Bail Out the Auto Industry

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DeathBUA
I guess the thing that annoys the crap out of me is how it's OK to bailout the banks but not GM/Ford/Chrysler. And besides its a freakin loan. Last time an American auto company got bailed out, they paid the loan back PLUS interest.

They say roughly 1 in 10 people in America are employed directly or indirectly by the auto company and yet it'd be OK to let one or all of these companies fail?

I know people like to say it's scare tactics some of the things they say, such as Gettelfinger saying the US will enter a depression...but he's not far from the truth. It truly would devastate the US economy.

People like to forget about all the other companies that would go under if say GM did.

Frankly it annoys the crap out of me that congressman would bail out the banking industry, probably because they have dirty hands in it, but wont save the Detroit 3.

:laugh:

 

[TraumaRN]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: DeathBUA
I guess the thing that annoys the crap out of me is how it's OK to bailout the banks but not GM/Ford/Chrysler. And besides its a freakin loan. Last time an American auto company got bailed out, they paid the loan back PLUS interest.

They say roughly 1 in 10 people in America are employed directly or indirectly by the auto company and yet it'd be OK to let one or all of these companies fail?

I know people like to say it's scare tactics some of the things they say, such as Gettelfinger saying the US will enter a depression...but he's not far from the truth. It truly would devastate the US economy.

People like to forget about all the other companies that would go under if say GM did.

Frankly it annoys the crap out of me that congressman would bail out the banking industry, probably because they have dirty hands in it, but wont save the Detroit 3.

:laugh:

I'm not saying it as a scare tactic.

Tell me what good would come to the US economy, if GM or Ford or Chrysler failed.

I cant think of any.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: DeathBUA
I guess the thing that annoys the crap out of me is how it's OK to bailout the banks but not GM/Ford/Chrysler. And besides its a freakin loan. Last time an American auto company got bailed out, they paid the loan back PLUS interest.

They say roughly 1 in 10 people in America are employed directly or indirectly by the auto company and yet it'd be OK to let one or all of these companies fail?

I know people like to say it's scare tactics some of the things they say, such as Gettelfinger saying the US will enter a depression...but he's not far from the truth. It truly would devastate the US economy.

People like to forget about all the other companies that would go under if say GM did.

Frankly it annoys the crap out of me that congressman would bail out the banking industry, probably because they have dirty hands in it, but wont save the Detroit 3.

I seems like a bailout is in the offing, but they're going to take pains to make it plain that it's no blank check. The word "bailout" is unfortunate, not appropriate. "Assistance," is better. The American auto industry hasn't been as forward looking as the Japanese, but those days are behind us. I think moving forward they will be in survival mode and looking toward what will work. If they don't have the will to do that, the American automobile industry will simply shrivel and die.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DeathBUA

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: DeathBUA
I guess the thing that annoys the crap out of me is how it's OK to bailout the banks but not GM/Ford/Chrysler. And besides its a freakin loan. Last time an American auto company got bailed out, they paid the loan back PLUS interest.

They say roughly 1 in 10 people in America are employed directly or indirectly by the auto company and yet it'd be OK to let one or all of these companies fail?

I know people like to say it's scare tactics some of the things they say, such as Gettelfinger saying the US will enter a depression...but he's not far from the truth. It truly would devastate the US economy.

People like to forget about all the other companies that would go under if say GM did.

Frankly it annoys the crap out of me that congressman would bail out the banking industry, probably because they have dirty hands in it, but wont save the Detroit 3.

:laugh:

I'm not saying it as a scare tactic.

Tell me what good would come to the US economy, if GM or Ford or Chrysler failed.

I cant think of any.

How about some companies that restructure and come back better? I can't think of anything better for the economy than strong well structured businesses.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Chrysler made a Government Guarantee economical comeback unnder Iacocca in the late 70's and into the 80's,
he took a single $ as compensation as the CEO those years.

Lee Iacocca

The US cars of the 70's were simply disposable junk.

Mavricks, Pinto's, Aspen, Volare, Vega, Monza . . . like so much debris in the far right hand lane.


It's do-able, after all - we went way far out of our way to injure our domestic home factory auto industry.

Federal, State, Local Governments gave huge tax breaks to foriegn owned industry as incentives to set up in our country
as a way to avoid import taxes, 'partially' made in America.
Container ships of engines, transmissions, body parts by the pant-full, to 'just-in-time' assembly lines.

Federal and State financed training prograqms to place minimally trained workers with minimum benefits
in rural areas where even Joe the Plumber could be educated in tactile manual dexterity functions to place part 'A' on part 'B' and tighten nut 'C'.

Pop out them puppies as Domestic Hondas, Toyotas, Mazdas, Saturns, even the Mitsubishi Eclipse.
Down here where they set up the plants, they got these 'Right-to-Work' State laws, which says they don't need no stinkin' Union.

Less benefits and lower wages, sponsered by you the Taxpayer, courtesy the G'berment.

Keep the taxes low, don't need no good schools to pump out semi-literate production line workers, screw the infrastructure.
Dumb kids don't need to grow up to buy the car they own from the factory store, and drive around on good safe roads.

Sounds like we done shot ourselves in the foot on this one.

Since the car companies are trying everything to get us to 'SAVE 7,000 TODAY!'and but a BloatMobile 6000 XLPT,

Why not re-tool, put out and offer safe economical Hybrid based machines, utilize solar collector arrays
and charging stations and provide vouchers valid for 40% of the vehicle price.

Oh, yeah, Guarantee health care, take the burden off the factory management structure,
and come into the modern industrial world.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: DeathBUA

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: DeathBUA
I guess the thing that annoys the crap out of me is how it's OK to bailout the banks but not GM/Ford/Chrysler. And besides its a freakin loan. Last time an American auto company got bailed out, they paid the loan back PLUS interest.

They say roughly 1 in 10 people in America are employed directly or indirectly by the auto company and yet it'd be OK to let one or all of these companies fail?

I know people like to say it's scare tactics some of the things they say, such as Gettelfinger saying the US will enter a depression...but he's not far from the truth. It truly would devastate the US economy.

People like to forget about all the other companies that would go under if say GM did.

Frankly it annoys the crap out of me that congressman would bail out the banking industry, probably because they have dirty hands in it, but wont save the Detroit 3.

:laugh:

I'm not saying it as a scare tactic.

Tell me what good would come to the US economy, if GM or Ford or Chrysler failed.

I cant think of any.

How about some companies that restructure and come back better? I can't think of anything better for the economy than strong well structured businesses.

And what about all of the suppliers that they owe money? Go out of business and fire 100,000s of workers?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Fern
Let's just accept the $200 billion figure. So what, there's nothing I see that indicates a bailout as currently discussed will prevent he problem. I think the likely difference is a loss of $200B plus the taxpayers' bailout money, or just the$200B.

I've always been ambivalent about a bailout for auto makers, but am now leaning against it because of the following:

1. Current discussions seem to include a lot of government oversight of the auto makers. Are you freakin kidding me? Gov employees/Congress don't know squat about that industry (nor apparently any others).

2. Strikes me as going down the path of a government command -type economy, which to my knowledge has never worked. I also see the inclination for government activism - forcing the auto makers into producing *green cars* etc as a stipulation to get the bailout money; I don't care for that either.

3. I understand the theory that banks are like public utilities, and you can't have them fail or it screws everything else up, even if otherwise healthy. But I don't see the auto makers that way. So, I see no *theory* or reason why auto makers get bailed out (other than that they are big employers etc), therefore I see no reasonable limit to such bailouts. Who will get them and who won't? Might it be politically driven? I.e., auto makers get them because the unions are big Dem supporters/contributors. Either way, whether just abitrary or political driven I don't like it.

I'm now leaning more towards no bailout and just reorg. Perhaps whatever results will leaner-and-meaner and far better than what we have now.

Fern

this. :thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: DeathBUA

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: DeathBUA
I guess the thing that annoys the crap out of me is how it's OK to bailout the banks but not GM/Ford/Chrysler. And besides its a freakin loan. Last time an American auto company got bailed out, they paid the loan back PLUS interest.

They say roughly 1 in 10 people in America are employed directly or indirectly by the auto company and yet it'd be OK to let one or all of these companies fail?

I know people like to say it's scare tactics some of the things they say, such as Gettelfinger saying the US will enter a depression...but he's not far from the truth. It truly would devastate the US economy.

People like to forget about all the other companies that would go under if say GM did.

Frankly it annoys the crap out of me that congressman would bail out the banking industry, probably because they have dirty hands in it, but wont save the Detroit 3.

:laugh:

I'm not saying it as a scare tactic.

Tell me what good would come to the US economy, if GM or Ford or Chrysler failed.

I cant think of any.

How about some companies that restructure and come back better? I can't think of anything better for the economy than strong well structured businesses.

And what about all of the suppliers that they owe money? Go out of business and fire 100,000s of workers?

scare tactics

Hmm..... THE SKY WOULD FALL!!!


But seriously - companies that are owed money have taken that risk. Why should I, the tax payer, have to bear the risk and burden? The company I work for has done work for companies that closed up/ went bankrupt before they paid us. We had to write it off as a cost of doing business. We took the risk as defined in the terms of the contract.

 

[Slew Foot]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Genx87
Right on the money

So true.

"If you love America, you'd throw money in its hole!"

LOL! classic...

:thumbsup:

That black lady is hilarious!

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: DeathBUA
Tell me what good would come to the US economy, if GM or Ford or Chrysler failed.

I cant think of any.

The result of a chapter-11 reorganization would hopefully be more efficient and effective companies -- and, ultimately, better products and services for consumers.

giving money to them now would be the same as throwing that money away. They'll probably ask for more next year.. and the year after that... and... and...

fuck that.

 

[TraumaRN]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: DeathBUA
Tell me what good would come to the US economy, if GM or Ford or Chrysler failed.

I cant think of any.

The result of a chapter-11 reorganization would hopefully be more efficient and effective companies -- and, ultimately, better products and services for consumers.

giving money to them now would be the same as throwing that money away. We'd probably be asked for more next year.. and the year after that... and... and...

fuck that.

Basically they want this money to get them through 2009. Once 2010 hits, costs will drop because the new UAW contract kicks in. That will help save them billions of dollars.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: DeathBUA

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: DeathBUA
Tell me what good would come to the US economy, if GM or Ford or Chrysler failed.

I cant think of any.

The result of a chapter-11 reorganization would hopefully be more efficient and effective companies -- and, ultimately, better products and services for consumers.

giving money to them now would be the same as throwing that money away. We'd probably be asked for more next year.. and the year after that... and... and...

fuck that.

Basically they want this money to get them through 2009. Once 2010 hits, costs will drop because the new UAW contract kicks in. That will help save them billions of dollars.

sure.. I believe it.

no, really, i do... :roll:

like I said, fuck that.

read this article that Citrix linked to previously... it will tell you everything you need to know when making this decision:
http://edgehopper.com/what-toyota-knows-that-gm-doesnt/

 

[TraumaRN]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: DeathBUA

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: DeathBUA
I guess the thing that annoys the crap out of me is how it's OK to bailout the banks but not GM/Ford/Chrysler. And besides its a freakin loan. Last time an American auto company got bailed out, they paid the loan back PLUS interest.

They say roughly 1 in 10 people in America are employed directly or indirectly by the auto company and yet it'd be OK to let one or all of these companies fail?

I know people like to say it's scare tactics some of the things they say, such as Gettelfinger saying the US will enter a depression...but he's not far from the truth. It truly would devastate the US economy.

People like to forget about all the other companies that would go under if say GM did.

Frankly it annoys the crap out of me that congressman would bail out the banking industry, probably because they have dirty hands in it, but wont save the Detroit 3.

:laugh:

I'm not saying it as a scare tactic.

Tell me what good would come to the US economy, if GM or Ford or Chrysler failed.

I cant think of any.

How about some companies that restructure and come back better? I can't think of anything better for the economy than strong well structured businesses.

And what about all of the suppliers that they owe money? Go out of business and fire 100,000s of workers?

scare tactics

Hmm..... THE SKY WOULD FALL!!!


But seriously - companies that are owed money have taken that risk. Why should I, the tax payer, have to bear the risk and burden? The company I work for has done work for companies that closed up/ went bankrupt before they paid us. We had to write it off as a cost of doing business. We took the risk as defined in the terms of the contract.

Again this goes back to the issue of the economy. Sure it's a risk they took but what happens when those suppliers go under too?

Keep calling me and others out on the scare tactics if you want but anyway you slice it hundreds of thousands of job losses isnt good for you as a taxpayer either.

I mean hell none of the banks tried to restructure, they stuck out their filthy greedy hands and the government gave them huge sums of money. The auto companies have been trying to restructure for years and yet when the economy tanks further than any of them thought, something beyond their control, people say fuck them they should die as if there is no consequence to the US economy.

 

[nergee]

Hack Paulson gave Citigroup $25B. Today Citigroup announced it will shed 50,000 jobs.
Exactly what taxpayer benefit did we get for that $25 billion?

Let GM and Ford go tits-up. The world will not end and no jobs will
be lost that are not going to be lost anyway.

The more dough Congress wastes attempting to bail out organizations
that deserve to fail, the less money there will be for legitimate uses down the road.....

 

[TraumaRN]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: DeathBUA

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: DeathBUA
Tell me what good would come to the US economy, if GM or Ford or Chrysler failed.

I cant think of any.

The result of a chapter-11 reorganization would hopefully be more efficient and effective companies -- and, ultimately, better products and services for consumers.

giving money to them now would be the same as throwing that money away. We'd probably be asked for more next year.. and the year after that... and... and...

fuck that.

Basically they want this money to get them through 2009. Once 2010 hits, costs will drop because the new UAW contract kicks in. That will help save them billions of dollars.

sure.. I believe it.

no, really, i do... :roll:

like I said, fuck that.

read this article that Citrix linked to previously... it will tell you everything you need to know when making this decision:
http://edgehopper.com/what-toyota-knows-that-gm-doesnt/

Corporate culture alone doesnt dictate GM selling cars. 100 years of legacy costs does hurt though. Toyota/Honda dont have those legacy costs.

I say 2010 is the year they are looking for because they transfer a HUGE amount of legacy cost to the UAW, namely in healthcare costs. They will literally save BILLIONS of dollars. If you dont believe me, look it up on GM's wikipedia page.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: DeathBUA

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: DeathBUA

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: DeathBUA
Tell me what good would come to the US economy, if GM or Ford or Chrysler failed.

I cant think of any.

The result of a chapter-11 reorganization would hopefully be more efficient and effective companies -- and, ultimately, better products and services for consumers.

giving money to them now would be the same as throwing that money away. We'd probably be asked for more next year.. and the year after that... and... and...

fuck that.

Basically they want this money to get them through 2009. Once 2010 hits, costs will drop because the new UAW contract kicks in. That will help save them billions of dollars.

sure.. I believe it.

no, really, i do... :roll:

like I said, fuck that.

read this article that Citrix linked to previously... it will tell you everything you need to know when making this decision:
http://edgehopper.com/what-toyota-knows-that-gm-doesnt/

Corporate culture alone doesnt dictate GM selling cars. 100 years of legacy costs does hurt though. Toyota/Honda dont have those legacy costs.

I say 2010 is the year they are looking for because they transfer a HUGE amount of legacy cost to the UAW, namely in healthcare costs. They will literally save BILLIONS of dollars. If you dont believe me, look it up on GM's wikipedia page.

What I "don't believe" is that it will matter. GM, as it exists today, is doomed to failure. I'd rather have that happen without throwing my money away on nothing more than a delay.

It's like ripping off a bandaid.

Want a better use for the money? Create a job-transition program to teach autoworkers a new trade. They're going to need it...

 

[TraumaRN]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: DeathBUA

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: DeathBUA

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: DeathBUA
Tell me what good would come to the US economy, if GM or Ford or Chrysler failed.

I cant think of any.

The result of a chapter-11 reorganization would hopefully be more efficient and effective companies -- and, ultimately, better products and services for consumers.

giving money to them now would be the same as throwing that money away. We'd probably be asked for more next year.. and the year after that... and... and...

fuck that.

Basically they want this money to get them through 2009. Once 2010 hits, costs will drop because the new UAW contract kicks in. That will help save them billions of dollars.

sure.. I believe it.

no, really, i do... :roll:

like I said, fuck that.

read this article that Citrix linked to previously... it will tell you everything you need to know when making this decision:
http://edgehopper.com/what-toyota-knows-that-gm-doesnt/

Corporate culture alone doesnt dictate GM selling cars. 100 years of legacy costs does hurt though. Toyota/Honda dont have those legacy costs.

I say 2010 is the year they are looking for because they transfer a HUGE amount of legacy cost to the UAW, namely in healthcare costs. They will literally save BILLIONS of dollars. If you dont believe me, look it up on GM's wikipedia page.

What I "don't believe" is that it will matter. GM, as it exists today, is doomed to failure. I'd rather have that happen without throwing my money away on nothing more than a delay.

It's like ripping off a bandaid.

Want a better use for the money? Create a job-transition program to teach autoworkers a new trade. They're going to need it...

Why is GM doomed to fail? Sure as it stands right now TODAY it stands to fail. But what if they get that money, survive, offload tons of cost in 2010, pay back the government, and still come out as a leaner, more efficient company. Ditto for Ford/Chrysler.

Spending money on a job-transition program? What jobs? What is going to replace high-paying manufacturing jobs? Lower paying service industry jobs? You cant just replace the hundreds of thousands of jobs overnight. Guess what YOU as a taxpayer would still be paying money, specifically for all the new unemployment, welfare and medicare/aid.

I'd rather spend my money to save them, and more than likely have that money paid back. Than the other way round.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DeathBUA


Why is GM doomed to fail?


... high-paying manufacturing jobs

You answered yourself. The only thing I'd add to it is that they are way too high-paying manual labor manufacturing jobs that don't take a lot of skill.



Sure, there are likely some that take a bit of skill but not to pay more than a lot of white collar professional jobs.

 

[Jiggz]

Originally posted by: DeathBUA
I guess the thing that annoys the crap out of me is how it's OK to bailout the banks but not GM/Ford/Chrysler. And besides its a freakin loan. Last time an American auto company got bailed out, they paid the loan back PLUS interest.

They say roughly 1 in 10 people in America are employed directly or indirectly by the auto company and yet it'd be OK to let one or all of these companies fail?

I know people like to say it's scare tactics some of the things they say, such as Gettelfinger saying the US will enter a depression...but he's not far from the truth. It truly would devastate the US economy.

People like to forget about all the other companies that would go under if say GM did.

Frankly it annoys the crap out of me that congressman would bail out the banking industry, probably because they have dirty hands in it, but wont save the Detroit 3.

Are you sure you are discussing the right forum? Because you definitely sound like you are arguing about gay rights! 1 in 10, eh? Not only are you using scare tactics, you are also using force in numbers! Are you sure about these numbers? Link? Are you sure this is all from the Big 3 US Auto and doesn't include the other more than dozen of other car makers? As for the financial bailout of banks and other financial institution, well I voted NO for that one too!

What good is it if we do not bail out the Big 3? It means we give way for the other efficient and more properly managed new Big 3!

Change your user's name to a more appropriate one, "Death FUD" (Death thru Fear, Uncertainty and Deception).

 

[Jiggz]

Originally posted by: DeathBUA

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: DeathBUA

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: DeathBUA

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: DeathBUA
Tell me what good would come to the US economy, if GM or Ford or Chrysler failed.

I cant think of any.

The result of a chapter-11 reorganization would hopefully be more efficient and effective companies -- and, ultimately, better products and services for consumers.

giving money to them now would be the same as throwing that money away. We'd probably be asked for more next year.. and the year after that... and... and...

fuck that.

Basically they want this money to get them through 2009. Once 2010 hits, costs will drop because the new UAW contract kicks in. That will help save them billions of dollars.

sure.. I believe it.

no, really, i do... :roll:

like I said, fuck that.

read this article that Citrix linked to previously... it will tell you everything you need to know when making this decision:
http://edgehopper.com/what-toyota-knows-that-gm-doesnt/

Corporate culture alone doesnt dictate GM selling cars. 100 years of legacy costs does hurt though. Toyota/Honda dont have those legacy costs.

I say 2010 is the year they are looking for because they transfer a HUGE amount of legacy cost to the UAW, namely in healthcare costs. They will literally save BILLIONS of dollars. If you dont believe me, look it up on GM's wikipedia page.

What I "don't believe" is that it will matter. GM, as it exists today, is doomed to failure. I'd rather have that happen without throwing my money away on nothing more than a delay.

It's like ripping off a bandaid.

Want a better use for the money? Create a job-transition program to teach autoworkers a new trade. They're going to need it...

Why is GM doomed to fail? Sure as it stands right now TODAY it stands to fail. But what if they get that money, survive, offload tons of cost in 2010, pay back the government, and still come out as a leaner, more efficient company. Ditto for Ford/Chrysler.

Spending money on a job-transition program? What jobs? What is going to replace high-paying manufacturing jobs? Lower paying service industry jobs? You cant just replace the hundreds of thousands of jobs overnight. Guess what YOU as a taxpayer would still be paying money, specifically for all the new unemployment, welfare and medicare/aid.

I'd rather spend my money to save them, and more than likely have that money paid back. Than the other way round.

What made you so sure you will get your money back? What make it different from what these Big 3 Auto makers did previously will be different from the way they will be spending additional $25B?

One thing for sure, let them go Chapter 11, and then re-structure themselves. With Chap 11 they can even rid themselves of the UAW. Others will tell you this is not true (getting rid of UAW) but without a company UAW will not exist; either that or hire new workers. If Toyota can exist without a Union, I don't see any reason why the Big cannot!

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: DeathBUA


Why is GM doomed to fail?


... high-paying manufacturing jobs

You answered yourself. The only thing I'd add to it is that they are way too high-paying manual labor manufacturing jobs that don't take a lot of skill.



Sure, there are likely some that take a bit of skill but not to pay more than a lot of white collar professional jobs.

It's interesting to note that Toyota in Georgetown, KY actually surpassed the average UAW pay per worker last year. I personally think it's the previous generations of UAW workers (pensions, healthcare, etc) that are truely killing the so called big 3, not the current obligations of current workers.

 

[TraumaRN]

Originally posted by: Jiggz

Originally posted by: DeathBUA
I guess the thing that annoys the crap out of me is how it's OK to bailout the banks but not GM/Ford/Chrysler. And besides its a freakin loan. Last time an American auto company got bailed out, they paid the loan back PLUS interest.

They say roughly 1 in 10 people in America are employed directly or indirectly by the auto company and yet it'd be OK to let one or all of these companies fail?

I know people like to say it's scare tactics some of the things they say, such as Gettelfinger saying the US will enter a depression...but he's not far from the truth. It truly would devastate the US economy.

People like to forget about all the other companies that would go under if say GM did.

Frankly it annoys the crap out of me that congressman would bail out the banking industry, probably because they have dirty hands in it, but wont save the Detroit 3.

Are you sure you are discussing the right forum? Because you definitely sound like you are arguing about gay rights! 1 in 10, eh? Not only are you using scare tactics, you are also using force in numbers! Are you sure about these numbers? Link? Are you sure this is all from the Big 3 US Auto and doesn't include the other more than dozen of other car makers? As for the financial bailout of banks and other financial institution, well I voted NO for that one too!

What good is it if we do not bail out the Big 3? It means we give way for the other efficient and more properly managed new Big 3!

Change your user's name to a more appropriate one, "Death FUD" (Death thru Fear, Uncertainty and Deception).

Thanks for the ad hominem attack firstly.

Second the one of 10 number was something the governor of Michigan said this morning. not sure on her number. But either way. No matter how you slice it, it would be hundreds of thousands of jobs lost if one of the companies failed. Ford: Half of U.S. states would lose 3,000-plus jobs in auto collapse and GM outlines fallout of U.S. auto industry collapse

And in response to your ot]er response, I think Chrysler and Ford could do a chapter 11, but they'd never emerge from it. At this point GM would have to file chapter 11 tomorrow, otherwise at the current pace they'll end up chapter 7. Toyota exists without a union because thats how they work as a company. They choose to build their corporate culture around that.

And again they dont have the massive legacy costs to contend with. Again going to 2010 when they(detroit 3) offload all those healthcare costs they'll be able to become more competitive again. And then they'll be able to start paying off the bridge loan.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

HOLY SHIT.

If the economy already wern't Fed up, I'd say let GM die. If they go under in the current economic environment, this country is in deep shit.

That is all there is to it. If hte economy were in good shape, I'd give GM the middle finger.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Originally posted by: nergee
Hack Paulson gave Citigroup $25B. Today Citigroup announced it will shed 50,000 jobs.
Exactly what taxpayer benefit did we get for that $25 billion?

Let GM and Ford go tits-up. The world will not end and no jobs will
be lost that are not going to be lost anyway.

The more dough Congress wastes attempting to bail out organizations
that deserve to fail, the less money there will be for legitimate uses down the road.....

That money went to improve liquidity in the financial markets. If you don't know what a bridge loan is, you don't understand what the money was for.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: DeathBUA


Why is GM doomed to fail?


... high-paying manufacturing jobs

You answered yourself. The only thing I'd add to it is that they are way too high-paying manual labor manufacturing jobs that don't take a lot of skill.



Sure, there are likely some that take a bit of skill but not to pay more than a lot of white collar professional jobs.

True for old employees, but new hires coming in get less glamorous deals.