Why AIG got billions and GM got nothing...

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: Zebo
When will these guys understand when a country doesn?t make anything it doesn?t need a financial sector as there is nothing to finance. No new businesses, no factories, no nothing banana republic. 25 or even 100 billion to the automakers will seem cheap should they go under and take all those jobs with them. Estimated at 3 million and directly 1,000,000 former and current UAW employees will hit the governments Pension Insurance Fund instead for ~50K each times a million is 50 billion dollars right there the govt will HAVE to pay out, EVERY YEAR!!! 50 Billion dollars!!! I'd estimate those estimates are low and really about 10 million jobs will be lost nation wide should they go under definitely spiraling into another great depression, oh, and taking the bailed out banking sector with them. Talk about a waste of money.
You do know that we 'make' more today than at any time in our history.

Even with the economic downturn we still 'make' more than anyone else in the world.
WaPo link

What is going away and has been going away for decades are the high paying manufacturing jobs for essentially unskilled labor.

And anyone who falls for Dave's line of thinking on manufacturing is an idiot. Our standard of living is MUCH higher today than it was in the 60s and 70s when FAR more people worked in manufacturing.
According to the US today 50 years ago a third of US workers worked in some kind of factory today that number is down to 10%.

Then look at GDP per capita (in 2000 dollars)
1950 when 33% of people 'made' stuff the real GDP per capita was $11,717
Today it is $38,148.

Another way to look at it:
In 1950 our population was 150 million, today it is double at over 300 million.
In 1950 our GDP (in 2000 dollars) was $.17 trillion.
Today it is $11.5 trillion (2000 dollars)

So our population doubled, but our GDP has grown 10 fold. And this happened despite the fact that the number of manufacturing jobs has declined.

 

tatteredpotato

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2006
3,934
0
76
Personally I'm glad this didn't go through, I mean this economy is supposed to be capitalist, but nobody is willing to let these businesses go under. GM's situation is the fault of the UAW and the management combined, and frankly they need to go down. Make room for a company that can do it right.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,839
2,625
136
The linked article missed one of the main reasons AIG got its bailout-AIG owed tons of money to Goldman Sachs, and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson was the CEO of Goldman Sachs immediately before he became Treasury Secretary.

While I'm sure the union busting aspects of knocking down the GM deal were appealing to the GOP senators, sometimes you really don't have to look so far for the real reasons.
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: ObscureCaucasian
Personally I'm glad this didn't go through, I mean this economy is supposed to be capitalist, but nobody is willing to let these businesses go under. GM's situation is the fault of the UAW and the management combined, and frankly they need to go down. Make room for a company that can do it right.

If the big three go under you'll be handing one of our major industrial sectors to foreign elements who may or may not have our best interests in mind in the long term. In the end cutting off our nose to spite our face is not a smart move. Also as stated by Vic the Japanese automakers are pretty much subsidized and protected by their own government and yes they have very large unions to deal with at home. The big difference is the prevalent Japanese business mentality seems to be one that towers over US American executives and their lack of business morals, ethics and long term planning/thinking currently. Changing faces but keeping the same failed strategies and points of views will always continue to create such problems in the future.
 

L00PY

Golden Member
Sep 14, 2001
1,101
0
0
Originally posted by: Zebo
Oh and y'all taking about chapter 11 are nuts as well since the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp e.g. the government and thus the tax payers will have to pay the pension for ~ 1,000,000 UAW members instead if the bankruptcy judge alleviates Big 3 from their pension overcommitments which of course he will since that's the whole reason for filing ala United Airlines. Instead of costing say 32 billion for one bailout and keeping big 3 feet to fire you're talking about 50 billion every year until these guys start dying off then it will go down. The math does not work but way to stick to free market principle. :confused:
As I understand it, your numbers and facts are off.

For those that didn't know it, the PBGC doesn't get funding from general tax revenues -- it's funded by premiums paid by companies with pension plans. Pension funds are also supposed to be kept separate from company funds. The PBGC steps in when those pension funds become underfunded beyond a certain point or the company enters into bankruptcy. he PBGC takes control over the remaining pension fund assets and use those assets, the premiums that were already paid in, and premiums currently being paid in to cover the remaining pension liability.

So, lets say one of the big three goes under. We'll start with Chrysler. As it stood in 2007, their pension was overfunded. Daimler would also be on the hook for an additional $5 billion if Chrysler went under now. If the PBGC were to take over their pension, there would probably be zero cost to the PBGC due to the pensions, and definitely nothing taxpayers due to it.

Ford and GM's pension situations are different than Chrysler's. GM isn't overfunded by $2 billion, they're overfunded by more than $8 billion. It's Ford that's problematic, being underfunded by more than $3 billion. That's the cost the PBGC would have to cover, just the difference between current pension assets and what they're obligated to pay out. This will not be anywhere near a cost of $50 billion every year, but potentially $3.3 billion over the entire lifetime of the current pensions. In all likelihood, if Ford were to go under, like with what happened with UA, the PBGC would negotiate with retirees and probably get them to take less in return for taking over the plan.

The big three's problem isn't that they can't afford to pay the pensions, it's that they can't afford to pay the pensions for retirees and the pensions for all current and future employees with what they're doing now. Also, the current car sales model involves a lot of credit financing on everyone from parts suppliers to manufacturers to dealers to car buyers. That cash crunch is what this auto bailout is largely supposed to cover.

Finally, if you read the PBGC annual management report, you'll see that while their not doing great, they're doing well enough to be able to survive taking on the big three pensions if they all go bankrupt.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: L00PY
Originally posted by: Zebo
Oh and y'all taking about chapter 11 are nuts as well since the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp e.g. the government and thus the tax payers will have to pay the pension for ~ 1,000,000 UAW members instead if the bankruptcy judge alleviates Big 3 from their pension overcommitments which of course he will since that's the whole reason for filing ala United Airlines. Instead of costing say 32 billion for one bailout and keeping big 3 feet to fire you're talking about 50 billion every year until these guys start dying off then it will go down. The math does not work but way to stick to free market principle. :confused:
As I understand it, your numbers and facts are off.

For those that didn't know it, the PBGC doesn't get funding from general tax revenues -- it's funded by premiums paid by companies with pension plans. Pension funds are also supposed to be kept separate from company funds. The PBGC steps in when those pension funds become underfunded beyond a certain point or the company enters into bankruptcy. he PBGC takes control over the remaining pension fund assets and use those assets, the premiums that were already paid in, and premiums currently being paid in to cover the remaining pension liability.

So, lets say one of the big three goes under. We'll start with Chrysler. As it stood in 2007, their pension was overfunded. Daimler would also be on the hook for an additional $5 billion if Chrysler went under now. If the PBGC were to take over their pension, there would probably be zero cost to the PBGC due to the pensions, and definitely nothing taxpayers due to it.

Ford and GM's pension situations are different than Chrysler's. GM isn't overfunded by $2 billion, they're overfunded by more than $8 billion. It's Ford that's problematic, being underfunded by more than $3 billion. That's the cost the PBGC would have to cover, just the difference between current pension assets and what they're obligated to pay out. This will not be anywhere near a cost of $50 billion every year, but potentially $3.3 billion over the entire lifetime of the current pensions. In all likelihood, if Ford were to go under, like with what happened with UA, the PBGC would negotiate with retirees and probably get them to take less in return for taking over the plan.

The big three's problem isn't that they can't afford to pay the pensions, it's that they can't afford to pay the pensions for retirees and the pensions for all current and future employees with what they're doing now. Also, the current car sales model involves a lot of credit financing on everyone from parts suppliers to manufacturers to dealers to car buyers. That cash crunch is what this auto bailout is largely supposed to cover.

Finally, if you read the PBGC annual management report, you'll see that while their not doing great, they're doing well enough to be able to survive taking on the big three pensions if they all go bankrupt.

The PBGC was funded to the tune of 14 billion last year by congress and thats before any automaker bailout, just airlines and other defaults. Don't believe what you read about their 'independent' nature it's not true anymore than Freddy or Fanni. Also you don't understand how pension funding works. Those numbers you quote are a per annum basis meaning for that year they have an extra 3 billion should they need to pay out in pension FOR THAT YEAR up and above scheduled but all bets are off should they go bankrupt since revenue stops and the 50 billion a year must come from PBGC.
 

L00PY

Golden Member
Sep 14, 2001
1,101
0
0
Originally posted by: Zebo
The PBGC was funded to the tune of 14 billion last year by congress and thats before any automaker bailout, just airlines and other defaults. Don't believe what you read about their 'independent' nature it's not true anymore than Freddy or Fanni. Also you don't understand how pension funding works. Those numbers you quote are a per annum basis meaning for that year they have an extra 3 billion should they need to pay out in pension FOR THAT YEAR up and above scheduled but all bets are off should they go bankrupt since revenue stops and the 50 billion a year must come from PBGC.
I provided a government link showing a GAAP verified statement that in 2008 PBGC had income of around $1.5 billion last year from premium income. They paid out a total of around $4.3 billion in benefits. They still have $61.6 billion in assets. In 2007 they had income of around $1.56 billion, paid out $4.25 billion, and had assets of $68.4 billion. Please provide a link or evidence backing up your claim of $14 billion dollar funding from congress last year. Given they only paid out $4 billion or so in payments, I'd love to hear where you think the remaining $10 billion of "congressional funding" went.

You show a fundamental misunderstanding of finance, pensions and how the PBGC works. Those numbers are not on a per annum basis. In Oct '08 it was reported that Chrysler was overfunded by $3 billion because it had pension assets of $26.2 billion and pension liabilities of $23.1 billion. GM's 10-K filing stated it had defined benefit plan assets of $104 billion and liabilities of $85 billion. If you think those are on a per annum basis you're insane. But feel free to prove me wrong and provide a link or evidence backing up your claim of a per annum basis for those figures.

Don't get me wrong -- if the market doesn't turn around and if there aren't some fundamental changes in how the PBGC operates, we might be needing a $50-100 billion bailout of the PBGC in 5-10 years. But GM and Chrysler's pension assets being pulled in would help the situation, not hurt it.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
Originally posted by: ObscureCaucasian
Personally I'm glad this didn't go through, I mean this economy is supposed to be capitalist, but nobody is willing to let these businesses go under. GM's situation is the fault of the UAW and the management combined, and frankly they need to go down. Make room for a company that can do it right.[/

This statement has been said in one form or another numerous times in the many months, maybe even years these discussions have been going on here.

Why would they need to go down to 'make room' for another car company? What's preventing another car company from rising up right now, or 5 years ago for that matter and start 'doing it right'?

Surely if they're doing it so very wrong now, that a company that had a superior business model would quickly overtake them and leave them in a crumpled heap. What's hindering the rise and resulting domination by that new company?

GM alone sold 9.3 million cars worldwide last year which is more vehicles than any automaker in the world sold. Obviously, this is the fault of the UAW and management combined. How many cars do you feel a company that did it right could sell?

Edit: spelling

 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
PBGC pension coverage isn't a bed of roses for those tossed into that coverage. PBGC doesn't pay medical coverage, at all, and survivor benefits are only 50%, regardless of the provisions of the original plan. It's a trick bag in many other respects for people not already drawing pensions or who took inducements to retire before age 65- basically one of corporate America's best concealed screwjobs.

Combined with chapter 11 bankruptcy, it allows corrupt corporate management new and exciting ways to keep on ridin' the gravy train...
 

L00PY

Golden Member
Sep 14, 2001
1,101
0
0
For the record, I wasn't trying to argue that the PBGC was some panacea to pensioners or retirees. It's a government run insurance policy for pension plans. That "government run" bit ought to be the first warning. The second is anytime an insurance policy gets enacted, neither the circumstances nor the results are as good as people would have liked. When considering the benefit of the PBGC for those tossed into that coverage, the question ought to be "are they better off than if the plan didn't have that insurance?"

That all said, the point I was trying to make is that the argument that GM deserves a bailout because of their pension obligations is flawed on many levels. GM's pension has assets covering more than their liabilities, the taxpayers wouldn't be on the hook for that. Even if they were underfunded by 20% instead of the current overfunding of 20%, the PBGC would be the one to first step in and cover that 20% difference before the taxpayers, not the entire bill. The PBGC would have to fail entirely first before the taxpayers got asked to burden the full responsibility. While that might happen 5-10 years for now, there's no guarantee the big three will even make it that long.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: boomerang
Originally posted by: ObscureCaucasian
Personally I'm glad this didn't go through, I mean this economy is supposed to be capitalist, but nobody is willing to let these businesses go under. GM's situation is the fault of the UAW and the management combined, and frankly they need to go down. Make room for a company that can do it right.[/

This statement has been said in one form or another numerous times in the many months, maybe even years these discussions have been going on here.

Why would they need to go down to 'make room' for another car company?

What's preventing another car company from rising up right now, or 5 years ago for that matter and start 'doing it right'?

There already is a car company (sort of) doing it right.

They've started with small vehicles but they will get a little bigger.

T3 Motion
 

alphatarget1

Diamond Member
Dec 9, 2001
5,710
0
76
UAW just needed to make the concessions that Republican senators asked for and they would've gotten the bailout.

Thank God for a filibuster proof senate (in the next one). Fvck the UAW. If the Japanese can build good cars with US labor (Honda has plants in Ohio), sell the Big 3 to them, and kill UAW.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
Originally posted by: alphatarget1
UAW just needed to make the concessions that Republican senators asked for and they would've gotten the bailout.

That's not necessarily true. Repubs' motivations aren't entirely clear, other than the desire to engage in some posturing and face-saving after their miserable performance of the last 8 years...

Right now, they need some political capital, and posing as fiscal responsibility types give 'em just a little bit of that...

 

MikeMike

Lifer
Feb 6, 2000
45,885
66
91
Originally posted by: alphatarget1
UAW just needed to make the concessions that Republican senators asked for and they would've gotten the bailout.

Thank God for a filibuster proof senate (in the next one). Fvck the UAW. If the Japanese can build good cars with US labor (Honda has plants in Ohio), sell the Big 3 to them, and kill UAW.

the repubs saw this as an oppurtunity to take down one of the largest unions in america, and tried to do it... they would rather fuck the country than let the UAW live.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
36,038
10,364
136
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
Title: Why AIG got billions and GM got nothing...

You have to draw the line somewhere. There's no need to fret, the next Congress and President will not hesitate to buy out and bond the nation in the slavery of debt.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
Title: Why AIG got billions and GM got nothing...

You have to draw the line somewhere. There's no need to fret, the next Congress and President will not hesitate to buy out and bond the nation in the slavery of debt.

How lame, given the last 8 years of the Bush Admin, whereby the national debt will have doubled by Sept 30, 2009- the end of the fiscal year... Or the 4X increase in the debt under the leadership of the semi-mythical "Great Communicator", RR, and his successor, GHWB...

Slavery of debt? We're already there, cowboy...
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
AIG should never have been bailed out. They helped create the bubble by ensuring loans that never should have been insured against default. Those who bought their default swaps accepted the counterparty risk. They should not be bailed out by the government.
 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
Originally posted by: senseamp
AIG should never have been bailed out. They helped create the bubble by ensuring loans that never should have been insured against default. Those who bought their default swaps accepted the counterparty risk. They should not be bailed out by the government.

But then where would hank get a job after Jan 20th if he let Goldman go BK?
 

LongTimePCUser

Senior member
Jul 1, 2000
472
0
76
Right,
The Republicans would have accepted the UAW proposals only if they were willing to work for $1 / year.

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
UAW just needed to make the concessions that Republican senators asked for and they would've gotten the bailout.

Thank God for a filibuster proof senate (in the next one). Fvck the UAW. If the Japanese can build good cars with US labor (Honda has plants in Ohio), sell the Big 3 to them, and kill UAW.

 

GroundedSailor

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2001
2,502
0
76
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Originally posted by: alphatarget1
UAW just needed to make the concessions that Republican senators asked for and they would've gotten the bailout.

That's not necessarily true. Repubs' motivations aren't entirely clear, other than the desire to engage in some posturing and face-saving after their miserable performance of the last 8 years...

Right now, they need some political capital, and posing as fiscal responsibility types give 'em just a little bit of that...

Republicans motive are pretty clear. See my post earlier in this thread. I repeat part here - the R memo which was sent to Senate Republicans.

Its a shot at organized labor. That is the prime motive.

GOP: 'Action Alert - Auto Bailout'
Countdown has obtained a memo entitled "Action Alert - Auto Bailout," and sent Wednesday at 9:12am, to Senate Republicans. The names of the sender(s) and recipient(s) have been redacted in the copy Countdown obtained. The Los Angeles Times reported that it was circulated among Senate Republicans. The brief memo outlines internal political strategy on the bailout, including the view that defeating the bailout represents a "first shot against organized labor." Senate Republicans blocked passage of the bailout late Thursday night, over its insistence on an immediate union pay cut. See the entire memo after the jump.

From:

Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 9:12 AM

To:

Subject: Action Alert -- Auto Bailout

Today at noon, Senators Ensign, Shelby, Coburn and DeMint will hold a press conference in the Senate Radio/TV Gallery. They would appreciate our support through messaging and attending the press conference, if possible. The message they want us to deliver is:

1. This is the democrats first opportunity to payoff organized labor after the election. This is a precursor to card check and other items. Republicans should stand firm and take their first shot against organized labor, instead of taking their first blow from it.

2. This rush to judgment is the same thing that happened with the TARP. Members did not have an opportunity to read or digest the legislation and therefore could not understand the consequences of it. We should not rush to pass this because Detroit says the sky is falling.

The sooner you can have press releases and documents like this in the hands of members and the press, the better. Please contact me if you need additional information. Again, the hardest thing for the democrats to do is get 60 votes. If we can hold the Republicans, we can beat this.

 

alphatarget1

Diamond Member
Dec 9, 2001
5,710
0
76
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
Originally posted by: alphatarget1
UAW just needed to make the concessions that Republican senators asked for and they would've gotten the bailout.

Thank God for a filibuster proof senate (in the next one). Fvck the UAW. If the Japanese can build good cars with US labor (Honda has plants in Ohio), sell the Big 3 to them, and kill UAW.

the repubs saw this as an oppurtunity to take down one of the largest unions in america, and tried to do it... they would rather fuck the country than let the UAW live.

UAW needs to die, period. I was a grader during my undergrad years and I apparently had to join them and pay UAW dues.

You know, I don't hate all unions. I was watching this CNBC thing on American Airlines and they were showing a section of maintenance. Those are most definitely unionized labor, and I don't remember when was the last time AA had a crash because of maintenance faults. You don't hear about job banks from these guys like the UAW has with the Big 3, and they want a fvcking bailout? American cars have gotten such bad reputations at least partially because of UAW workers.

American workers proved that good cars can be built without a union, and it has worked for many foreign manufacturers. If we need to reform the auto industry, ditching the management isn't enough, the UAW is also a part of the problem. Not taking away influence/killing UAW as part of the rescue package is not enough, and I'm glad that there are sane senators that put American taxpayers interest first before the interest of a union consists of lazy job bank "workers".
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
Originally posted by: alphatarget1
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
Originally posted by: alphatarget1
UAW just needed to make the concessions that Republican senators asked for and they would've gotten the bailout.

Thank God for a filibuster proof senate (in the next one). Fvck the UAW. If the Japanese can build good cars with US labor (Honda has plants in Ohio), sell the Big 3 to them, and kill UAW.

the repubs saw this as an oppurtunity to take down one of the largest unions in america, and tried to do it... they would rather fuck the country than let the UAW live.

UAW needs to die, period. I was a grader during my undergrad years and I apparently had to join them and pay UAW dues.

You know, I don't hate all unions. I was watching this CNBC thing on American Airlines and they were showing a section of maintenance. Those are most definitely unionized labor, and I don't remember when was the last time AA had a crash because of maintenance faults. You don't hear about job banks from these guys like the UAW has with the Big 3, and they want a fvcking bailout? American cars have gotten such bad reputations at least partially because of UAW workers.

American workers proved that good cars can be built without a union, and it has worked for many foreign manufacturers. If we need to reform the auto industry, ditching the management isn't enough, the UAW is also a part of the problem. Not taking away influence/killing UAW as part of the rescue package is not enough, and I'm glad that there are sane senators that put American taxpayers interest first before the interest of a union consists of lazy job bank "workers".
The jobs bank is over, it's history. I've never understood the mindset of folks that cant let the past go. The only thing we have in this life that we can count on is the moment we are in. The future is uncertain, but we can have hope for that, The past is over and done with and can't be changed.

You say American cars have bad reputations. How has this affected you personally? If the UAW is busted, how is your life going to change for the better? Your post reads like a personal vendetta. So how have you been wronged?

It would seem to me that if you are dead set against the UAW, or a domestic car maker as a whole, or all the domestics for that matter, you can send them a message. You, as the consumer have the ultimate power. Don't buy their products.

I believe that wanting to put 2 to 3 million people in this country out of work solely to bust the union is most certainly not in the best interests of the country as a whole. I'd like to know what benefits you feel the country will reap by this happening.
 

GroundedSailor

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2001
2,502
0
76
An interesting study taken from here.

Note that most of these auto plants are in the states of the same R senators who killed the loan to the big 3. Apart from the the long held Republican goal of union busting, could these senators have some other vested interest?

Case Study of Auto Assembly Plants

As the U.S. automakers have downsized their domestic manufacturing operations over the past two decades, foreign car makers have been opening one U.S. assembly plant after another . And in nearly every case, the Asian and European companies have received financial assistance from state and local governments eager for industrial jobs.

The first foreign automaker to set up shop in the United States was Volkswagen, which opened a plant in Pennsylvania in 1978. That venture, which fell victim to labor unrest, ended in 1988. The real invasion began in the early 1980s, at a time when Japanese producers were winning a steadily increasing share of the U.S. car market. To allay concern about the rising tide of auto imports, the Japanese decided to open production facilities in the U.S. This move was made all the more urgent by efforts in Congress to pass legislation mandating domestic content for cars sold in the U.S. market.

Honda began assembling Accords in Ohio in 1982. Nissan, which started producing trucks at its Smyrna, Tennessee plant in 1983, expanded to automobiles two years later. Toyota got involved in both a joint venture with General Motors in California and an operation of its own in Kentucky. Mazda announced plans in 1984 to build an assembly plant in Michigan, and Mitsubishi said it would produce cars in Illinois in a joint venture with Chrysler called Diamond-Star.

By the time of the Mitsubishi project, governments were lavishing large sums on the facilities, known as transplants. Illinois, hoping that the Diamond-Star plant would create a slew of additional jobs as nearby supplier companies sprang up, provided a package worth $249 million, the biggest in Illinois history and then the biggest package ever given an auto assembly plant in the U.S.

Such assistance was offered, even though many observers pointed out that the Japanese firms, concerned more about import controls than state and local taxes, would certainly proceed with their plans even in the absence of subsidies. Authors Martin and Susan Tolchin noted in their book Buying Into America: "There was nothing secret about these strategies: The Japanese encouraged their companies to invest abroad as enlightened policy, designed to stave off protectionism and save jobs."

By the 1990s the threat of protectionism had passed, yet foreign automakers continued to expand operations in the United States. The reason now was to bolster their ever-rising U.S. market share and to take advantage of what had become relatively inexpensive U.S. labor. The latter motivation prompted companies to shift their focus from the Midwest to "right to work" states in the South. Nonetheless, state and local governments continued to offer up lucrative subsidy packages, including the following:

* In 1992 South Carolina ushered in the new wave of investment by foreign carmakers in the South by offering BMW a package that was ultimately worth an estimated $150 million. A decade later, the state put up an additional $80 million in infrastructure aid when BMW decided to expand its operations in the state.

* In 1993 officials in Alabama lured a Mercedes-Benz facility, the first foreign auto plant in the state, with a package worth $258 million.

* In 1999 Alabama put together a $158 million subsidy deal to land a $400 million, 1.7 million-square-foot Honda plant. In 2002 state and local officials provided an additional package worth $90 million, including $33 million in tax breaks over 20 years, when Honda decided to expand the facility.

* In 2000 officials in Mississippi lured a $950 million Nissan plant with a $295 million subsidy deal. While the plant was still under construction, the company announced an expansion of the project that also involved an increase in the subsidy package to $363 million.

* When South Korean carmakers Hyundai staged a competition for a $1 billion plant, various states put together bids, but it was Alabama that won the contest in 2002 with a package worth $252 million.

* Commentators much made of the fact that when Toyota chose San Antonio, Texas in 2003 as the location for an $800 million assembly plant, the company had not selected the site with the most generous subsidy package. In another example of the fact that subsidies are not the most important factor in investment decisions, Toyota highlighted criteria such as access to the large Texas market for the pickup trucks that would be built at the plant. This is not to say that Toyota passed up all government assistance. The company received a package valued at $133 million, including $47 million in tax phase-ins and waived fees.

By the late 1990s there were signs that the big giveaway to BMW by South Carolina was exacerbating a fiscal crisis in the state. While the carmaker and other companies were enjoying minimal levels of corporate taxation, the state's schools were falling into greater disrepair and educational achievement was worsening. Funds for other government services such as highway maintenance and public safety were also in short supply, leading to tax increases for families. "The foreign companies that come in here don't care that the schools are terrible," one philanthropist told a reporter. "They just want the cheap labor. And the incentives are so extraordinary."

It is only a matter of time before the other states that have given nine-figure subsidy packages to foreign carmakers also begin to wonder if they made the right decision for the long-term prosperity of their citizens. They may also realize that giveaways are ultimately work against future corporate investments. A sign of this came in 2005 when Toyota rejected several subsidy-laden deals from U.S. communities and instead decided to build its next assembly plant in Ontario. The decision was said to be made because of the higher quality of the workforce in Canada.


Sources

Greg LeRoy, The Great American Jobs Scam: Corporate Tax Dodging and the Myth of Job Creation. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2005.

Jeff McCourt and Greg LeRoy, A Better Deal for Illinois: Improving Economic Development Policy, Good Jobs First, January 2003, pp. 28-35.

Kim Hill and Emilio Brahmst, The Auto Industry Moving South: An Examination of Trends. Ann Arbor: Center for Automotive Research, December 15, 2003; available online at http://www.cargroup.org/pdfs/North-SouthPaper.PDF

Ron Starner, "Global Automakers Lead the Pack," Site Selection, May 2003 and other articles from Site Selection.

Jay Hancock, "S.C. Pays Dearly for Added Jobs: South Carolina's Economy was Supposed to Improve, but Taxes Exploded while Services Crumbled," Baltimore Sun, October 12, 1999.

Martin and Susan Tolchin. Buying into America: How Foreign Money Is Changing the Face of our Nation, New York: Times Books, 1988.