Should the government bailout the American car companies?

[Mulletbird]

Originally Posted by cbrrmike

mulletbird, you do know we have a multi-quote function right?

Wow, really?

[BigAls87Z28]

Originally Posted by Tsar

Well that's recent, I can see this as an "excuse" but I'm talking about 7.5 prior to that. I had no idea they have not been profitable for so long.

The reason I asked is because I skimmed an article from FORTUNE magazine, where they had a chart with GM not posting profits since 2000. I can post it the chart, if needed, but I don't wanna scan the whole article (6 pages long).


Well exactly, you can;t do it that fast, they haven't done it themselves for the past 8 years, I have a hard time believing they will turn turd into gold if they are given this "loan" money.

Turn around program didnt really take effect till 2003 the earliest with product. There havent been major reorganization or renegotiations with teh UAW till 2005 and even more in 2007.
GM was planned on making a major turn around into 08 with major product introductions.
Its not like its been all down hill and its just been bad desision after bad. The current managment hasnt been in place for very long, 3-4 years tops.
They HAVE been doing it for the past 2 years, and untill this little hickup, there wasnt any major probelm. Sure GM was on the ropes for a little while, but they were moving towards profitability.

This recent economic crisis is the current problem. Its nothing else.
If it was GM's stupid marketing moves, or that they didnt make cars that everyone wanted, or some other reason, then THEY woudl be the only ones having problems.
EVERYONE is having problems selling cars. All the major automakers were down 30% or more. Its just that GM has spent so much money on trying to turn around itself, that it got caught with thier pants down on top of the fact that GM doesnt make the profit that the imports do based on several things
Is GM perfect? No way, they have plenty to do, but they can do it and they are showing that they are ready to do this.

So you want to place profitability of a company into governments hands? Because I do not think GM can manipulate the Euro.

You go from trying to act smart one line, and trying to be a smart ass the other.
Currency manipulation is the name of the Japanese game. Its been going on for a long time.
Euro's havnet made the same type of profit that the Japanese have, even though they have the same labor programs that the Japanese do.
Hrm....
Doesnt matter, why do I waste my breath on you.

You're like that odd looking jealous kid on the block that keeps saying "mommy, mommy, he has it I want one too." Just because someone got government money doesn't mean GM should. Otherwise lets start giving it to everyone I'll take a Christmas bailout please!

Now you are getting personal, so I guess you are really starting to get into this. Im not asking for the money, and Im not jealious of anyone, and I sure as hell aint odd looking. But you like to include me as if Im the one standing in front of the Senate. Maybe its becaues you would like to pin it onto something you know, something tangeable, who knows, but you keep including me into this. Its starting to get creepy.

Yes, if you are gunna give AIG and several banks blank checks, be ready to hand it out to everyone. Should have had more control over the banks, but thye didnt. Oh well, so now we get to take it out on the automakers I guess.

[Tsar]

Originally Posted by BigAls87Z28

Turn around program didnt really take effect till 2003 the earliest with product. There havent been major reorganization or renegotiations with teh UAW till 2005 and even more in 2007.
GM was planned on making a major turn around into 08 with major product introductions.
Its not like its been all down hill and its just been bad desision after bad. The current managment hasnt been in place for very long, 3-4 years tops.
They HAVE been doing it for the past 2 years, and untill this little hickup, there wasnt any major probelm. Sure GM was on the ropes for a little while, but they were moving towards profitability.

I thought you were gonna look up that profit chart we were talking about earlier. Moving towards profitability would imply that they sustain lesser and lesser loss every year, and they should achieve profit sometime in the near future, right? At least that's how I see it. Didn't GM post the biggest loss in its history last year? or am I mistaken them for someone else, I don't remember.

Also if I'm reading the fortune graph correctly GM has only come close once since 2000 in posting profits, every other year it has been a loss of more than 5 billion dollars. And the trend does not seem like it was reversing itself like your post indicated, rather it is getting worse. Just reading a chart here.

This recent economic crisis is the current problem. Its nothing else.
If it was GM's stupid marketing moves, or that they didnt make cars that everyone wanted, or some other reason, then THEY woudl be the only ones having problems.

I do not think I said that GM makes outright ****** cars (they did in the past, but that's irrelevant to me), hell I like some of them and would possibly buy them.

EVERYONE is having problems selling cars. All the major automakers were down 30% or more. Its just that GM has spent so much money on trying to turn around itself, that it got caught with thier pants down on top of the fact that GM doesnt make the profit that the imports do based on several things
Is GM perfect? No way, they have plenty to do, but they can do it and they are showing that they are ready to do this.

Tell me about the highlighted part, if you want that is.

You go from trying to act smart one line, and trying to be a smart ass the other.

You got me, I inserted a little funny

Now you are getting personal, so I guess you are really starting to get into this. Im not asking for the money, and Im not jealious of anyone, and I sure as hell aint odd looking. But you like to include me as if Im the one standing in front of the Senate. Maybe its becaues you would like to pin it onto something you know, something tangeable, who knows, but you keep including me into this. Its starting to get creepy.

It was just an observation, and I dunno about not odd looking.

Yes, if you are gunna give AIG and several banks blank checks, be ready to hand it out to everyone. Should have had more control over the banks, but thye didnt. Oh well, so now we get to take it out on the automakers I guess.

Plainly put, banks are more important than automakers. If all the banks failed tomorrow we would be in a lot more trouble than if big 3 failed tomorrow.
If JPMorgan didn't buy WaMu from feds, it has been said that FDIC would be UNABLE to cover all the money, and people would lose whatever they had in the bank. Hell there were several, pretty good, articles that talked about how FDIC was gonna be next on the bailout list. Just think how much more we would lose if all the banks would go down, after people found out that their money is not covered by FDIC if anything was to happen to their bank. People would make a run for their money just like they have done in the past, and it would have been a big poo-fest!

I can type more about the banks, but I do not think many people care, so I'll just stop.



Late EDIT** Don't worry, I'm almost positive they will get their bailout/loan. At the end of the day it doesn't matter to congress what I think.

[Mulletbird]

Actually, you don't seem to understand what would happen if the Big 3 were to fail tomarrow. How many does each still currently employ today, even after all their layoffs? And add to that number the number of people who live and work in the communities surrounding their facilities that have jobs, plus suppliers. Think about it, if the big 3 went under, all those people would suddenly become unemployed. There is no way we could handle that unemployment.

Granted, many suppliers (borg warner, bosch, recaro, autoliv) could find other means of producing goods, working for a jap import company, building the replacement parts (autoliv is the only listed that doesn't) , or even switching to build goods for other industries. But still, it would be a hard blow to several dozen companies. Plus, all the unemployment is in the region that already has the worst unemployment (the upper mid-west - Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, etc.) issues in the US. What happens then is that nobody can get a job because the market is flooded - there were times that a business wouldn't even get their "Help Wanted" signs up before they found a replacement already back when I was there!

[Tsar]

Originally Posted by Mulletbird

Actually, you don't seem to understand what would happen if the Big 3 were to fail tomarrow. How many does each still currently employ today, even after all their layoffs? And add to that number the number of people who live and work in the communities surrounding their facilities that have jobs, plus suppliers. Think about it, if the big 3 went under, all those people would suddenly become unemployed. There is no way we could handle that unemployment.

We have been over this...

(1) I do not believe in the figure they have provided (3million). I heard that menial jobs such as car wash attendant have been included in those estimates. So far NO ONE in this thread has posted anything that would contradict this statement.

(2) Smart people save part of their paycheck, so when they get laid off or fired they have money in the bank to survive from 6 to 12 months of unemployment. Those who have not done so, have do so at their own risk.

(3) With money saved in the bank it's easy to find some menial job and wait out the bad times. Or you can just dedicate 40 hours a week to look for a new job. If you're willing to relocate, have diversified yourself, you will eventually find something decent.

(4) HAVE A BACK UP PLAN FOR GODS SAKE! Personally I have a back up, of a back up, of a back up plan if I do not find a job right after I graduate. First one includes joining the military, with my "skill" I should not have too much problem getting into the field that I want. And then there's a back up plan, and that is followed by another back up plan. Moral of the story - use your brain, and plan for an emergency (they teach that in a flight school but I guess not everybody went there.)

[DevilDougWS6]

Originally Posted by Tsar

(1) I do not believe in the figure they have provided (3million). I heard that menial jobs such as car wash attendant have been included in those estimates. So far NO ONE in this thread has posted anything that would contradict this statement.

its still a situation that should be completely avoided.

3 million is the estimated number of jobs that COULD be lost if the big 3 fall in the first year of their total collapse, that are employed by other companies that provide for the big 3 (rubber, plastics, steel etc.)

From usnews.com:
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/the-insi...e-numbers.html

Big Three Jobs: The Nub of the Numbers
November 18, 2008 10:59 AM ET | Liz Wolgemuth

While it's certain that a failure of any Big Three automakers in Detroit would bring a new kind of pain to the country's jobs market--there is some dispute over the numbers.

The New York Times Economix blog takes a look at the oft-quoted figure that 1 in 10 U.S. jobs is supported by the auto industry (a figure harvested from a 2003 Center for Automotive Research study) and offers some insights.

From Economix:

The study concludes that “new vehicle production, sales, and other jobs related to the use of automobiles are responsible for 1 out of every 10 jobs in the U.S economy.” The term “responsible for” is interpreted quite broadly, and covers jobs in steel, glass and electronics (the so-called “upstream” jobs) as well as those in taxi-driving, travel and advertising companies (”downstream” jobs), among others.

The broadness of the term “responsible for” aside, the study has minimal relevance to the question of how many jobs are at risk if the Detroit Three go bankrupt, for two reasons:

1) The study uses data from 1998 to 2001, and the industry has changed significantly since then. Employment in the motor vehicles and parts manufacturing sector has fallen, for example.

2) Much more importantly, it is an industry-wide study: The auto-related jobs covered in the report cover more than those dependent on the Detroit Three; they are related to cars sold by any manufacturer, domestic or international, in the American market.

Economics editor Catherine Rampell notes: "The failure of General Motors, for example, wouldn’t eliminate the entire car-wash industry."

The most recent report from the Center for Automotive Research--available here--studies the potential job losses if two or three of the Big Three carmakers failed. Researchers included jobs at the automakers, their suppliers, suppliers to suppliers, and jobs lost through a "spin off" effect when Big Three employees and suppliers reduce their spending.

If all three ceased operations in 2009, 3 million jobs would be lost in the first year, according to the report. If two failed--or if total employment and production was reduced by 50 percent--2.5 million jobs would be lost in the first year. In both scenarios, researchers estimate the employment picture would begin to recover in 2010, as international carmakers beefed up U.S. production and workers began to find work elsewhere. In the latter scenario, the remaining member of the Big Three would help by picking up production again as well.

even in essence, if they failed, now we would have the import companies stepping in with more dealers, production facilities, etc. so more jobs. but who is going to be buying cars still? its going to be a long and painful process for all of us to get this economy right.

but then again, that income from the jap, german, etc car companies will be going to....you guessed it, their country. with a small portion going to local workers.

i like the idea now that the bigwigs (for chrysler atleast) are taking a $1 year salary, Gm and ford should soon follow suit.

[BonzoHansen]

Originally Posted by DevilDougWS6

i like the idea now that the bigwigs (for chrysler atleast) are taking a $1 year salary, Gm and ford should soon follow suit.

they did, you are behind.

[Tsar]

Good article DevilDoug; however, it does prove that the numbers are very skewed and the data they have used is old. Which to me makes their estimation irrelevant.

[BonzoHansen]

Originally Posted by Tsar

Good article DevilDoug; however, it does prove that the numbers are very skewed and the data they have used is old. Which to me makes their estimation irrelevant.

You?

[Tsar]

Originally Posted by BonzoHansen

You?

Well we are arguing about opinon's here. In the grand scheme of things none of them matter.

[BigAls87Z28]

Originally Posted by Tsar

We have been over this...

(1) I do not believe in the figure they have provided (3million). I heard that menial jobs such as car wash attendant have been included in those estimates. So far NO ONE in this thread has posted anything that would contradict this statement.

Ok, so lets say we take out the car washers and a few other trivial little jobs that they threw in. How many jobs is that total? 50k? 100k?
So even if we take out all the other little small jobs, that still leaves you with 2.9 million people. Thats still 1 million more people then ALL THE people current on unemployment. WOW!!
Lets say ALL the trival jobs equal 1 million people, thats still a 100%+ increase in unemployment not to mention the loss of America's major manufacturing base.

[Tsar]

Originally Posted by BigAls87Z28

Ok, so lets say we take out the car washers and a few other trivial little jobs that they threw in. How many jobs is that total? 50k? 100k?
So even if we take out all the other little small jobs, that still leaves you with 2.9 million people. Thats still 1 million more people then ALL THE people current on unemployment. WOW!!
Lets say ALL the trival jobs equal 1 million people, thats still a 100%+ increase in unemployment not to mention the loss of America's major manufacturing base.

The fact is, you or I do not know how many trivial jobs there are. It might be 1% or 60% no one knows, because who ever used old data, and exaggerated the number did so deliberately to make it seem a lot worse, to provoke the response that you are having.

I believe I never said it was gonna be easy to get out of it, impossible? No. People have survived worse.

[Mulletbird]

But, keep in mind, many of the lost jobs will be localized. Not only are the big 3's manufacturing based out of Michigan and surrounding states, but so to are many of their suppliers. It's a major hit to one area, and while yes, we all try and plan for the worst, with people losing money in stocks and banks and if you add lost jobs to the mix, it can get really tough for lots of people. And with all the lost jobs localized (Auburn, Flint, Saginaw, Detroit, Waterford, Cleveland, Windsor, etc.) it would be tough to find another job locally (very few, if any, places out there are hiring) and relocating isn't always that easy to do either. Yes, you do what you need to, and I've done that (did that when I took the job in Michigan, which is why it was easy for me to leave ... no ties left there) but it's not necessarily fun or what you want to do.

[Fast92RS]

Originally Posted by Mulletbird

But, keep in mind, many of the lost jobs will be localized. Not only are the big 3's manufacturing based out of Michigan and surrounding states, but so to are many of their suppliers. It's a major hit to one area, and while yes, we all try and plan for the worst, with people losing money in stocks and banks and if you add lost jobs to the mix, it can get really tough for lots of people. And with all the lost jobs localized (Auburn, Flint, Saginaw, Detroit, Waterford, Cleveland, Windsor, etc.) it would be tough to find another job locally (very few, if any, places out there are hiring) and relocating isn't always that easy to do either. Yes, you do what you need to, and I've done that (did that when I took the job in Michigan, which is why it was easy for me to leave ... no ties left there) but it's not necessarily fun or what you want to do.

Yes very true and its even harder to relocate when you have children. Picking up and moving your entire family to a new school can be difficult. Its been done before so not impossible.
Not everyone can afford to have months of salary saved especially when there strugiling to make ends meet right now. Plus as you get older and closer to retirement it can be very hard to pick up and start all over again to start learning a new job. Especially when youve been doing the same job for 20, 30 or even 40 years. That backup plan they may have had when they were younger is long gone now.

[Tsar]

Originally Posted by Fast92RS

Yes very true and its even harder to relocate when you have children. Picking up and moving your entire family to a new school can be difficult. Its been done before so not impossible.

No one on the face of this earth will ever win this argument with me. I have lived in 5 different countries, 20+ different places, went to 2 middle schools, 3 high schools, 3 colleges and 1 University. I have done all of the following within 22 years of my life (current age).

[Fast92RS]

Originally Posted by Tsar

No one on the face of this earth will ever win this argument with me. I have lived in 5 different countries, 20+ different places, went to 2 middle schools, 3 high schools, 3 colleges and 1 University. I have done all of the following within 22 years of my life (current age).

I see your point. But I think your being a little one sided. Your young, with no ties. So your plan that you have is great, but it does not mean it will work for everyone. The younger you are in life the easier it is to accept change and learn a new work skill. For people that are older its take longer for them to accept change and move on. Everyone is different and there situations in life are different. So what works for one may not work for another. Just my 2 cents.

[Mulletbird]

Originally Posted by Tsar

We have been over this...

(1) I do not believe in the figure they have provided (3million). I heard that menial jobs such as car wash attendant have been included in those estimates. So far NO ONE in this thread has posted anything that would contradict this statement.

(2) Smart people save part of their paycheck, so when they get laid off or fired they have money in the bank to survive from 6 to 12 months of unemployment. Those who have not done so, have do so at their own risk.

(3) With money saved in the bank it's easy to find some menial job and wait out the bad times. Or you can just dedicate 40 hours a week to look for a new job. If you're willing to relocate, have diversified yourself, you will eventually find something decent.

(4) HAVE A BACK UP PLAN FOR GODS SAKE! Personally I have a back up, of a back up, of a back up plan if I do not find a job right after I graduate. First one includes joining the military, with my "skill" I should not have too much problem getting into the field that I want. And then there's a back up plan, and that is followed by another back up plan. Moral of the story - use your brain, and plan for an emergency (they teach that in a flight school but I guess not everybody went there.)

Well, let me take an example from my real-life experiences. This is a bit extreme, but none-the-less, I saw it happen right before my eyes to one of the nicest, most helpful co-workers at the place I did my freshman co-op with. The guy's name is Jim, worked at Borg-Warner's Cleveland facility, back before it was borg-warner, building carbeurators for holley and others since 1950 (until the late 80's, 1988 or 1989 - around the time I was born) when he started working for Borg-Warner (after the buy-out of his division), then switched to buiding solenoids, wastegate systems, and finally idle air pumps. Back in late 2007, he started suffering from a herniated disc, which hurt pretty bad from what I heard from him (he went on medical leave regularly) and with just months left until he planned to retire, he was fired from the job.

Let's just say that that sucks pretty bad. He has 5 grandkids in college, two of his sons lost their jobs, so yeah. So, I guess the guy, who is now well into his late-70's, should be diversified and have several backup plans? Or he should pack up everything and move out somewhere else? For me, it was nothing at all ... I'm 20 years old (19 when I left the job), born and raised in NJ with a farm to come back to and work on, meaning I have some food to eat, a little money, and a roof over my head while I work on finishing my studies. But, there are others (like Jim as one example, I could name 20-30 others like him that I know) who are in a similar boat. He now works at Walmart as a greeter, making $9/hr with no benefits, rather than being a senior tech, making $45/hr, with full benefits, and probably will never be able to retire all right and proper - he still has his social security and his savings from paychecks towards his eventual retirement, but that was meant to be in addition to his retirement checks from work, not instead of.

Basically, the higher-up execs were looking for money to save, which meant firing a few workers, and co-ops and older people with health issues came up top of the list. If they didn't need to try and cut costs because business was good, they might have kept Jim and me both, but instead we were both let go.

[Tsar]

Originally Posted by Fast92RS

I see your point. But I think your being a little one sided. Your young, with no ties. So your plan that you have is great, but it does not mean it will work for everyone. The younger you are in life the easier it is to accept change and learn a new work skill. For people that are older its take longer for them to accept change and move on. Everyone is different and there situations in life are different. So what works for one may not work for another. Just my 2 cents.

Point taken and understood; however, while it can be hard to do and difficult to adopt, it is not impossible. At least it doesn't seem impossible to me, I'm not impossible kinda guy

[Tsar]

Originally Posted by Mulletbird

Back in late 2007, he started suffering from a herniated disc, which hurt pretty bad from what I heard from him (he went on medical leave regularly) and with just months left until he planned to retire, he was fired from the job.

He was in his late 70's and didn't save any money? See point number 2. Each individual is responsible for his own life.

So, I guess the guy, who is now well into his late-70's, should be diversified and have several backup plans? Or he should pack up everything and move out somewhere else?

No, he should have saved money from his 50+ years of employment for his retirement/rainy day. I would imagine with such wonderful things such as compounded interest rate you could save quite a lot... Don't make me break out the finance calculator.

He now works at Walmart as a greeter, making $9/hr with no benefits, rather than being a senior tech, making $45/hr, with full benefits, and probably will never be able to retire all right and proper - he still has his social security and his savings from paychecks towards his eventual retirement, but that was meant to be in addition to his retirement checks from work, not instead of.

And I'm sure he will be the first one to tell you that life is not fair.

Basically, the higher-up execs were looking for money to save, which meant firing a few workers, and co-ops and older people with health issues came up top of the list. If they didn't need to try and cut costs because business was good, they might have kept Jim and me both, but instead we were both let go.

If you have actual proof of that you can easily sue for discrimination, but I'm thinking you do not.

[DevilDougWS6]

Originally Posted by BonzoHansen

they did, you are behind.

oh, i must have missed the part where GM and Ford did. Sorry Ive been away on drill duty and cant keep up on everything, lol.

[DevilDougWS6]

Originally Posted by Tsar

Good article DevilDoug; however, it does prove that the numbers are very skewed and the data they have used is old. Which to me makes their estimation irrelevant.

well in that sense, since the data (numbers) were old, IMO there would be a higher number of jobs to be lost. but I haven't been keeping up on what goes on behind the doors of the big 3, so i could be very wrong. it would only make sense that companies EXPAND and would essentially hire more workers. which is the reason why they are hurting to begin with no? paying too many employees and not making enough profit off of each vehicle?

[Tsar]

Originally Posted by DevilDougWS6

well in that sense, since the data (numbers) were old, IMO there would be a higher number of jobs to be lost. but I haven't been keeping up on what goes on behind the doors of the big 3, so i could be very wrong. it would only make sense that companies EXPAND and would essentially hire more workers. which is the reason why they are hurting to begin with no? paying too many employees and not making enough profit off of each vehicle?

Um.. pretty sure Al has been saying that they have been downsizing/ and cutting back on the costs. My point is that the numbers are inaccurate, thus the results are not accurate, which means they should not be trusted.

[Mulletbird]

Originally Posted by Tsar

He was in his late 70's and didn't save any money? See point number 2. Each individual is responsible for his own life.

No, he should have saved money from his 50+ years of employment for his retirement/rainy day. I would imagine with such wonderful things such as compounded interest rate you could save quite a lot... Don't make me break out the finance calculator.


And I'm sure he will be the first one to tell you that life is not fair.


If you have actual proof of that you can easily sue for discrimination, but I'm thinking you do not.

Actual proof? No. Besides, they almost did me a favor, as I was going to either get a decent pay raise or leave the job soon anyways. Wasn't gonna complain. Besides, that's to be expected - they didn't fire me. It's similar to if GM were to, say, be paying a bunch of people to check the clear-coat on new vehicles (not that they do, just naming some menial task that there's no reason to pay for imo) and then remove that position from their company, laying off all those workers. Is that discrimination? No.

[Tsar]

Originally Posted by Mulletbird

Actual proof? No. Besides, they almost did me a favor, as I was going to either get a decent pay raise or leave the job soon anyways. Wasn't gonna complain. Besides, that's to be expected - they didn't fire me. It's similar to if GM were to, say, be paying a bunch of people to check the clear-coat on new vehicles (not that they do, just naming some menial task that there's no reason to pay for imo) and then remove that position from their company, laying off all those workers. Is that discrimination? No.

Eliminating a certain position might not be discrimination, but firing people of certain age, specifically for their age is. But if there's no proof, it didn't happen.

[BigAls87Z28]

Good show by Jon Stewart on the bail out.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/47436/the-...thu-dec-4-2008