Motown bail out ???

[pourts]

It can be said that for half of the $700B TARP, we got exactly zero benefit out of it, and by that token, the delaying of job losses by one quarter for a measly $25-74B (depending on which intangible amount is being quoted at the time) seems pretty cheap and actually accomplishes something. If you extrapolate that out, and limit yourself only to the auto industry (but our government knows no limits), you could probably put off bankruptcy for another two years with the remaining TARP funds.

Ok, I can't let you slide with that one. If not having your financial system collapse is a "zero benefit" then I guess you are right.

The reason the financial system had to be bailed out is because it affects every other thing in the economy. The flow of money is necessary for every industry, however a domestic car industry in its current form is not necessary for the health of the entire economy. Finance is like your cardiovascular system: the blood (money) must flow or you die.

And, as others have said, bankruptcy is not as bad as it sounds. Companies can survive it.

 

[DanMa1156]

The thing is, bankruptcy =/= fail. The auto makers can go into bankruptcy and then streamline themselves to be more in line with the "Asians." All this bailout is about is saving the Union jobs. I don't want them to fail but I really don't want to give them my money either.

Exactly my points. Spot on.

 

[navy09]

This has all been said before, but...

-Don't feel sorry for the union workers who will lose their jobs. They dug their own grave. You can't artifically inflate wages and expect it to last forever.

-Bailouts are a short term fix; if a firm is structuraly set up to fail, they eventually will. We can't keep pumping money into them forever.

I hear alot of mention about SUV's and lack of a "Green" alternative coming out of congress and it just doesnt make sense to me.

That's where the market is going...eventually. Maybe not this year or in the next few, but we're running out of gas and it's going to get more expensive. The R&D process for these new "green" technologies takes time, they need to start really looking into alternative technologies- and not just hybrid- now!

 

[HercDriver]

I see lots of posts about how the workers are paid too much, but none on the management's high wages...wonder why that is? Guess with the excellent job mgmts done running their companies into the ground they deserve the high wages. Odd that folks have done charts estimating what the cost of having a well-paid work force translates into added markup on the vehicle, but none on overpaid CEOs.

-Don't feel sorry for the union workers who will lose their jobs. They dug their own grave. You can't artifically inflate wages and expect it to last forever.

Yeah, they wanted higher wages and better benefits...how greedy of them. Obviously unious are evil, working towards improving the condition of the workforce that they represent.

As for the bailout...if we knew it would keep the country from going into a depression, I say it would be criminal not to do it. But there is no guarantee of that, so...

 

[LazersGoPEWPEW]

I don't give two shits whether its an SUV or a Green Go-Kart all I want is a car that I don't have to fix once a year for the rest of my life. And I sure as hell don't want a car that I have to fix more than that. The Bronco I own is a Ford and while it's old and decrepit I still don't buy into the having to replace this after its been this long game. Cars should run and run for a long time before they have some crap go wrong with them.

These new cars with the fancy computers and stuff burn me up because of all the miscellaneous shit that goes wrong with them. I'm referring to airbag lights, exhaust lights, seatbelt malfunctions, and cooling issues that I've seen in a newer car.

I hate complicated cars. They're cool and fancy but give me a car I can drive without fear of it acting up everytime I crank the ignition and I'll pay a high premium for it.

That's the bottom line right there. You want to sell cars. Make a quality vehicle that doesn't break down and then I don't care how much gas it takes because I'll rest assured that I dont have to throw a thousand dollars every time it breaks down.

Let them burn. The Big Three need to figure out how to build a good car again.

 

[navy09]

Yeah, they wanted higher wages and better benefits...how greedy of them. Obviously unious are evil, working towards improving the condition of the workforce that they represent.

They're not evil, but they are anti-competitive. Labor unions are necessary for certain reasons, but some (UAW for example) have become overly powerful. They need to remember what their place is and what the consequences are for certain actions.

 

[A4sForever]

As a member of the AFL-CIO (not voluntarily, may I add) for the past 30 +/- years ....

I'd like to know which one of YOU sanctimonious, anti-union "people" herein -- as employees -- would ever turn down a wage & benefit increase because YOU "knew" it would be bad for your long-term financial health or that of your company .... 'cause that would make YOU a singularly unique individual in the history of industry, labor, and employee relations. It would also make you full of bullshit.

Please raise your virtual hand and drop your names on this thread, so we can all see who the liars are ...

Labor unions are protectionist -- sometimes for a good reason, but seldom for the benefit of the bottom line. Were it not for the reality of predatory, "what's-in-it-for-me" management teams and their policies over the decades, there would probably not be a great need for American "unions".

There's no ONE item that's driving the American auto industry down. It's been going down ever since "made in Japan" ceased to be a pejorative term.

 

[navy09]

I'd like to know which one of YOU sanctimonious, anti-union "people" herein -- as employees -- would ever turn down a wage & benefit increase because YOU "knew" it would be bad for your long-term financial health or that of your company.

Ha, no way. But as I understand it, unions often vote on contractual items. So it's not like everyone is a poor little sheep with no say in what happens.

Personally, I'd probably 'vote' with my feet and not take a job in such a position... I'm not really into the whole 'seniority over merit' values that a lot of them have anyway. What I was getting at is that it's a free market. If you want to go work for a union making good $$$, cool- just don't bitch when it doesn't work out, it was your decision to go to work there.

Were it not for the reality of predatory, "what's-in-it-for-me" management teams and their policies over the decades, there would probably not be a great need for American "unions".

I see your point, but I think you're biased. Entrepreneurship is what our economy is based on. It's not a business owner's job to look out for his workers (though it's generally a smart business practice). That 'what's-in-it-for-me' (sic ) mentality is what makes our world go 'round.

There's no ONE item that's driving the American auto industry down. It's been going down ever since "made in Japan" ceased to be a pejorative term.

Now that's a very good point.

 

[A4sForever]

1. Ha, no way. But as I understand it, unions often vote on contractual items. So it's not like everyone is a poor little sheep with no say in what happens.

2. Personally, I'd probably 'vote' with my feet and not take a job in such a position......

3.That 'what's-in-it-for-me' (sic ) mentality is what makes our world go 'round.

1. Unions DO vote on contracts -- usually a ratification vote by the entire membership. BUT ... those contracts are negotiated w/ management over a long period after their amenable date(s) and agreed upon by BOTH parties, otherwise there would be no union ratification vote. The two sides BOTH agree on the terms and conditions when they finally leave the negotiating room and submit the proposed contract to the membership. To blame one party and not the other for a lack of fiscal foresight would be disingenuous, and I know you're not.

2. You don't always have that option. Example: airline pilot. Most pilots are REQUIRED to be members of ALPA and are REQUIRED to pay dues ... that's life; that's the nature of the beast.

3. Nope ... that's not it. The first thing you'll learn as a military Officer is:

... "take care of your men and they'll take care of you."

It's no different in industry. It's no different in life.

 

[SkywardET]

Ok, I can't let you slide with that one. If not having your financial system collapse is a "zero benefit" then I guess you are right.

The reason the financial system had to be bailed out is because it affects every other thing in the economy. The flow of money is necessary for every industry, however a domestic car industry in its current form is not necessary for the health of the entire economy. Finance is like your cardiovascular system: the blood (money) must flow or you die.

Perhaps I missed it, as I'm still learning the way of things, so please point out some evidence that the influx of taxpayer money saved the financial system from collapse. It is absolutely not empirical.

Using your analogy, the taxpayer cash is actually an IV, and the patient is already dead. Hook up as many IV tubes as you want, and you will still have to bury the body.

 

[Birdog8585]

Let's be real - Pain is going to be the only fix - what is the NATOPS written in? Exactly. All of those "damn EPs" are there because something catastrophic happened - i.e. - Bankruptcy, loss of jobs, Americans hurting, out on their ass with nothing. Why not tell the executives to fvck off and get lost, let the companies fail and when it does distribute the 450 BAGILLION dollars to those that are going to lose their jobs as a direct result (with caveats of course).

People aren't on thier asses, the exec's get hosed, everyone lives happily ever after.
Simple. That's why this idea wont happen.

 

[navy09]

1.To blame one party and not the other for a lack of fiscal foresight would be disingenuous, and I know you're not.

2. You don't always have that option. Example: airline pilot. Most pilots are REQUIRED to be members of ALPA and are REQUIRED to pay dues ... that's life; that's the nature of the beast.

3. Nope ... that's not it. The first thing you'll learn as a military Officer is: ... "take care of your men and they'll take care of you." It's no different in industry. It's no different in life.

1. My posts have focused more on the unions, because most mainstream media outlets give them a pass. Of course, management is at fault in this whole mess as well. Still, I'm a supply-side student and I think that the unions hold more power than they should in those negotiations.

2. I was thinking bigger picture...labor unions are a great reason to not be an airline pilot, IMO.

3. Beg to differ, Officers and CEOs aren't the same. Part of being an Officer is being entrusted to look out for and take care of those placed under your command. Business managers don't assume that same role, or at least, they shouldn't be expected to.

 

[OUSOONER]

3. Beg to differ, Officers and CEOs aren't the same. Part of being an Officer is being entrusted to look out for and take care of those placed under your command. Business managers don't assume that same role, or at least, they shouldn't be expected to.

Really? I always thought CEO's were elected officials by their board..to look after their stock holders.

Business thrives = stock holders happy.


Caring for your employees and growing the company goes hand in hand (or that's how it was intended). It's a domino effect, if the business is not profitable and stock holders are losing money, they don't invest. The company cannot afford to play it's employees...so they lay them off.

It's the pressure of keeping the stock holders happy that these CEO's become greedy and/or fudge the numbers. Whether they are "ethical" or not is another story...

 

[navy09]

Really? I always thought CEO's were elected officials by their board..to look after their stock holders.

They can be... My point was that they're not there to help out the workers.

Caring for your employees and growing the company goes hand in hand (or that's how it was intended).

It often does, but this certainly isn't always the case. Correlation doesn't equal causation.