UAW response to bailout

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Those in the car-selling industry would argue that there's plenty of demand, however this demand is being crushed by the inability for customers to obtain loans for their vehicles.
I demand a Ferrari, but no one will loan me the money. Therefore, I do not contribute to the actual demand for Ferraris. What's the difference here? If people can't buy the car for any reason, the demand simply isn't there. Any argument against this reasoning is specious at best.

You'd have to be a truly delusional binary thinker not to notice how the lending/credit crunch has really decimated our economy in numerous ways, but there you have it. The key to our entire economic crisis is that banks are hoarding cash, not making loans, and acting like a bunch of selfish fucks even after being bailed out by hundreds of billions of taxpayer cash, but let's ignore that and pretend the demand for U.S. built cars doesn't exist.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: chucky2
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: chucky2
The UAW is already assuming the pension and healthcare costs, and their new workers will be hired in at $14/hr. $14/hr is less than $30k/yr folks. These aren't people flipping burgers, they're working their @ss off everyday, in tough conditions, and have to be perfect everytime.

I think, with the exception of the job bank, the UAW has given plenty up already. If we want the Big 3 to reach "parity" with its Japenese US plants, then lets have the Big 3 Management reach "parity" with the Japanese Management.

Me thinks the push for "parity" would disappear PDQ....

Chuck

And those new hire wages do not start until 2010, but the financial problem exists now.

So what do you want to do? Cut the salaries of the current UAW folks? OK, you can do that.

Now the cost of the cars won't decrease by any amount, so sales won't increase.

And the 40% of us that pay taxes in the country will become, what, 39% 38% 37% Less? I mean, once you cut their salaries back, they ain't going to be going on spending sprees.

Considering they already gave up COLA this last last contract, which means they've been taking pay cuts as inflation occurs, I think they're fine where they're at.

You agree of course that Big 3 Management should lead by example, Correct? You do have a link where Big 3 Management has stated they are at parity with their Japenese Management counterparts, Right?

Thought so...F the little man for a nickle, so you can give the Millions to the Leadership. Brilliant.....

Chuck

Guess what, the company is strapped for cash and apparently is close to collapse. If you think the concessions can wait till 2010, go ahead. But GM may not be around in 2010 without concessions.

And Yes I think management has its own share of problems that need to be dealt with. I believe the ceos have stated they will be working for $1/year if they get money from the government....
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Those in the car-selling industry would argue that there's plenty of demand, however this demand is being crushed by the inability for customers to obtain loans for their vehicles.
I demand a Ferrari, but no one will loan me the money. Therefore, I do not contribute to the actual demand for Ferraris. What's the difference here? If people can't buy the car for any reason, the demand simply isn't there. Any argument against this reasoning is specious at best.

You'd have to be a truly delusional binary thinker not to notice how the lending/credit crunch has really decimated our economy in numerous ways, but there you have it. The key to our entire economic crisis is that banks are hoarding cash, not making loans, and acting like a bunch of selfish fucks even after being bailed out by hundreds of billions of taxpayer cash, but let's ignore that and pretend the demand for U.S. built cars doesn't exist.

Well considering easy credit is what got us into the mess, I cant really blame the banks for doing what they should have been doing before all this started.
 

Squisher

Lifer
Aug 17, 2000
21,204
66
91
Originally posted by: Paddington
Hey look, I support the bailout of the automakers, but I think the union is dead wrong. If they don't get their act together, in March 2009 it's going to be game over because this country's patience is limited.

Just earlier this year, American Axle demanded concessions from the union. The union then went on strike against American Axle. The strike went on so long dozens of GM and Chrysler factories closed. American Axle then said, "look, you fuck over GM, and extort some money from them, then we can both be happy." So the union went on strike against the few GM plants that were open, not dependent on AA parts (they specifically picked the Malibu and Lambda plants because those were GM's better sellers) and extorted a $200 million buyout package for their American Axle workers. Oh yeah, this was all while the situation was getting quite grim for the auto industry... But I digress.

I live in the greater Detroit region. From what I can tell, no Big 3 autoworker has been truly "laid off" in decades, unless you count collecting 95% of your pay for not working being "laid off". Not many industries can claim that. Furthermore, many of the factory workers that have left GM, Ford, Chrysler since 2005 have been "bought out" of their contracts to the tune of some $100,000-$300,000, with many of them continuing to collect benefits as well. In essence, their productivity was so worthless it was cheaper to give mini CEO-esque golden parachutes to leave the company.

Despite what Gettelfinger says about the union having made concessions in 2007, the real problem is that the concessions apply only to future hires, and even then, future hires working in support jobs (lawn mowing, janitorial work, etc.) One of the major sticking points in 2007 was that GM, Ford, Chrysler said that the guy that whacks the weeds in front of the building shouldn't be paid on the same scale that the "skilled" assembly line worker should be paid. The union fought this tooth and nail, but ultimately had to agree to the two tier deal. Let me make this very clear, no current unionized factory worker has made any real concessions... And that has to change.

Huh? I'm an American Axle retiree. All the UAW general labor workers at American Axle now went from making $24/hr to $18/hr, the two tier was already in place from the last agreement. And, there is no more jobs bank. The skilled trades classifications went down to 2, electricians and everybody else. All the non-essential work for outside maintanence is now done by contract employees.

How is taking a 25% paycut not a concession??? How are all those other things not concessions???

I can't say I agree with the strike that took place. We in the IAM had already given up those things in our last contract. We were out of work during that walkout without strike pay.


btw-the jobs bank is a moot point, it is gone, bye bye, and even before all this bailout talk there were only 3500 people in it, in the entire USA.
 

Paddington

Senior member
Jun 26, 2006
538
0
0
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: Paddington
Originally posted by: her209
Why aren't the "office" people required to be paid at the same $ as their Japanese counterparts?
The white collar workers at the Big 3 really take the brunt of the beatings. Whenever they have to tighten their belts, the first ones to lose their jobs, have pay cuts, benefit cuts, etc. are always the salaried work force. They do this because the salaried workers aren't unionized, whereas if they try to cut a single union worker's pay they can look forward to a strike at all their plants. A generation ago, the top engineering, design, science, and finance students were eager to take good paying jobs at the Big 3 in Detroit. Now these jobs pay quite poorly and have terrible security. I can't stress enough how bad the situation is for the average engineer, artist, scientist, or even finance guy at the Big 3, because they've been taking pay cuts for years. Not being able to attract good talent obviously hurts their prospects for turning their business around in the future.
GM Lays Off White-Collar Workers For First Time In Twenty Years

Again, it depends what you want to define as a "lay off". That article says GM's white collar labor force is around half the size today that it was at the start of the decade. Many of those people got buyouts. But these buyouts weren't nearly as generous as what the union got, the folks that took them didn't have nearly as much say in the matter. Everyone who has remained has had their salary, benefits, etc. drastically cut.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
You'd have to be a truly delusional binary thinker not to notice how the lending/credit crunch has really decimated our economy in numerous ways, but there you have it. The key to our entire economic crisis is that banks are hoarding cash, not making loans, and acting like a bunch of selfish fucks even after being bailed out by hundreds of billions of taxpayer cash, but let's ignore that and pretend the demand for U.S. built cars doesn't exist.
Did I say that the credit crunch isn't happening? No. What you don't seem to understand is that if GM produces 138054793857 cars and only 3 of them get sold, the rest sit there. It doesn't matter WHY they don't get purchased. It's not a difficult concept, so quit whining and quit making up ridiculous strawmen to try to avoid the obviousness of what I'm saying. Quit with the name-calling childish BS and read for a change.
 

Auryg

Platinum Member
Dec 28, 2003
2,377
0
71

Originally posted by: Paddington

btw-the jobs bank is a moot point, it is gone, bye bye, and even before all this bailout talk there were only 3500 people in it, in the entire USA.

Just some fuzzy math here, and it's really late and I'm probably screwing something up, but 3500 people * 50 an hour * 8 hours = 1.4 million. A day.

That, times 365 = about half a billion dollars, each year. That seems to be way more than the CEO's pay.

That's 3500 people they could have employed, actually doing stuff. How many people work at a plant anyways?
 

Jiggz

Diamond Member
Mar 10, 2001
4,329
0
76
Originally posted by: Kwatt
Originally posted by: Puffnstuff
http://www.uaw.org/auto/12_19_08auto1.cfm

They want everybody but themselve to change. I say the fed should force the big 3 into bankruptcy and break them.

I am curious if this.
"All stakeholders -- management, directors, bondholders, suppliers, dealers, workers -- will have to participate in shared sacrifices to help the industry move forward,"

Is the problem some people are having difficulty with ?
And if so, Why? Are the UAW members responsible for all the problems?

Some people are claiming the Big 3 are making vehicles no one wants and of poor quality.

I don't think the UAW are designing the cars,trucks,SUV's....

Engineers, architects and modelers can come up with a perfect car design but it won't be worth a penny if the hands that build it are imperfect! But not necessarily the other way around!
 

Squisher

Lifer
Aug 17, 2000
21,204
66
91
Originally posted by: Auryg

Originally posted by: Paddington

btw-the jobs bank is a moot point, it is gone, bye bye, and even before all this bailout talk there were only 3500 people in it, in the entire USA.

Just some fuzzy math here, and it's really late and I'm probably screwing something up, but 3500 people * 50 an hour * 8 hours = 1.4 million. A day.

That, times 365 = about half a billion dollars, each year. That seems to be way more than the CEO's pay.

That's 3500 people they could have employed, actually doing stuff. How many people work at a plant anyways?

It is too much money. Even if your math is a little off (approx. 260 work days@95%).

A plant can be anything from 1 to 10,000 employees.



 

manowar821

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2007
6,063
0
0
Quick guys, let's blame each other instead of the real enemy. It's just what they want us to do, and we know how easy we are to get fucked, so let's not ruin that track record.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
Originally posted by: Jiggz
Originally posted by: Kwatt
Originally posted by: Puffnstuff
http://www.uaw.org/auto/12_19_08auto1.cfm

They want everybody but themselve to change. I say the fed should force the big 3 into bankruptcy and break them.

I am curious if this.
"All stakeholders -- management, directors, bondholders, suppliers, dealers, workers -- will have to participate in shared sacrifices to help the industry move forward,"

Is the problem some people are having difficulty with ?
And if so, Why? Are the UAW members responsible for all the problems?

Some people are claiming the Big 3 are making vehicles no one wants and of poor quality.

I don't think the UAW are designing the cars,trucks,SUV's....

Engineers, architects and modelers can come up with a perfect car design but it won't be worth a penny if the hands that build it are imperfect! But not necessarily the other way around!
I laugh at absurd statements like these. It's painfully obvious you know absolutely nothing about manufacturing.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
Originally posted by: dyna
One reuters article today talked about UAW severances. About 30 min later they changed the article and took out much of the detail but originally it said:

UAW get 48 weeks paid severance if laid off and then if they don't find a job they get put in a "job bank" where they get paid 95% of salary with benefits until they find a job at their leisure which many times they stay like this for years.

Think about how absurb that is.
It's absurd all right. Absurd that you think any of the above is true. But it sure helps fuel the misguided jealousy fires.

The jobs bank is dead. Read that sentence again. You're living in the past and it's time to move into the modern day. When a UAW worker gets laid off they get unemployment paid by the state the same as anyone else laid off from any other job. These benefits have been expanded recently for everyone in the US.

You yourself said they changed the article. Why do you think they did that? Could it be that they discovered they had just published a bunch of shit?

 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
Originally posted by: Puffnstuff
Also when they go on layoff and onto unemployment gm pays the difference to bring them up to 72% of their regular wage.
Another incorrect statement.

The dirty little secret they don't want you to know is that UAW members are allowed to kill one baby per week. I heard it from my friend Bill. His Aunt's, step father's uncle has a brother who is a UAW member.

So I know it must be true.
 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
Originally posted by: chucky2
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: chucky2
The UAW is already assuming the pension and healthcare costs, and their new workers will be hired in at $14/hr. $14/hr is less than $30k/yr folks. These aren't people flipping burgers, they're working their @ss off everyday, in tough conditions, and have to be perfect everytime.

I think, with the exception of the job bank, the UAW has given plenty up already. If we want the Big 3 to reach "parity" with its Japenese US plants, then lets have the Big 3 Management reach "parity" with the Japanese Management.

Me thinks the push for "parity" would disappear PDQ....

Chuck

And those new hire wages do not start until 2010, but the financial problem exists now.

So what do you want to do? Cut the salaries of the current UAW folks? OK, you can do that.

Now the cost of the cars won't decrease by any amount, so sales won't increase.

And the 40% of us that pay taxes in the country will become, what, 39% 38% 37% Less? I mean, once you cut their salaries back, they ain't going to be going on spending sprees.

Considering they already gave up COLA this last last contract, which means they've been taking pay cuts as inflation occurs, I think they're fine where they're at.

You agree of course that Big 3 Management should lead by example, Correct? You do have a link where Big 3 Management has stated they are at parity with their Japenese Management counterparts, Right?

Thought so...F the little man for a nickle, so you can give the Millions to the Leadership. Brilliant.....

Chuck

And this is why there should be no government bailout.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Those in the car-selling industry would argue that there's plenty of demand, however this demand is being crushed by the inability for customers to obtain loans for their vehicles.
I demand a Ferrari, but no one will loan me the money. Therefore, I do not contribute to the actual demand for Ferraris. What's the difference here? If people can't buy the car for any reason, the demand simply isn't there. Any argument against this reasoning is specious at best.

You'd have to be a truly delusional binary thinker not to notice how the lending/credit crunch has really decimated our economy in numerous ways, but there you have it. The key to our entire economic crisis is that banks are hoarding cash, not making loans, and acting like a bunch of selfish fucks even after being bailed out by hundreds of billions of taxpayer cash, but let's ignore that and pretend the demand for U.S. built cars doesn't exist.

Well considering easy credit is what got us into the mess, I cant really blame the banks for doing what they should have been doing before all this started.

That's not the reality of it whatsoever. Now, the banks have swung the other way and have put a death grip on the lending spigot that drives much of our economy. Don't believe me? Listen to what the head of the largest chain of auto dealers in the U.S. has to say:

General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC would face an easier path to recovery if the U.S. Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve Bank can find a way to free up consumer credit, the head of the nation's largest chain of auto dealerships said on Friday.

...

The difficulty of getting auto loans is a big reason auto sales have fallen so dramatically in the last two months and pushed GM and Chrysler into such deep financial holes, Mr. Jackson said. Many dealers around the country confirmed they are losing sales because even consumers with good credit aren't being approved for loans.

"The fundamental problem is the lack of credit. Buying a car is the second largest consumer purchase after a home," Mr. Jackson said. "The vast majority of people can't buy a car without a loan of some kind."

http://online.wsj.com/article/...tml?mod=googlenews_wsj

So for the love of god, knock off this "easy credit got us into this" line of crap and listen to what the real issue is for once.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
You'd have to be a truly delusional binary thinker not to notice how the lending/credit crunch has really decimated our economy in numerous ways, but there you have it. The key to our entire economic crisis is that banks are hoarding cash, not making loans, and acting like a bunch of selfish fucks even after being bailed out by hundreds of billions of taxpayer cash, but let's ignore that and pretend the demand for U.S. built cars doesn't exist.
Did I say that the credit crunch isn't happening? No. What you don't seem to understand is that if GM produces 138054793857 cars and only 3 of them get sold, the rest sit there. It doesn't matter WHY they don't get purchased. It's not a difficult concept, so quit whining and quit making up ridiculous strawmen to try to avoid the obviousness of what I'm saying. Quit with the name-calling childish BS and read for a change.
You are getting quite annoying with your over-simplification of things. Of course it fucking matters why the cars aren't getting sold! If there's huge demand for a product, but the product can't be bought because we're in the midst of the largest economic clusterfuck since the great depression and the reason the product isn't being sold is because the banking industry's balls have retreated into their body cavity as they shiver with fear, then the problem isn't with the company making the product at all, nor is the problem the fault of the UAW or the corporate executives, the problem is completely external.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: DealMonkey

The difficulty of getting auto loans is a big reason auto sales have fallen so dramatically in the last two months and pushed GM and Chrysler into such deep financial holes, Mr. Jackson said. Many dealers around the country confirmed they are losing sales because even consumers with good credit aren't being approved for loans.

"The fundamental problem is the lack of credit. Buying a car is the second largest consumer purchase after a home," Mr. Jackson said. "The vast majority of people can't buy a car without a loan of some kind."

http://online.wsj.com/article/...tml?mod=googlenews_wsj

So for the love of god, knock off this "easy credit got us into this" line of crap and listen to what the real issue is for once.[/quote]

I understand what you are saying, but we also have a financial hangover right now. That hangover is going to take a while to its course, for both banks and consumers. Consumers need to lower their debt load and banks need to increase their cash holdings. IT sucks, but it needs to be done.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: JS80


Car margins are very thin so 1-5% savings is huge. But it's the fact that from a macro perspective it will be diverting money from union labor (which is inefficient and generally a huge waste) to more effecient labor and quality, which in turn increases car quality and operating effeciencies and the entire economy of carbuilding changes to their favor and has a much better chance of profitability.

and what exactly do base this piece of stupidity off?

I base it off what you call "Voodoo economics" :roll:

No, no, voodoo is all that supply-side stuff that Reagan liked so much.

You're talking unions here, make sure you pick the right buzz-words.

You've already put in 'inefficient', which is a good start. Now try 'lazy', 'greedy', and maybe throw in something about free labour markets, and you should be good.
 

SigArms08

Member
Apr 16, 2008
181
0
0
Originally posted by: Paddington
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: Paddington
Originally posted by: her209
Why aren't the "office" people required to be paid at the same $ as their Japanese counterparts?
The white collar workers at the Big 3 really take the brunt of the beatings. Whenever they have to tighten their belts, the first ones to lose their jobs, have pay cuts, benefit cuts, etc. are always the salaried work force. They do this because the salaried workers aren't unionized, whereas if they try to cut a single union worker's pay they can look forward to a strike at all their plants. A generation ago, the top engineering, design, science, and finance students were eager to take good paying jobs at the Big 3 in Detroit. Now these jobs pay quite poorly and have terrible security. I can't stress enough how bad the situation is for the average engineer, artist, scientist, or even finance guy at the Big 3, because they've been taking pay cuts for years. Not being able to attract good talent obviously hurts their prospects for turning their business around in the future.
GM Lays Off White-Collar Workers For First Time In Twenty Years

Again, it depends what you want to define as a "lay off". That article says GM's white collar labor force is around half the size today that it was at the start of the decade. Many of those people got buyouts. But these buyouts weren't nearly as generous as what the union got, the folks that took them didn't have nearly as much say in the matter. Everyone who has remained has had their salary, benefits, etc. drastically cut.

From the article that 'her209' posted a link to:
"GM employs 28,000 white-collar workers, down from 47,000 seven years ago."

The first employees to have their benefits cut have always been the white collar workers at these auto companies.
A few examples:
In 2005, pensions cut for salaried people http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-142979716.html

Salaried workers matching 401k program suspended, tuition reimbursement stopped http://www.dailytribune.com/ar...a2161fbbb852538120.txt

Retired salaried people loose their lifetime health coverage: lifetime health coverage for some 100,000 white-collar retirees

 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,018
37
91
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: chucky2
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: chucky2
The UAW is already assuming the pension and healthcare costs, and their new workers will be hired in at $14/hr. $14/hr is less than $30k/yr folks. These aren't people flipping burgers, they're working their @ss off everyday, in tough conditions, and have to be perfect everytime.

I think, with the exception of the job bank, the UAW has given plenty up already. If we want the Big 3 to reach "parity" with its Japenese US plants, then lets have the Big 3 Management reach "parity" with the Japanese Management.

Me thinks the push for "parity" would disappear PDQ....

Chuck

And those new hire wages do not start until 2010, but the financial problem exists now.

So what do you want to do? Cut the salaries of the current UAW folks? OK, you can do that.

Now the cost of the cars won't decrease by any amount, so sales won't increase.

And the 40% of us that pay taxes in the country will become, what, 39% 38% 37% Less? I mean, once you cut their salaries back, they ain't going to be going on spending sprees.

Considering they already gave up COLA this last last contract, which means they've been taking pay cuts as inflation occurs, I think they're fine where they're at.

You agree of course that Big 3 Management should lead by example, Correct? You do have a link where Big 3 Management has stated they are at parity with their Japenese Management counterparts, Right?

Thought so...F the little man for a nickle, so you can give the Millions to the Leadership. Brilliant.....

Chuck

Guess what, the company is strapped for cash and apparently is close to collapse. If you think the concessions can wait till 2010, go ahead. But GM may not be around in 2010 without concessions.

And Yes I think management has its own share of problems that need to be dealt with. I believe the ceos have stated they will be working for $1/year if they get money from the government....

No No No No NO...

I don't want to hear that "management has its own share of problem that need to be dealt with". What I want to hear is, before we start taking money away from hard working peons, is that Management has already parity'd up with their Japenese counterparts. If you, and they, are so quick to F the little man, surely they've already done this, Right?????? I mean, this is Management. They're supposed to lead. That's why they've gotten multi-$Million dollar packages for decades now.

Here's what it boils down to: I have little stomach for F'ing the poor slob on the assembly line out of money he will absolutely miss, just to make the vehicles $800 cheaper (which has nothing to do with why the vehicles aren't selling, which is why the Big 3 are in the position they're in the first place), while Management has been raking in multi-$Million dollar packages every F'ing year.

My god...how much is enough?!?!?! The first year one of these people are there, they make enough for a lifetime. But then the next year, they get more?!?!!? And again, and again, and again????

No...F that. UAW has given enough. The end.

Chuck
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
You are getting quite annoying with your over-simplification of things. Of course it fucking matters why the cars aren't getting sold! If there's huge demand for a product, but the product can't be bought because we're in the midst of the largest economic clusterfuck since the great depression and the reason the product isn't being sold is because the banking industry's balls have retreated into their body cavity as they shiver with fear, then the problem isn't with the company making the product at all, nor is the problem the fault of the UAW or the corporate executives, the problem is completely external.
If people want to buy 4*x cars but can only buy x cars, how many cars should the car companies build?
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: charrison
I understand what you are saying, but we also have a financial hangover right now. That hangover is going to take a while to its course, for both banks and consumers. Consumers need to lower their debt load and banks need to increase their cash holdings. IT sucks, but it needs to be done.

Yes, but people with GOOD credit with the ability to repay aren't getting loans. Things have completely swung the opposite direction and as much as you like to think that's a good thing, it's NOT. Not for the consumer, not for corporate america, not for the auto makers, not for anyone. Lending and available credit for people and companies who DESERVE credit, form the backbone of our economy, and without it, our entire economy is tanking.

I don't think you get it. I really don't.
 

woodie1

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2000
5,947
0
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: charrison
I understand what you are saying, but we also have a financial hangover right now. That hangover is going to take a while to its course, for both banks and consumers. Consumers need to lower their debt load and banks need to increase their cash holdings. IT sucks, but it needs to be done.

Yes, but people with GOOD credit with the ability to repay aren't getting loans. Things have completely swung the opposite direction and as much as you like to think that's a good thing, it's NOT. Not for the consumer, not for corporate america, not for the auto makers, not for anyone. Lending and available credit for people and companies who DESERVE credit, form the backbone of our economy, and without it, our entire economy is tanking.

I don't think you get it. I really don't.

Around here there is no shortage of loan money. Car dealers with lenders lined up are begging people to buy but most of us are hoarding until we see some light at the end of the tunnel. New houses are going up and being sold too.

Must vary from region to region.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Yes, but people with GOOD credit with the ability to repay aren't getting loans. Things have completely swung the opposite direction and as much as you like to think that's a good thing, it's NOT. Not for the consumer, not for corporate america, not for the auto makers, not for anyone. Lending and available credit for people and companies who DESERVE credit, form the backbone of our economy, and without it, our entire economy is tanking.

I don't think you get it. I really don't.
Not gonna answer the simple question huh? Here it is again, in case you missed it:
If people want to buy 4*x cars but can only buy x cars, how many cars should the car companies build?