when the auto industry is insolvent again? Bail them out again? Let them collapse and drag half the country into another recession?
Well, the mad optimistic dream is that, this time, we won't just sit on our brains doing the same old same old until it all comes round to do again. This time, we are hoping that, after propping up the Big Three to postpone the loss of about 3 million jobs right now, we will use whatever grace period that buys us to (a) establish some kind of means of absorbing the massive waves of job losses and job shifts that are sure to continue well into 2009 and (b) support the growth of a new area of or model for manufacturing in the US so that we won't need the Big Three anymore.

Then when they come round hat in hand again, we can just not return their calls because there will be other good jobs for their former employees.

Can't you just keep them long enough to not destroy the economy and then let them all die?
That's what I'd like to see happen.

Well, the mad optimistic dream is that, this time, we won't just sit on our brains doing the same old same old until it all comes round to do again. This time, we are hoping that, after propping up the Big Three to postpone the loss of about 3 million jobs right now, we will use whatever grace period that buys us to (a) establish some kind of means of absorbing the massive waves of job losses and job shifts that are sure to continue well into 2009 and (b) support the growth of a new area of or model for manufacturing in the US so that we won't need the Big Three anymore.

Then when they come round hat in hand again, we can just not return their calls because there will be other good jobs for their former employees.


That's what I'd like to see happen.

Fat chance on suddenly growing 3 million "better" jobs that will easily take someone who worked 14 years on the GM line - all in a couple of years.

Fat chance.

Chrysler made the goddamn PT Cruiser. What a horrible little car.

My sister has one. She rather likes it.

This taken right from their website. That is a lot of people to add to the already staggering unemployment numbers. I just read in the elevator the highest in 26 years.

General Motors Corp., the world's largest vehicle manufacturer, employs about 284,000 people globally, more than half of them in the United States. Founded in 1908, GM has been the global automotive sales leader since 1931. GM today has manufacturing operations in 33 countries and its vehicles are sold in 200 countries. GM's headquarters are at the GM Renaissance Center in Detroit.

In 2006, 9.1 million GM cars and trucks were sold globally under the following brands: Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC, GM Daewoo, Holden, HUMMER, Opel, Pontiac, Saab, Saturn and Vauxhall. Genuine GM Parts and accessories are sold under the GM, GM Performance Parts, GM Goodwrench and ACDelco brands through GM Service and Parts Operations, which supplies GM dealerships and distributors worldwide. GM engines and transmissions are marketed through GM Powertrain. GM’s OnStar subsidiary is the industry leader in vehicle safety, security and information services.

This taken right from their website. That is a lot of people to add to the already staggering unemployment numbers. I just read in the elevator the highest in 26 years.

General Motors Corp., the world's largest vehicle manufacturer, employs about 284,000 people globally, more than half of them in the United States. Founded in 1908, GM has been the global automotive sales leader since 1931. GM today has manufacturing operations in 33 countries and its vehicles are sold in 200 countries. GM's headquarters are at the GM Renaissance Center in Detroit.

In 2006, 9.1 million GM cars and trucks were sold globally under the following brands: Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC, GM Daewoo, Holden, HUMMER, Opel, Pontiac, Saab, Saturn and Vauxhall. Genuine GM Parts and accessories are sold under the GM, GM Performance Parts, GM Goodwrench and ACDelco brands through GM Service and Parts Operations, which supplies GM dealerships and distributors worldwide. GM engines and transmissions are marketed through GM Powertrain. GM’s OnStar subsidiary is the industry leader in vehicle safety, security and information services.

So that's half of 284,000 that are actual US workers.

Why don't we ask the other countries to pay into a bailout? Hm?

Fat chance on suddenly growing 3 million "better" jobs that will easily take someone who worked 14 years on the GM line - all in a couple of years.

Fat chance.
Fat chance also of you making a sound argument. Kindly show me where I said new jobs had to be "better." Kindly show me where I said "in a couple of years." Kindly show me where anything you have said in this thread at all has the slightest bearing on reality, rather than just the view of the world up your ideological ass.

Actually you can take that last one as rhetorical.

Fat chance also of you making a sound argument. Kindly show me where I said new jobs had to be "better." Kindly show me where I said "in a couple of years." Kindly show me where anything you have said in this thread at all has the slightest bearing on reality, rather than just the view of the world up your ideological ass.

Actually you can take that last one as rhetorical.

So you're proposing keeping these companies afloat indefinitely?

Come on, then, give us a fixed time frame. And the jobs have to be better, or why would someone change jobs?

Once they fail there will be no getting them back. We will have no choice will have to buy Hondas and Toyotas.

I don't think we have choice. We should support our own. I have no desire to see soup kitchens.

There was a study done in the US for every one point unemployment rise you get a 2.5% increase in crime.

Think of the domino effect, those people go on unemployment draining an already taxed resource. Failing that welfare. Housing market will collapse even further if you can imagine that. Loans will fail causing banks to be in trouble again....

And here we go for round 2.

That's like 10% of the workforce or something

For example how long will it take for GM Canada just as an example to fail after GM US fails. It is not just the USA 200 other countries will feel the pinch.

That's like 10% of the workforce or something

half of 284,000 is what?

142,000 jobs in the US from GM.

The other 142,000 are in other countries.

GM Canada would go under instantly.

Exactly my point most of this hemisphere (assuming that is what is called if you divide it down the middle from top to bottom) will be screwed. Mexico, Latin America, South America etc.

Then there are those industries that rely auto workers for their production. Steel, electronics, XM Satellite, On Star. The list goes on and on.

Exactly my point most of this hemisphere (assuming that is what is called if you divide it down the middle from top to bottom) will be screwed. Mexico, Latin America, South America etc.

Then there are those industries that rely auto workers for their production. Steel, electronics, XM Satellite, On Star. The list goes on and on.

The US is no longer a major steel manufacturer. That largely disappeared in the 1970s.

Show me where in the Constitution it says that Mexico, Latin America, and South America are the responsibility of our government.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081210/ap_on_bi_ge/autos_whacking_the_taxpayers



In the article it states 530k jobs have been lost in November alone, there's your 3 million.

nonprofit=/=non-biased they got almost 3 million form car companies from in kind donations plus another 1.5 mil from state which is probably Michigan, both have vested interests in overstating the losses.

EDIT: 4.5 million is almost half of their funding...
source is http://www.cargroup.org/documents/CopyofCARFundingSources4.pdf

Sure, you can institute other government run jobs like you suggest, but how long would it take for that infrastructure to get created and get all those people in those jobs? I don't think the money would last long enough...

well it can take years to finish road work so it would last long enough, I don't know about the number of jobs, but I would suspect its well into the millions, if you factor everything in like your source does (i.e. well over half of lost jobs are incidental, not related to sourcing of parts/supplies or building cars)

nonprofit=/=non-biased they got almost 3 million form car companies from iin kind donations plus another 1.5 mil from state which is probably Michigan, both have vested interests in overstating the losses.

well it can take years to finish road work so it would last long enough, I don't know about the number of jobs, but I would suspect its well into the millions, if you factor everything in like your source does (i.e. well over half of lost jobs are incidental, not related to sourcing of parts/supplies or building cars)

There are also plenty of people who can already do road work.

Taking some fat people off of an assembly line, putting a hard hat and a reflective vest on them doesn't make them road construction experts.

There are also plenty of people who can already do road work.

Taking some fat people off of an assembly line, putting a hard hat and a reflective vest on them doesn't make them road construction experts.

Yes, but other people might get jobs, it doesn't matter who they are. I'm less concerned with one person having a job in particular as with general trends. Theres no way billions of dollars in roadwork can be done by the existing road-workforce, which means mroe hirings, even if its not the fat asses working at GM.

The US is no longer a major steel manufacturer. That largely disappeared in the 1970s.

Show me where in the Constitution it says that Mexico, Latin America, and South America are the responsibility of our government.

No, I understand that and maybe we should consider money from other countries. Getting them to fork it over is another story. It would put the world not just the US in a recession and very likely a Depression.

Those other countries do buy our good and services. We are a global community whether we like it or not.

Show me where in the Constitution it says that Mexico, Latin America, and South America are the responsibility of our government.

Bravo! Exactly.

Wait... I'm agreeing with Kimchi?:eek:

So you're proposing keeping these companies afloat indefinitely?

Come on, then, give us a fixed time frame. And the jobs have to be better, or why would someone change jobs?

I specifically said, hold onto them until the national economy stabilizes somewhat and then cut them loose. That does not include a specific "date for withdrawal" nor does it imply support forever. I refuse to play "monkey in the middle" with your false dichotomy. I said what I said.

No, I understand that and maybe we should consider money from other countries. Getting them to fork it over is another story. It would put the world not just the US in a recession and very likely a Depression.

Those other countries do buy our good and services. We are a global community whether we like it or not.

I think that manufacturing workers in the US have to face facts.

If you work in manufacturing, you're competing against people all over the world.

That means that if someone in China can do what you do for 10 dollars a day, don't expect to be paid more than that, and have your company exist for long.

Either that, or work for a high tech company that uses a lot of robots (and comparatively few workers), like the Japanese or European model.

In either case, if you were the dumbass in the back of the class in high school who thought free education was a joke, and it wasn't worth spending the effort, you're fucked. In the first case, you'll be working for slave wages - in the other case, the jobs will go to those who are the smartest and most motivated.

I don't believe the government, specifically the taxpayers, should pay for anyone's stupidity - not that of the CEOs and not that of workers who thought they could slide by being ignorant.

Source for the 3 million?

Also, I don't see how paying these people their wages can be much more expensive than just putting them on welfare which would be much less money. Besides, if congress is smart it'll do a road construction project as most our roads are due to be rebuilt and have passed their design life. Its something that needs to be done anyway, and will employ quite a few people.

its the much less money part. it shrinks the economy because now these auto workers buy less causing a chain reaction of job loss. welfare is really just enough to pay for groceries while you default on your home loan.

its the much less money part. it shrinks the economy because now these auto workers buy less causing a chain reaction of job loss. welfare is really just enough to pay for groceries while you default on your home loan.

I'm well aware of the ripple effect, which is why I proposed the additional action at the end of my post, to mitigate those factors. It jsut doesn't make sense to me to encourage inefficient business when we could spend our money on valuable things and get the same economic benefit as wasting it on a failed business.

It wasn't that is was the American Dream. Work hard, pay your taxes, go to church and everything will work out fine. 20 years goes by and now I have to retrain I am 40 something years old I have several kids about to enter college.

Me personally I went into computers. Mostly cuz I am lazy. Personally screwing lugnuts on a wheel is not for me but someone has to do it. Besides GM workers buy lots of computer stuff.

You know, leaving aside the dumbassery of posters like Kimchi, who like to make airy pronouncements of how other people are too stupid to deserve to make a living and criticize others for not giving him dates certain to do XYZ by while he himself offers no suggestions whatsoever of what to do with all the people the loss of the Big Three will eventually put out of work, I really fail to see why some people seem unable to grasp the acute nature of the current crisis.

The house is on fire right now, people. We need to deal with this. Not with long term solutions for the future, but with short term emergency measures for right now. Acute phases of crises do not last for very long. Even if the downward trend does not stop soon, various parts of the US economy and government services will stabilize within the downward trend in order to respond to it more positively. But not if we keep taking massive hit after massive hit. That is the whole point behind my concept of why we should prop up the Big Three right now. Not to save the companies. That would be pointless in a number of ways. But rather, just to slow down the rate of collapse we are in right now. Is it really that hard a concept to grasp?

You know, leaving aside the dumbassery of posters like Kimchi, who like to make airy pronouncements of how other people are too stupid to deserve to make a living and criticize others for not giving him dates certain to do XYZ by while he himself offers no suggestions whatsoever of what to do with all the people the loss of the Big Three will eventually put out of work, I really fail to see why some people seem unable to grasp the acute nature of the current crisis.

The house is on fire right now, people. We need to deal with this. Not with long term solutions for the future, but with short term emergency measures for right now. Acute phases of crises do not last for very long. Even if the downward trend does not stop soon, various parts of the US economy and government services will stabilize within the downward trend in order to respond to it more positively. But not if we keep taking massive hit after massive hit. That is the whole point behind my concept of why we should prop up the Big Three right now. Not to save the companies. That would be pointless in a number of ways. But rather, just to slow down the rate of collapse we are in right now. Is it really that hard a concept to grasp?


Well said! I must say and I hear one more Adam Smith quote I going to puke.

You know, leaving aside the dumbassery of posters like Kimchi, who like to make airy pronouncements of how other people are too stupid to deserve to make a living and criticize others for not giving him dates certain to do XYZ by while he himself offers no suggestions whatsoever of what to do with all the people the loss of the Big Three will eventually put out of work, I really fail to see why some people seem unable to grasp the acute nature of the current crisis.

The house is on fire right now, people. We need to deal with this. Not with long term solutions for the future, but with short term emergency measures for right now. Acute phases of crises do not last for very long. Even if the downward trend does not stop soon, various parts of the US economy and government services will stabilize within the downward trend in order to respond to it more positively. But not if we keep taking massive hit after massive hit. That is the whole point behind my concept of why we should prop up the Big Three right now. Not to save the companies. That would be pointless in a number of ways. But rather, just to slow down the rate of collapse we are in right now. Is it really that hard a concept to grasp?

You didn't give any bright ideas about how to make the new jobs you were thinking of. I took it to mean that you would create them out of thin air.

It's not the government's job to create jobs.

Sometimes it's necessary to let nature take its course, and let certain companies collapse and vanish.

They'll be replaced by others, and it doesn't take the government to create them.

You didn't give any bright ideas about how to make the new jobs you were thinking of. I took it to mean that you would create them out of thin air.

It's not the government's job to create jobs.

Sometimes it's necessary to let nature take its course, and let certain companies collapse and vanish.

They'll be replaced by others, and it doesn't take the government to create them.

But Kimchi, economy is not decided or saved by letting nature and evolution take its course. And the government must ensure that, at least, its citizens have some sort of financial security. That's why it is it's job to create an economy stable enough to produce jobs.

You know, leaving aside the dumbassery of posters like Kimchi, who like to make airy pronouncements of how other people are too stupid to deserve to make a living and criticize others for not giving him dates certain to do XYZ by while he himself offers no suggestions whatsoever of what to do with all the people the loss of the Big Three will eventually put out of work, I really fail to see why some people seem unable to grasp the acute nature of the current crisis.

The house is on fire right now, people. We need to deal with this. Not with long term solutions for the future, but with short term emergency measures for right now. Acute phases of crises do not last for very long. Even if the downward trend does not stop soon, various parts of the US economy and government services will stabilize within the downward trend in order to respond to it more positively. But not if we keep taking massive hit after massive hit. That is the whole point behind my concept of why we should prop up the Big Three right now. Not to save the companies. That would be pointless in a number of ways. But rather, just to slow down the rate of collapse we are in right now. Is it really that hard a concept to grasp?

Yeah, it seems as if it's really hard to grasp.

It'll be a different story when these people who don't support it are dumpster diving though.

But Kimchi, economy is not decided or saved by letting nature and evolution take its course. And the government must ensure that, at least, its citizens have some sort of financial security. That's why it is it's job to create an economy stable enough to produce jobs.

We're in this mess in the first place because the government fucked with the economy.

Banks were forced into giving out bad loans through the Community Reinvestment Act, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the government acting along the same lines.

The government encouraged this - along with encouraging the repackaging of these loans as securities - and encouraged their rating as AAA bonds.

What part of "the government just fucked us, please give it to us in the ass again" do you not understand?

We're in this mess in the first place because the government fucked with the economy.

Banks were forced into giving out bad loans through the Community Reinvestment Act, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the government acting along the same lines.

The government encouraged this - along with encouraging the repackaging of these loans as securities - and encouraged their rating as AAA bonds.

What part of "the government just fucked us, please give it to us in the ass again" do you not understand?

Eight years of Bush, deal. But do read and analyze what Muravyets posted.

http://blog.russnelson.com/images/bigthree.jpg

You didn't give any bright ideas about how to make the new jobs you were thinking of. I took it to mean that you would create them out of thin air.

It's not the government's job to create jobs.

Sometimes it's necessary to let nature take its course, and let certain companies collapse and vanish.

They'll be replaced by others, and it doesn't take the government to create them.
1) I don't have to. That's Obama's job. Oh, and by the way, he's already done that, with the public infrastructure repair/development and new technology industry support parts of his economic plan. Guess you missed those press conferences, eh? Short term (within his first term), he is talking about generating up to 2 million (approx.) new jobs, and long term, potentially significantly more.

2) Yes, it is, actually, as Nanatsu said. It is the job of the government to maintain a stable economy, and that means making sure that companies have the means to allow them to hire people, and in emergencies it can mean generating jobs to fill up a shortfall in the private sector.

3) The "let nature take it's course" approach may or may not be fine when economic trends overall are stable or rising, but in conditions such as we have now, it is unrealistic to the point of irresponsibility.

1) I don't have to. That's Obama's job. Oh, and by the way, he's already done that, with the public infrastructure repair/development and new technology industry support parts of his economic plan. Guess you missed those press conferences, eh? Short term (within his first term), he is talking about generating up to 2 million (approx.) new jobs, and long term, potentially significantly more.


Yes, you do. It's your argument, so you have to make it. Waving your hands and saying, "Obama will magically do it!" doesn't fly.

Yes, you do. It's your argument, so you have to make it. Waving your hands and saying, "Obama will magically do it!" doesn't fly.
Don't bother arguing with centralists, not over the internet anyways.

1) I don't have to. That's Obama's job. Oh, and by the way, he's already done that, with the public infrastructure repair/development and new technology industry support parts of his economic plan. Guess you missed those press conferences, eh? Short term (within his first term), he is talking about generating up to 2 million (approx.) new jobs, and long term, potentially significantly more.

2) Yes, it is, actually, as Nanatsu said. It is the job of the government to maintain a stable economy, and that means making sure that companies have the means to allow them to hire people, and in emergencies it can mean generating jobs to fill up a shortfall in the private sector.

3) The "let nature take it's course" approach may or may not be fine when economic trends overall are stable or rising, but in conditions such as we have now, it is unrealistic to the point of irresponsibility.

1) good to hear

2)debatable

3)This is actually the best time to let nature take it's course, let the chaff fall from the wheat I say. The government already does tons to help out as it is, I don't know that its absolutely necessary to take this particular course of action.

3)This is actually the best time to let nature take it's course, let the chaff fall from the wheat I say. The government already does tons to help out as it is, I don't know that its absolutely necessary to take this particular course of action.
Are you seriously suggesting that corrupt politicians and special interest groups not get abnormal dividends while the common man slaves?!?

Are you mad my good fellow?

Are you seriously suggesting that corrupt politicians and special interest groups not get abnormal dividends while the common man slaves?!?

Are you mad my good fellow?

Keep in mind that in healthier economic times, the Big Three ought to be buried. Problem is, that like the Wall Street Bailout this is essentially keeping a Dead Man's Switch squeezed.

If even one of the Big Three were to file for bankruptcy, the economic shockwave would hit at the worst time imaginable. The cascade will start from the manufacturing plants with layed off workers, then spread out to the dealerships as confidence in vehicles from a bankrupt company falters or even completely collapses. Then you have the whole variety of related service sectors that will reel from the loss of the existing market- third market parts makers, restaurants and other such parts of a local economy. Not to mention the run it'll cause on the stock exchange. And then even while that big economic mushroom cloud is spreading, the reduced income will result in even less spending from affected people, which of course is not what you need during a recession.

The biggest reason to bail the Big Three out isn't because they deserve a second (or in Chrysler's case, third) chance. It's because like Fanny, Freddy and AIG they're holding the nation's economy hostage with a Dead Man's Switch.

Keep in mind that in healthier economic times, the Big Three ought to be buried. Problem is, that like the Wall Street Bailout this is essentially keeping a Dead Man's Switch squeezed.
No they need to be taken out back and left to fare like everyone else. Just like the government should do. Dead Man's Switch is a lie. Yes, people will go through hard times, but you can't keep people down, and, in a true democracy/republic, the ones that deserve it will enjoy good lives.

I'm of two minds here. While the Government has to step in to shore up the economy with this loan (and yes, it's a loan) what about other areas that are struggling before this economic downturn.

like Healthcare. Some states are acually in a shortage of Health Care professionals.

Law Enforcement? many areas have corrupt or not enough law enforcement officers and most are underbudgetted.

airlines are dropping out left and right, do they get the same help?

and lets not forget the struggling farmers!

should the Governemnt set up some sort of bank? passing out loans to assist business in trouble? first the banks and wall street, now the auto industry?

I agree that something needs to be done and done fast. and this loan seems the best and fastest so far.

so appoint the Car Czar and get the economy back on track.

and I propose a 50% pay cut to the CEO's until the loan is paid back.

I'm of two minds here. While the Government has to step in to shore up the economy with this loan (and yes, it's a loan) what about other areas that are struggling before this economic downturn.

like Healthcare. Some states are acually in a shortage of Health Care professionals.

Law Enforcement? many areas have corrupt or not enough law enforcement officers and most are underbudgetted.

airlines are dropping out left and right, do they get the same help?

and lets not forget the struggling farmers!

should the Governemnt set up some sort of bank? passing out loans to assist business in trouble? first the banks and wall street, now the auto industry?

I agree that something needs to be done and done fast. and this loan seems the best and fastest so far.

so appoint the Car Czar and get the economy back on track.

and I propose a 50% pay cut to the CEO's until the loan is paid back.
I propose we do none of this and have all of congress taken out and shot, as well as every governor. If that doesn't set an example we'll just successively go down shooting more public officials/corrupt businessmen until it does.

No they need to be taken out back and left to fare like everyone else. Just like the government should do. Dead Man's Switch is a lie. Yes, people will go through hard times, but you can't keep people down, and, in a true democracy/republic, the ones that deserve it will enjoy good lives.

Well said and those who were at fault!


The airlines lease of all should complain they have been bailed out countless times. I can't even recall how many times. Farmers are subsidized. Every day one step closer to Socialism.

We are part of the problem. Banks for making bad loans. The public for taking on debt they could never repay. The government for loosening regulations or not having any. Gas price for forcing people to buy smaller car or keep their existing. The banks layoff causing recession. The stock market tanks several times. Add to that a huge insurance company.

I like our car companies and would prefer that they stay in business under american ownership, but I simply could not stomach giving them taxpayer money for that end. Taxes should at this point either be used to pay down the national debt, reduce new debts, or be returned to the people. I wasn't really big on the banks bailout either, though that was more necessary because they were holding a Sword of Damocles over the nation's head: namely, the threat to cause bank runs.

I should qualify this by saying I drive an import because it was cheap and gets almost 40 mpg. Maybe that makes me less qualified to post about the big three.

The government for loosening regulations or not having any.

Nie. It was the government telling these companies that, essentially, they were allowed to finance bad loans without the fear of repurcussions or outright bankruptcy that allowed businesses to run themselves into the ground.

If it weren't for such stringent oversight of the economy, i.e. a $700+ billion bailout, then businesses would be more accountable for their actions.

Eugh.

I like our car companies and would prefer that they stay in business under american ownership, but I simply could not stomach giving them taxpayer money for that end. Taxes should at this point either be used to pay down the national debt, reduce new debts, or be returned to the people. I wasn't really big on the banks bailout either, though that was more necessary because they were holding a Sword of Damocles over the nation's head: namely, the threat to cause bank runs.

I should qualify this by saying I drive an import because it was cheap and gets almost 40 mpg. Maybe that makes me less qualified to post about the big three.
Everyone is equally qualified, I should say, I'm not even American (USA) and I still fight the good fight.

I agree with your statement except that taxes should not be used to pay the "debt". No actual nation has a debt, only the corrupt ruling classes do, and they're the ones who should pay that debt, first and foremost, to the stolen taxpayers.

You can't have all the major banks fail outright. That would cause chaos. We be looting each other by the end of the week. That would be outright savage. Just by acting when they did the create two huge monopolies as it is but hopefully we will deal with that latter.

I think that giving US auto makers a bailout is extremely counterproductive. Because, as HotWife has said many times, these companies need to be allowed to fail. That is the principle of a capilaist society. If you are inneficient and cannot compete, ie. GM sells the same number of cars as either Honda/Toyota but takes a loss while they make a profit, you should be allowed to fail.
That being said, the U.S. is in a very bad recession, and allowing 3 enourmous companies to fail simultaneously will be very bad for the economy.
and from what i've picked up from the news i've read/watched, the general concensus is that allowing the companies to fail, [B]at this point in time[B], will lead to a depression.
Now i dont know about anyone else, but i think that the $50 billion cost of bailing out the Big Three in the short term, and then allowing them to fail when the economy has stabalized, is a small price to pay to avoid a depression.
A depression, commen sense tells me would cost the U.S. taxpayers waaaay more than the $50 billion we pay now to avoid it.

Oh btw, One of the MAJOR functions of the Federal Reserve (Set up by congress,technically they don't have to answer to the gov't but more or less do), quoted from www.federalreserve.gov is "conducting the nation’s monetary policy by inf luencing the monetary and credit conditions in the economy in pursuit of maximum employment,
stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates

We're in this mess in the first place because the government fucked with the economy.

Banks were forced into giving out bad loans through the Community Reinvestment Act, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the government acting along the same lines.

The government encouraged this - along with encouraging the repackaging of these loans as securities - and encouraged their rating as AAA bonds.

What part of "the government just fucked us, please give it to us in the ass again" do you not understand?

Only 1/8 of the bad loans were under teh Community Reinvestment Act, and many of the loans under CRA are subsidised anyway. The financial giants are to blame, not the federal government.

Yes, you do. It's your argument, so you have to make it. Waving your hands and saying, "Obama will magically do it!" doesn't fly.

A) You have no idea what my argument is because you are clearly paying no real attention to it.

B) I did, by reference to Obama's plan to which I refer you once again. His plan is my plan, as in I endorse his plan. As his plan has already been outlined fully in public, I do not need to, nor do I intend to, write it out again just for you.

By the way several of them did fail in a sense and were gobbled up by other companies. The bailout mostly loosened up the credit market. Otherwise they would really have any money loan out.

Only 1/8 of the bad loans were under teh Community Reinvestment Act, and many of the loans under CRA are subsidised anyway. The financial giants are to blame, not the federal government.

Sssh. Dont provide DK with facts. It messes with his arguement.

W8, is HotWife a dude?

I agree Muravyets

If it wasn't for these banks being broke I would be suspicious.

Merrill join Bank of America
Wachovia gets snapped up by Wells Fargo
Washington Mutual get absorbed by JPMorgan Chase
Goldman Sachs' newest acquisition Popular Financial Holdings
Bear Sterns now part of J.P Morgan Chase
Fannie and Freddy get taken over by the government

Lehman Bros went under


And then there were 2 ... Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs


Oh and don't forget AIG either. I think the USA should get a huge amount of stock in all these companies and spread it out over the next 30 plus years.

The market knows best!

No - the government knows best!

No - the market knows best!

No - the government knows best!

etc. etc. I'm glad we never tire of this....

The amount the USA would be screwed by global truly laissez-faire capitalism would probably shut up a lot of people, were it to happen. That would separate the patriots from the capitalists! :rolleyes:

Oh and on the subject of cars, well duh, they want the votes so they'll bail them out. That's as ideological, and ultimately democratic, as it gets. So which is more important... Democracy or a free market?

The market knows best!

No - the government knows best!

No - the market knows best!

No - the government knows best!

etc. etc. I'm glad we never tire of this....

The amount the USA would be screwed by global truly laissez-faire capitalism would probably shut up a lot of people, were it to happen. That would separate the patriots from the capitalists! :rolleyes:

Oh and on the subject of cars, well duh, they want the votes so they'll bail them out. That's as ideological, and ultimately democratic, as it gets. So which is more important... Democracy or a free market?

I would just add this. Not my words either...


The Financial crisis of 2007-2008 cast doubt on the free market consensus. In March, free market guru Martin Wolf, chief economics commentator at the Financial Times, announced the death of the dream of global free-market capitalism, and quoted Josef Ackermann, chief executive of Deutsche Bank, as saying "I no longer believe in the market's self-healing power."[31] Shortly afterward influential Economist Robert Shiller began advocating robust government intervention to tackle the financial crises, specifically citing Keynes


How's that for a reversal?

It never ceases to amaze me the double standard that people apply to companies and unions. A corporation's entire raison d'etre is to make as much money as possible for it's shareholders. This is never questioned.

But, when workers dare unionize to bargain a better deal from the corporation, they're the bad guys. They're trying to make as much money as possible for their members, and ensure good workplace standards. Such behaviour is no different that the corporation. Yet only the union will ever get chastised for it.

I suppose the workers are supposed to shut up, bend over, and take it up the ass from management for the rest of eternity. Adam Smith had some pretty strong words to describe this: "All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind."

Corporations will abuse their workers. They will do anything to increase profits unless some outside force stops them. Unions will always be a necessity under capitalism.

I don't see it as a double standard. I despise unions because their actions have an unnecessary impact on others, they interrupt our lives. How fair is it that people are forced to take a day off work (and thus lose income) because the bus drivers union decided to go on strike because they wanted a 4% pay increase instead of a 3% one. How fair is it that student's education is toyed around with because the teachers union decided to go on strike because they wanted a 4% pay increase instead of a 3% one.

In this particular case, the unions went overboard. They strong armed too many concessions from the big 3 back in the 1960s, and now the big 3 are going to rack and ruin. Unions are even more unreasonable in my view than employers because, unlike employers who are constrained by market conditions, there is nothing stopping unions from going overboard.

I don't see it as a double standard. I despise unions because their actions have an unnecessary impact on others, they interrupt our lives. How fair is it that people are forced to take a day off work (and thus lose income) because the bus drivers union decided to go on strike because they wanted a 4% pay increase instead of a 3% one. How fair is it that student's education is toyed around with because the teachers union decided to go on strike because they wanted a 4% pay increase instead of a 3% one.

Wow, you apperantly no jack shit about unions and what a strike does to the strikers. No one strikes over a 1% difference in pay increase. Unions are usualy very reluctant to strike.

But I know in the world you live in, the good and pure corperations are always being picked on by the big, bad, mean union boogeymen.

Wow, you apperantly no jack shit about unions and what a strike does to the strikers. No one strikes over a 1% difference in pay increase. Unions are usualy very reluctant to strike.

But I know in the world you live in, the good and pure corperations are always being picked on by the big, bad, mean union boogeymen.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10460669

It's pretty close. I think this might be why NZ is becoming more right-wing, as a reaction.

I think Unions are just as capable of being greedy as corporations. That doesn't mean one is better than the other though.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10460669

It's pretty close. I think this might be why NZ is becoming more right-wing, as a reaction.

I think Unions are just as capable of being greedy as corporations. That doesn't mean one is better than the other though.

Aye, forgot the poster was in New Zealand. My point about his delusions still stands, however.

Plus, it looks like theyre striking over a bit more than a 1% difference in pay raises.

Hey, if people are interested in the UAW, check out this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html?bl&ex=1229144400&en=402e6793db93da56&ei=5087%0A).

Add the two together, and you get the true hourly compensation of Detroit’s unionized work force: roughly $55 an hour.
The more relevant comparison, though, is probably to Honda’s or Toyota’s (nonunionized) workers.They make in the neighborhood of $45 an hour, and most of the gap stems from their less generous benefits.
The third category is the cost of benefits for retirees. These are essentially fixed costs that have no relation to how many vehicles the companies make. But they are a real cost, so the companies add them into the mix — dividing those costs by the total hours of the current work force, to get a figure of $15 or so — and end up at roughly $70 an hour.
So here’s a little experiment. Imagine that a Congressional bailout effectively pays for $10 an hour of the retiree benefits. That’s roughly the gap between the Big Three’s retiree costs and those of the Japanese-owned plants in this country. Imagine, also, that the U.A.W. agrees to reduce pay and benefits for current workers to $45 an hour — the same as at Honda and Toyota.
Do you know how much that would reduce the cost of producing a Big Three vehicle? Only about $800.
...Isn't that interesting?

Only 1/8 of the bad loans were under teh Community Reinvestment Act, and many of the loans under CRA are subsidised anyway. The financial giants are to blame, not the federal government.
You'll notice all the financial giants are propped up by government and banking is one of the most heavily regulated industries all over the world.

You centralists should really come up with better arguments.

Wow, you apperantly no jack shit about unions and what a strike does to the strikers. No one strikes over a 1% difference in pay increase. Unions are usualy very reluctant to strike.

But I know in the world you live in, the good and pure corperations are always being picked on by the big, bad, mean union boogeymen.
Unions are, however, backed by governments who profiteer from these unions and grant them better benefits than the already outrageous benefits granted to corporations. I'm not putting the blame on unions, but rather the unbalanced of power that is granted to them through the abuse of power that the government employs. The problem is that this benefits the men in power in the unions and the big corporations, the smaller work organizations and the smaller business get trampled on (as well as the common honest citizen) by the abuse of the state.

Trade unions are why Britain doesn't have much of a car industry now, the story behind that is ridiculous. If a plumber was walking buy and noticed there was a light out and he replaced it the union leaders would order everyone out on strike! This meant that often people would halt the production line work if they couldn't see and would just wait around for an electrician to fix the problem.

Trade unions are idiotic.

I read an article in Newsweek (so I'm not sure how reliable it is-it's a far left wing magazine from the 12 articles I read in the last 2 editions) that stated that Ford will be the only surviving member of the Big Three in 5 years. Ford asked for money in this bailout, but Alan Mulally says that Ford doesn't need it - it's for "just-in-case" purposes.

Alan Mulally has vowed that he will work for $1 a year if Ford Motors dips into that bailout money, but thinks he is fine with the multi-million dollar salary he currently has. Ford is the only company that actually did better than expected last quarter and, according to Newsweek at least, will be the only surviving American automobile company in the United States in just a short 5-10 years.

Alan Mulally has vowed that he will work for $1 a year if Ford Motors dips into that bailout money
Oh no, the poor thing! Nobody bother to ask him for the billions he has pillaged out of the pockets of people all around the world.

Alan Mulally has vowed that he will work for $1 a year if Ford Motors dips into that bailout money

I say lets not give him the money and let him work for $0 a year. After all its only $1 less. He can afford that :p

I've heard (on trustworthy news radio, albeit from commentators) that 10% of US jobs are reliant are the auto companies, either directly or indirectly. Does anyone know where that number comes from?

I've heard (on trustworthy news radio, albeit from commentators) that 10% of US jobs are reliant are the auto companies, either directly or indirectly. Does anyone know where that number comes from?

Out of someone's ass.

Out of someone's ass.
I'm guessing you're being poetic here (:wink:), but do you have anything that explains how this number is made up, or where the source of this myth is?
I really have no idea as to the veracity of it. I'm sure it's based on some statistic, but what constitutes an "indirect job" or "dependent on auto company" seems very ill-defined.

I could guess the methodology you might use, via spend taken out of the local economy equating to a shrinkage in the surrounding services industry....

"Indirect Job" might be car salesman, factory janitor, coffee shop waitress, real estate sales, .... The first are closer to the industry, but the rest will all suffer if local people have less to spend. If their operating margins are low, having people spend 20% less in their business might tip them over into bankruptcy or lay-offs.

However, "10%" sounds like an "ass-pulled" figure to me, it's a bit neat.

I could guess the methodology you might use, via spend taken out of the local economy equating to a shrinkage in the surrounding services industry....

"Indirect Job" might be car salesman, factory janitor, coffee shop waitress, real estate sales, .... The first are closer to the industry, but the rest will all suffer if local people have less to spend. If their operating margins are low, having people spend 20% less in their business might tip them over into bankruptcy or lay-offs.
That seems right; I just wish I knew of an actual study or survey.

However, "10%" sounds like an "ass-pulled" figure to me, it's a bit neat.
If it were exactly 10% that would a bit odd, but it's also possible the actual number is something like 9.59% and the commentators were just rounding to an easier to remember number.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/10/AR2008121001679.html

Looks like that vote is probably happening today. Out of curiosity, how does NSG feel about tax payer money bailing out American Auto companies?

It depends on if the money is used to retain workers and retool their products into something they can actually sell or if it's used to line executives pockets.

I see no guarantee that bailing these companies out will do anything at all to make them viable.

They have no chance of restoring enough market share in a short period of time (say a few years) to make them viable on their own.

In other words, they are a black hole into which money will only disappear forever.
30 years ago a car company was bailed out:

What Was The Chrysler Bailout (http://uspolitics.about.com/od/economy/a/chryslerBailout.htm)?

Perhaps this bailout will be good for another 30 years?

BTW, from the article:

Under the leadership of Lee Iacocca, Chrysler doubled its corporate average miles-per-gallon (CAFE). In 1978, Chrysler introduced the first domestically produced front-wheel drive small cars: the Dodge Omni and Plymouth Horizon.

In 1983, Chrysler paid off the loans that had been guaranteed by US taxpayers. The Treasury was also $350 million richer.
Not too bad?

30 years ago a car company was bailed out:

What Was The Chrysler Bailout (http://uspolitics.about.com/od/economy/a/chryslerBailout.htm)?

Perhaps this bailout will be good for another 30 years?

BTW, from the article:


Not too bad?

If we follow what was done then.... well it could be two birds with one stone.
Save the auto industry and gets banks to start loaning money again (a big government co signed loan will do that.)

Well it all failed anyway...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/dec/12/automotive-useconomy

Stockmarkets tumbled around the world after a $14bn (£10bn) bail-out package for the struggling US automotive industry collapsed last night.

The London market followed Asian shares into the red. The FTSE 100 index fell 176 points to 4212 in early trading, a drop of nearly 4%.

A partisan dispute over union wage cuts in the US Senate derailed a last-ditch effort to revive the emergency aid for US carmakers before the end of the year. The breakdown left the car industry - which employs 3 million people - in limbo. General Motors and Chrysler have warned that they will go bankrupt this month if they do not receive $14bn in taxpayer funds.

The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, called the breakdown a "a loss for the country". "I dread looking at Wall Street tomorrow. It's not going to be a pleasant sight," he said.

Republicans refused to back federal aid for Detroit's beleaguered Big Three - GM, Chrysler and Ford - without a guarantee that the United Auto Workers agree to wage cuts to bring their salaries into line with Japanese carmakers by the end of next year. The UAW refused to do so before its current contract with the carmakers expires in 2011.

GM said it was "deeply disappointed" that the bipartisan agreement faltered. "We will assess all of our options to continue our restructuring and to obtain the means to weather the current economic crisis," the company said. Chrysler also said it "will continue to pursue a workable solution to help ensure the future viability of the company."

The Senate rejected the bail-out 52-35 on a procedural vote - well short of the 60 required - after the talks fell apart. Just 10 Republicans joined 40 Democrats and two independents in backing it.

The news triggered a sharp fall in share prices in Asia, with Japan's Nikkei falling 5.6% to 8235.87 while Hong Kong's Hang Seng down 5.1% at 14,817.59.

Apparently the UAW forgot to realise their shiny contract guaranteing them high wages is worthless if the employer goes bust.

Apparently the UAW forgot to realise their shiny contract guaranteing them high wages is worthless if the employer goes bust.

Yep, they did. One of the reasons I think most Unions are no good for the country these days.

Apparently the UAW forgot to realise their shiny contract guaranteing them high wages is worthless if the employer goes bust.
Except that the UAW's shiny contract actually included significant cuts in wages, benefits and pensions precisely to accommodate the financial problems of the industry. In fact, the last several contracts have included major concessions from the union to suit management. And they had already pledged before Congress to take even bigger cuts in the next contract if the companies were still in business in 2010.

This knee-jerk anti-unionism, in which people just ride high on their negative assumptions without bothering to keep up with current facts, is what allowed the Republicans to sell the working people of the US down the river once again -- and crack a brick over the already bleeding head of the US and world economy while they were at it. Those fucking ideologues took this moment, of all moments, to practice union-busting only for the sake of their fucking political theories, without any regard for the real world consequences, as usual. And you folks with your anti-union platitudes just complacently shrug it off. I wonder, do you actually jerk your knees while you mouth such unthinking nonsense?

Except that the UAW's shiny contract actually included significant cuts in wages, benefits and pensions precisely to accommodate the financial problems of the industry. In fact, the last several contracts have included major concessions from the union to suit management. And they had already pledged before Congress to take even bigger cuts in the next contract if the companies were still in business in 2010.

This knee-jerk anti-unionism, in which people just ride high on their negative assumptions without bothering to keep up with current facts, is what allowed the Republicans to sell the working people of the US down the river once again -- and crack a brick over the already bleeding head of the US and world economy while they were at it. Those fucking ideologues took this moment, of all moments, to practice union-busting only for the sake of their fucking political theories, without any regard for the real world consequences, as usual. And you folks with your anti-union platitudes just complacently shrug it off. I wonder, do you actually jerk your knees while you mouth such unthinking nonsense?

This is an example of an idealogue who has little knowledge of the actual situation trying to pin bad things on someone of a different ideology without any proof. F for effort.

can we start calling what the republicans are doing CLASS WARFARE yet?

or is it only class warfare when someone points out the benefits that the rich get from the government?

Except that the UAW's shiny contract actually included significant cuts in wages, benefits and pensions precisely to accommodate the financial problems of the industry. In fact, the last several contracts have included major concessions from the union to suit management. And they had already pledged before Congress to take even bigger cuts in the next contract if the companies were still in business in 2010.



Thats a pretty big if. I'm seeing the point here that the Unions could be doing more to cut costs right now when its needed as opposed to a point in the future when they're either not needed or too late.

This knee-jerk anti-unionism, in which people just ride high on their negative assumptions without bothering to keep up with current facts, is what allowed the Republicans to sell the working people of the US down the river once again -- and crack a brick over the already bleeding head of the US and world economy while they were at it. Those fucking ideologues took this moment, of all moments, to practice union-busting only for the sake of their fucking political theories, without any regard for the real world consequences, as usual. And you folks with your anti-union platitudes just complacently shrug it off. I wonder, do you actually jerk your knees while you mouth such unthinking nonsense?
You do know its the high-ups in any union (in any part of the world) who sell out the common union man to the government/corporations? right? The Unions are all well and dandy if they enjoy the same rights as everyone else. The union-higher ups back governments, who then reward the highups with some profits from their abnormal abuse of centralized power. I agree that you put some blame on the Republicans, but you should also put an equal amount of blame on the Democrats, and another amount on the corporations, and another amount on the Union leaders, and finally, the biggest amount, on what has permitted all this, the centralization of power.

Except that the UAW's shiny contract actually included significant cuts in wages, benefits and pensions precisely to accommodate the financial problems of the industry. In fact, the last several contracts have included major concessions from the union to suit management. And they had already pledged before Congress to take even bigger cuts in the next contract if the companies were still in business in 2010.

This knee-jerk anti-unionism, in which people just ride high on their negative assumptions without bothering to keep up with current facts, is what allowed the Republicans to sell the working people of the US down the river once again -- and crack a brick over the already bleeding head of the US and world economy while they were at it. Those fucking ideologues took this moment, of all moments, to practice union-busting only for the sake of their fucking political theories, without any regard for the real world consequences, as usual. And you folks with your anti-union platitudes just complacently shrug it off. I wonder, do you actually jerk your knees while you mouth such unthinking nonsense?
http://umanitoba.ca/about/image_library/resize.php?image_name=./data/media/60/2thumbs_up.jpg&image_width=300

Well stated!!

You do know its the high-ups in any union (in any part of the world) who sell out the common union man to the government/corporations? right? The Unions are all well and dandy if they enjoy the same rights as everyone else. The union-higher ups back governments, who then reward the highups with some profits from their abnormal abuse of centralized power. I agree that you put some blame on the Republicans, but you should also put an equal amount of blame on the Democrats, and another amount on the corporations, and another amount on the Union leaders, and finally, the biggest amount, on what has permitted all this, the centralization of power.
Perhaps you could provide some real examples to back up your claims?

This is an example of an idealogue who has little knowledge of the actual situation trying to pin bad things on someone of a different ideology without any proof. F for effort.
And of course, you have an actual explanation for how the Senate's action is not based on idealogy rather than present practical considerations all ready to present, right?

And you're also ready to point out how I'm putting my ideology similarly ahead of practical considerations, making this just a war of idealogues, right?

...

Yeah, didn't think so.


can we start calling what the republicans are doing CLASS WARFARE yet?

or is it only class warfare when someone points out the benefits that the rich get from the government?
I say let's start and see what happens. *waits to be surprised by Wuldani's response*

Thats a pretty big if. I'm seeing the point here that the Unions could be doing more to cut costs right now when its needed as opposed to a point in the future when they're either not needed or too late.
So could management. So could Congress. So could a lot of people. Why is all the blame being heaped on the union as if they are the only obstacle to saving the industry?

You do know its the high-ups in any union (in any part of the world) who sell out the common union man to the government/corporations? right?
I have no love of the unions as they currently operate. I happen to be a major supporter of organized labor and trade unions, in principle, but to my mind US unions are, in large part, wholly corrupt. They are either in bed with management or they are crooks outright. That still does not make the UAW the villain in this story.

The Unions are all well and dandy if they enjoy the same rights as everyone else. The union-higher ups back governments, who then reward the highups with some profits from their abnormal abuse of centralized power. I agree that you put some blame on the Republicans, but you should also put an equal amount of blame on the Democrats, and another amount on the corporations, and another amount on the Union leaders, and finally, the biggest amount, on what has permitted all this, the centralization of power.
I never said anything about not spreading blame around fairly, where it belongs. My position is that blame is being laid unfairly on the UAW in this instance, because they are not the ones causing the problem (that was lots of people) nor the ones obstructing the response to the problem (that's the Congress), but some Republicans (many of whom only coincidentally come from states where non-union foreign car manufacturers are major employers) are talking about the UAW as if the only reason the Big Three can't compete is because of them, which is bullshit. I'm complaining about some people, who just happen to be Republicans, blaming the union too much and blaming management not enough.

So could management. So could Congress. So could a lot of people. Why is all the blame being heaped on the union as if they are the only obstacle to saving the industry?

Because the big bad union boogeymen (who are all communists anyway, real capitalist Americans just let their employers anally violate them on a regular basis) were strong arming the poor, defenseless corperate CEOs and their Republican puppets by making unreasonable demands! No, I wont provide evidence for this or tell you what these "unreasonable" demands were, that would be crazy!

We're in this mess in the first place because the government fucked with the economy.

Banks were forced into giving out bad loans through the Community Reinvestment Act, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the government acting along the same lines.

The government encouraged this - along with encouraging the repackaging of these loans as securities - and encouraged their rating as AAA bonds.

What part of "the government just fucked us, please give it to us in the ass again" do you not understand?This theory was annihilated the last time you brought it up.

Nie. It was the government telling these companies that, essentially, they were allowed to finance bad loans without the fear of repurcussions or outright bankruptcy that allowed businesses to run themselves into the ground.

If it weren't for such stringent oversight of the economy, i.e. a $700+ billion bailout, then businesses would be more accountable for their actions.All of the loans were given out because the government told them not to fear repercussions?

I don't see it as a double standard. I despise unions because their actions have an unnecessary impact on others, they interrupt our lives. How fair is it that people are forced to take a day off work (and thus lose income) because the bus drivers union decided to go on strike because they wanted a 4% pay increase instead of a 3% one. How fair is it that student's education is toyed around with because the teachers union decided to go on strike because they wanted a 4% pay increase instead of a 3% one.So your argument is that people should be forced to work for your convenience?
You know what forced labor is, right?

Alternatively, it could be easily argued that those strikes would have been prevented if the employers had capitulated to the union's demands.

Unions are, however, backed by governments who profiteer from these unions and grant them better benefits than the already outrageous benefits granted to corporations. I'm not putting the blame on unions, but rather the unbalanced of power that is granted to them through the abuse of power that the government employs. The problem is that this benefits the men in power in the unions and the big corporations, the smaller work organizations and the smaller business get trampled on (as well as the common honest citizen) by the abuse of the state.Hahahaha.
Unions are granted benefits? Like what?

Alternatively, it could be easily argued that those strikes would have been prevented if the employers had capitulated to the union's demands.

And guess what happens when we follow this strategy........

You end up with companies going under. Following that strategy results in threads like this.

And guess what happens when we follow this strategy........

You end up with companies going under. Following that strategy results in threads like this.

Oh, exactly. I've seen first hand what unchecked unions can do. They struck the company, even though EVERY employee and the employer agreed on the new wage plan.

The union brought in random unemployed people (who did not and had never worked for the company) and staged a picket line. Even though both sides agreed on terms, the UNION decided it wasn't good enough and started screwing with everyone.

I have no love of the unions as they currently operate. I happen to be a major supporter of organized labor and trade unions, in principle, but to my mind US unions are, in large part, wholly corrupt. They are either in bed with management or they are crooks outright. That still does not make the UAW the villain in this story.
Seems to be a bigger problem on the east coast here. Not saying it's not a problem at all here, though.

And guess what happens when we follow this strategy........The working class gets a greater share of what they deserve?

The working class gets a greater share of what they deserve?

In the short term. In the long run, we end up with businesses becoming unprofitable and collapsing, leaving many of those same workers (and in this instance, former workers) in the lurch.

Now tell me Jello Biafra, what is wrong with allowing the market to set wages?

Alternatively, it could be easily argued that those strikes would have been prevented if the employers had capitulated to the union's demands.
They have capitulated already. To the downfall of US auto industry, except for Ford.

So let it be so - let the successful manufacturers buy out the factories from the failed ones, and impose their more effective management style.

Of course that introduces a threat of monopoly, but with the European and Japanese companies being the new owners, not something to particularly worry about.

In the short term. In the long run, we end up with businesses becoming unprofitable and collapsing, leaving many of those same workers (and in this instance, former workers) in the lurch.

Now tell me Jello Biafra, what is wrong with allowing the market to set wages?
Three things:

1) Except for the rockbottom of a minimum wage, nobody is forcing anyone to pay any given amount for any wage.

2) The minimum wage is a legitimate limitation on the private sector's ability to set wages because in the history of the US (late 19 through early 20th century) we have seen a willingness on the part of some employers to pay no wage at all, essentially reducing their workers to unofficial slavery (which is why we have unions in this country at all). This habit persists among some people to this day. I refer you to several incidents in recent years of people in the US keeping immigrant laborers and domestic servants as virtually imprisoned slaves, forcing them under threat of deportation to work without wages at all.

3) What's wrong with letting workers set wages?

Why should those who have skills and labor ability available to "sell" to prospective employers not be able to determine how much they want to sell them for? In a really free market, there will be times when it's a buyer's market and times when it's a seller's market. When demand is high, workers will be able to negotiate higher wages for their work. When demand is not so high, maybe they won't. It all comes down to how much the employers need a particular job to get done and how unwilling they are to do it themselves.

Workers will, of course, have to deal with potential scarcity of jobs, but does that mean they have to compete for the lowest pay in some kind of management-mandated race to the bottom? They might choose instead to compete by raising the value of their skills by training, or by scarcity by making it harder for more people to get into a business. Or they might choose to cooperate rather than compete by engaging in collective bargaining, as unions do.

If people really believe in an actually free market, they would not begrudge workers the ability to make the most money off their skills and labor as they can because, if the workers price themselves out of the market, they'll fail just like a poorly managed business would.

The fact of the matter is labor unions do not cripple business. What cripples business is the hypocrisy of management executives who love to spout on about free markets but, in practice, want to control every aspect of the world market, including people's ability to work as they wish. That hypocrisy causes them to fight with labor rather than work them cooperatively. They just plain do not want to share the wealth, not even with the people who help make that wealth.

This habit persists among some people to this day. I refer you to several incidents in recent years of people in the US keeping immigrant laborers and domestic servants as virtually imprisoned slaves, forcing them under threat of deportation to work without wages at all.

That's a pretty redundant argument for a minimum wage given that illegal immigrants can't exactly complain to the authorities about low wages.

In the short term. In the long run, we end up with businesses becoming unprofitable and collapsing, leaving many of those same workers (and in this instance, former workers) in the lurch.Except that in this case, it had nothing (or nearly nothing) to do with the union's demands and instead was the result of poor management decisions.

Now tell me Jello Biafra, what is wrong with allowing the market to set wages?I'm not going to address this because it would require a separate thread.
Nonetheless, I will say that unionization is not a fundamental difference from having the market set wages. In this case, instead of having wages set for one employee, they are set for many.
Alternatively, instead of the employer 'buying' one employee, the employer 'buys' them in bulk, and pays extra because bulk employees are rarer.

They have capitulated already. To the downfall of US auto industry, except for Ford.

So let it be so - let the successful manufacturers buy out the factories from the failed ones, and impose their more effective management style.

Of course that introduces a threat of monopoly, but with the European and Japanese companies being the new owners, not something to particularly worry about.The reason the companies are failing is not because of union demands. You are correct in placing the blame on management.

That's a pretty redundant argument for a minimum wage given that illegal immigrants can't exactly complain to the authorities about low wages.
"Redundant" is the wrong word.

Also the concept of a required wage for work is part of the legal and social rejection of slavery. If a worker is in the country illegally and not able to work legally in this country, that does not justify paying them nothing for their work. Rather, it just leads to their employers being charged with crimes for both violating immigration laws and enslavement of another person.

Finally, do you have any comment about the rest of my post, or were you just nitpicking?

Three things:

1) Except for the rockbottom of a minimum wage, nobody is forcing anyone to pay any given amount for any wage.

2) The minimum wage is a legitimate limitation on the private sector's ability to set wages because in the history of the US (late 19 through early 20th century) we have seen a willingness on the part of some employers to pay no wage at all, essentially reducing their workers to unofficial slavery (which is why we have unions in this country at all). This habit persists among some people to this day. I refer you to several incidents in recent years of people in the US keeping immigrant laborers and domestic servants as virtually imprisoned slaves, forcing them under threat of deportation to work without wages at all.

3) What's wrong with letting workers set wages?

Why should those who have skills and labor ability available to "sell" to prospective employers not be able to determine how much they want to sell them for? In a really free market, there will be times when it's a buyer's market and times when it's a seller's market. When demand is high, workers will be able to negotiate higher wages for their work. When demand is not so high, maybe they won't. It all comes down to how much the employers need a particular job to get done and how unwilling they are to do it themselves.

Workers will, of course, have to deal with potential scarcity of jobs, but does that mean they have to compete for the lowest pay in some kind of management-mandated race to the bottom? They might choose instead to compete by raising the value of their skills by training, or by scarcity by making it harder for more people to get into a business. Or they might choose to cooperate rather than compete by engaging in collective bargaining, as unions do.

If people really believe in an actually free market, they would not begrudge workers the ability to make the most money off their skills and labor as they can because, if the workers price themselves out of the market, they'll fail just like a poorly managed business would.

The fact of the matter is labor unions do not cripple business. What cripples business is the hypocrisy of management executives who love to spout on about free markets but, in practice, want to control every aspect of the world market, including people's ability to work as they wish. That hypocrisy causes them to fight with labor rather than work them cooperatively. They just plain do not want to share the wealth, not even with the people who help make that wealth.
Absolutely bang on!!

Except that in this case, it had nothing (or nearly nothing) to do with the union's demands and instead was the result of poor management decisions.

Try again. General Motors, Ford and Chrysler are having to pay millions in pensions, healthcare and higher wages because of unreasonable union demands back in the 1960s. Poor management decisions may have made the situation worse, however, had the big three not had the millstone of pensions, healthcare and higher wages around their neck, they would be succeeding today.

Indeed, another instance of unreasonable union demands was with the airline industry, and look what happened there - it took nearly five years of Chapter 11 before most of the airlines were back in business.

Nonetheless, I will say that unionization is not a fundamental difference from having the market set wages. In this case, instead of having wages set for one employee, they are set for many.
Alternatively, instead of the employer 'buying' one employee, the employer 'buys' them in bulk, and pays extra because bulk employees are rarer.

No, there is a huge difference. With a market system, the employee/employer can go, no thank you, I will find another employee/employer. With a union, the employees can say, we will go on strike unless you give us x% pay increase. It is like negotiating with a loaded gun to someone's head.

Three things:

1) Except for the rockbottom of a minimum wage, nobody is forcing anyone to pay any given amount for any wage.

A union does that. It says to employers, pay us what we demand or else we will go on strike.

3) What's wrong with letting workers set wages?

Nothing, so long as it is within a market setting. As I said above, a union is like holding a loaded gun to someones head while negotiating.

A union does that. It says to employers, pay us what we demand or else we will go on strike.



Nothing, so long as it is within a market setting. As I said above, a union is like holding a loaded gun to someones head while negotiating.
That's what management does in setting wages, too. Accept what we want to pay or lose your job, maybe to an illegal alien who will never ask for a raise. Turnabout is fair play.

EDIT: Earlier in this thread, someone said something about unions only existing where employers have a history of screwing over employees. I think there's merit to that argument.

Oh is that so?

Well then lets look at the UAW our favorite little union where everytime the car company wants to fire someone it costs the car companies an astronomical amount of money in pensions and health care. To the point in which every new car produced in America has a nice pathetically huge extra on its price tag in order to pay for the union workers who retired.

I'm sorry but $70/hr is frankly more then the average car union worker deserves, I know new dentists that don't make as much.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not militantly against unions. I understand their existence given management abuses.

But come on, this is the last union I'd expect "anyone" to defend. You ideologues have to stop defending every union like its a god-like creation that must be preserved at all costs. Republicans and quite a few Democrats are bashing this one because frankly it sucks. Not a single one has chanted the call of destroying unions in general and even the people against the bailout are demanding that the union accept lower wages, not that they disband and commit suicide.

The UAW abused its near monopoly of power over car workers in order to rack up benefits that frankly it didn't deserve, drove the American car industry to its death bed and continues to chant that its "mainstreet". I don't know what street those guys live on because they are not the average American despite there attempts to paint themselves like that.

I don't blame them totally management has huge problems too but the problem is that while some car companies have to deal with bad management every now and then. American car companies can slammed with two fists, a UAW one and a management one. Is there any wonder why its dying and frankly it should. When a company goes bankrupt that doesn't mean it completely collapses, it just gets restructured which means the only car factories that American car companies will retain are the profitable ones. Moreover to be honest the problem with the UAW isn't that it asks for higher wages, the biggest problem is that car companies *cannot* lay off unneccessary workers without taking a huge punch in there wallets. A restructure would do it wonders. I mean if your building a tower and the foundation is weak, continuing to build the tower in hopes of it getting better is sort of foolish.

There is my defense and ode to letting the bailout fail like the piece of ideological crap it is.

I'm sorry but $70/hr is frankly more then the average car union worker deserves
It's more than twice as much as any car union worker makes.

It's more than twice as much as any car union worker makes.You do know that they count benefits and retirement? It's money that the company (Not necessarily just the Auto-industry) has to pay out for you. I think it's fair to count it as income.

It's more than twice as much as any car union worker makes.

Which is still more than I make, with two degrees in my chosen profession, teaching. Last time I worked it out from salary, I made $20/hour. Factoring in bennies, $27.50 or so. Even at $35/hr., an assembly-line worker is egregiously overpaid. I'm not out to slag all unions, but Xue has a point with the UAW.

However, that's just part of the mosaic from hell that is the current problem. Management and executives not reading the writing on the wall for 30+ years will fuck any company up. Using lobbyists to keep trucks off the CAFE standards list (and getting SUV's classified as trucks in the bargain) was another boondoggle.

How about hanging on to divisions that duplicate or re-badge the main divisions cars? Ford hasn't needed Mercury for decades, likewise GM, which only got rid of Oldsmobile dozens of years after it should have. They need to lose Buick and probably Pontiac, too. Chrysler finally cut Plymouth loose, again way too late. It's as if they're searching at midnight in an unlit, windowless basement for a black cat that isn't there, and calling it progress.

No company should ever be bailed out, period. Let the Big 3 suffer the long-overdue death they oh-so-richly deserve.

No company should ever be bailed out, period.
Not even though they employ millions around the world? Don't be stupid.
Let the Big 3 suffer the long-overdue death they oh-so-richly deserve.
Or bring them under government management until they can pay their debts off, during which time you get their engineers to design something genuinely interesting. With decent miles per gallon.

Try again. General Motors, Ford and Chrysler are having to pay millions in pensions, healthcare and higher wages because of unreasonable union demands back in the 1960s. Poor management decisions may have made the situation worse, however, had the big three not had the millstone of pensions, healthcare and higher wages around their neck, they would be succeeding today.Completely and utterly false. Have you been reading the thread?
GM, for instance, puts out cars that cost $3,000-4,000 less than similar Hondas. People buy those Hondas in greater quantities than the similar GM car. If GM didn't have the pensions, etc., they'd be able to drop the prices by $800-$1200. People still wouldn't be buying GM cars.
On the other hand, if they were to put out cars people actually bought, they could raise their prices by $2000, pay their workers more, and still have their cars cost less than comparible Hondas.
Of course, for GM to put out cars that people want to buy, the management would have to hire people who can design them.

No, there is a huge difference. With a market system, the employee/employer can go, no thank you, I will find another employee/employer. With a union, the employees can say, we will go on strike unless you give us x% pay increase.And then the employer can say "no thank you, I will find new employees."

Oh is that so?

Well then lets look at the UAW our favorite little union where everytime the car company wants to fire someone it costs the car companies an astronomical amount of money in pensions and health care. To the point in which every new car produced in America has a nice pathetically huge extra on its price tag in order to pay for the union workers who retired.Uh, we've already been over this so-called "pathetically huge" extra. It's not significant, in comparison to the things that are out of the union's control.

And then the employer can say "no thank you, I will find new employees."
Not so easy.


With non-unionized, for instance white-collar employees, the employer really can say "No, thank you. We have too many people already. Those who want to work for our conditions, can stay. Those who don't, can leave."

With unionized employees, it's "Either give in to our demands or we'll strike. You can technically fire the whole union, but the retirement benefits will sink you, and our union comprises 90% of the workers so you won't find new ones."

Not so easy.


With non-unionized, for instance white-collar employees, the employer really can say "No, thank you. We have too many people already. Those who want to work for our conditions, can stay. Those who don't, can leave."

With unionized employees, it's "Either give in to our demands or we'll strike. You can technically fire the whole union, but the retirement benefits will sink you, and our union comprises 90% of the workers so you won't find new ones."It doesn't need to be easy.
It's not so easy for a worker to find a new job whenever the worker wants one either, but that's "the market" doing it's thing. Why should the employer have an easier time finding workers than workers do finding employees?
And if the employer didn't want to pay retirement benefits to fired workers, then the employer shouldn't have agreed to it in a contract. I didn't know free marketeers felt bad for people entering contracts.