Let em go bankrupt like the airlines. Just like any other type of company in any other industry (oh, wait, except finance too..) And be liquidated or merge if necessary particularly Chrysler. Its the end of the line for the big three, I'm not saying the entire American auto industry should be eliminated but something has to change for the leaner. I thought this kind of situation is what bankruptcy protection is made for, not government handouts? Its not like bankruptcy means they're going to fire the whole workforce and cause an economic calamity. Just means both management and labor will be forced by a COURT to make concessions. And IMO they are both out of line right now.

Le'sigh

Okay...

and why is that? Because when you keep whoring the middle class out to pay for every conceivable government program, there is usually an uprising of some sort. That's why it hasn't happened. Too many good people get tired of being raped. Remember the whole "no taxation without representation" thing? Applies here.


mmmhmm... the free market fixes those things by letting people move to ANOTHER JOB! A company who pays shit gets shit for workers. There can be no denial of that. ...but I know, you want the government, the big baby bottle, to help these poor workers with unions who have really fair things like card checks and trying to ban secret ballots. Totally protecting the workers. Give me a break, please.


Card Checks.
Trying to get rid of secret ballots.


lol please. That stuff works at Daily Kook, but not with anyone with a lick of common sense (read: not liberal)


____________________________________

Because it's true? Obamessiah better watch out. Hamas and Hezbollah are getting ticked because he hasn't denounced Israel for defending itself against over 50 days of rocket attacks that weren't reported.


So, they could afford to pay people not to work? :shakehead:


Wow, don't get too worked up about a mini-recession that will fix itself within a year or so.

I'm reminded of the words of a conservative right here. I think he says:

It is said that Republicans are a party for the rich, which means they need to keep the rich, rich to keep their power.

On the other hand, the Democrats are a party for the poor, which means they need to keep the poor, poor, in order to keep their power.

You can have the rest of the BS. It's laughable at best. The packed shopping malls this Christmas told me that you're a bad actor.


3 points here...

1: I agree a fraction of a bit with you here.

2: Tax reduced incentives keep businesses here. I know that a few folks want government to run these businesses or force them to stay, but that breeds resentment. You don't tell a man who poured his life into his business how to run it.

3: What is the difference between moving labor offshore and 850Billion dollars to Africa as Obamessiah has proposed? Tax money that could stay right here and help streamline programs or help "our economy out of the toilet, employ workers, help our citizens save their homes, their jobs, their savings, their livelihoods, their retirements, and their future"!11!one!1

No, I don't subscribe to any of that garbage, it just sounded good.



Businesses that thrive create jobs. Jobs create wealth for the middle class. Wealth can be taxed to support people who don't want to work.
-Yoda

True? Yes, it's true that terrorism exists. We may as well declare a war on sex. We'll never get rid of terrorism. Period. The war should be on the states that sponsor and harbor the terrorists that attack us. (hint: Not Iraq.)



Hey, if they can afford to pay the fired-for-cause CEO's not to work. . .

the worst stock market and housing plummet since the depression and you call it a mini recession. And did you not note where I talked about the debt, too, or do you think we'll have that paid off in a couple of years as well?


Holiday 2008: Retailers Suffer Dismal Christmas Sales - Retail * US * News * Story - CNBC.com

Making shit up does not help you win arguments.





If that's true then why are they outsourcing so many jobs to places that are not here?


1) the bill says:

It does not say "lets throw 850 billion at Africa RIGHT NOW!

2) If you can't see the difference between helping a foreign continent with funds gotten from gainfully employed above-poverty-line Americans, and encouraging US companies to fire US workers in favor of foriegn workers, then there's little more I can really say.



Businesses that legitimately thrive create jobs. How will they legitimately thrive if no one can buy their crap because all the jobs are sent overseas?

Actually, it's the norm. No society or country I'm aware of uses a pure form of any economic or governmental system. They're all combinations of different theories, tweaked in order to be the best. Even here in the US, we have many interesting combinations of economic theories, including both socialism and capitalism.
If this was correct, we'd see 100% socialism followed by revolution. We don't. And most theories of socialism and communism have democracy of some kind built in, therefore providing representation for taxation.
Unless in a given economy there are an equal or greater amount of high paying jobs to the amount of hard and smart workers, this simply isn't the case.

As someone that's been in one higher management or another for the past 4-5 years I know without a shadow of a doubt that hard work and even smart work doesn't equal good pay. There aren't enough opportunities for people, and creating opportunities requires capital and venture capitalists and other methods by which to acquire capital for a startup are scared of their own shadow right now.

Unions exist in the real world, where MOST corporations are more interested in profit than their workers. Put that into your equation. What if most businesses are wiling to pay low wages? What if that decision is systemic? Then one simply can't find another job. One needs to stay where he or she is and demonstrate to the management and owners that even the grunts are absolutely necessary. And it works. Unions prevent exploitation of workers.
This isn't an acceptable method of argument. I'm not associating you with National Review or Drudge in order to make you look like a right wing sheep, so I expect the same treatment.

Holy cow! This has become quite a thread since I last looked. A few points I'd like to make:
The Republican party does not want to do away w/the middle class? Alan Greenspan came up w/the theory that Reagan set into motion. Just look at cost/ownership since the 80's and now.
I still say the foreign motor companies (invested in this country - really, when they made no investment?) should pay up their employees to match the UAW. In Germany and Japan they pay union wages (Japan hires you fulltime until death! [now their hiring is parttime, because they're about to be in the tank there too]), and they have socialized medicine. They don't pay for that. The UAW made concessions to cover the med costs.
I do not want the Government to be the bottle to feed the employees. Government should ensure we do world-wide business on a level playing field. Business should be able to provide for it's own employees. Bring back tariffs, and make this the biggest manufacturing country in the world again. Bring back "Made in the U.S.A.",make it viable, and mean what it used to mean (not some cheap ass lapel pin - made in Japan or China [are you kidding me - China?]).
We have become a service economy. Why? Cheap labor costs. Are you telling me that if I have a problem w/my computer, I can't talk to someone in the U.S. over a dell problem? A United States citizen does not understand my computer - I thought they were built here? And someone who actually understands the language?
As far as manufacturing - cars. And I hope Dingo boots, because I'm about to look for a new pair. Other than small busineses, I do not see it. The U.S. should be investing in the U.S. For all of those that say this is wrong - where is your investment?

I'd first like to fix the ailing auto industry by talking about exactly why there are cars and trucks and buses. Getting to point Y from point B is first and foremost not the point,
the point is to get anywhere whenever you want to and all the places in between that are all worth driving by as well as you tune out with a big Cheverolet Suburban underneath your command.


You see we want this and that and well they will make this and that and this and that is out of control and it makes all of it an imperfect world.

So the first thing I would do is make an invisible car. You would wear it on yourself like it wasn't actually there. You'd look where you were and then you would go to all the places you needed to and with all the finest luxury.

Once in awhile perhaps you would bump into another invisible car, perhaps it might even be a love connection.


I think that would be a good enough place to start though.

you have to sell cars. I'm going to do it!!
-----Added 15/1/2009 at 02 : 12 : 45-----
you have to sell cars. I'm going to do it!!

will you be there to buy them?

It was very predictable that GM could not come up with a viable plan to restructure and survive. The Obama administration is on the verge of making a courageous stand on this issue, no more bailout funds and let the company file bankruptcy.

We need to let the system work, if a company is unsuccessful, let it go. Someone else will take up the slack out of what is left. The GM's and Fords will continue, in a more streamline efficient form. The current companies are too fat with management, labor and overhead to change themselves. Throwing money at a problem doesn't solve it. If it were true we would own the Middle east by now...

It is interesting listening to Obama on this subject. If I connect the dots, I think his position is further evidence of his double speak.

If I were really interested in changing the automotive industry, getting the US off of dependence on oil, and committed to "green" jobs, I would not put billions into the old failing, smoke stack, SUV emphasis company, GM, but I would put billions into new start up companies developing making alternatives in alternative ways (i.e. - "green"). Aren't these the companies more deserving? If so, why bailout GM? Why give them more time and money to come up with a plan, that they can not come up with? I don't get it.

I tend to agree, Ace. (get up, stop laughing, I was serious ;) )

I don't feel the corporations should be bailed out, at all. They love to run around crying foul whenever "gubmint" "interferes" in the market (by doing such dastardly things as safety inspections and truth-in-advertising requirements), yet they're very willing to have gubmint interfere such that they get money out of the deal. It's idiotic. If you want a free market, fine. Make it a free market, and that means that if a big corporation fucks up and crashes, then they fail. Use the bailout money to help the people the big corps hurt until they can find someone else to employ them.

Like textiles, steel, rubber, finished wood products, etc... There is little the government can do for the auto industry unless we close our markets. Labor rates are just one of the problems along with a host of other things like labor laws, environmental restrictions, taxes, etc... As we found out with all the other industries that left our shores it is hard to compete with the third world and/or government subsidized companies.

The thing I would like GM/Saturn to do is talk to Tesla, Fisker or some other small EV car maker, and say, we will produce your car at our plant for a small amount. They would be able to mass produce lots of cars, and would be able to lower prices.

They could also use Honda or Toyota parts in order to keep prices down if needed.

I think we should just force the big three to retool there dyes to make firearms and ammunition. It will singlehandedly get us out of the depression, save millions of jobs, and allow me to shoot much more affordably.

Ahh just like the World Wars eh samcol?

I think they should just be aloud to fail, and someone who knows how to make a good product will rise out of the ashes.

It seems like there are many who think the auto industry should file bankruptcy in order to rework their labor contacts because their workers make too much and have great health insurance and retirement plans. It occurs to me that our broke government is in a similar situation with the millions of government workers who have benefits and job security that are envied by most of those in the private sector. Perhaps our politicians and government workers should also have their remuneration and benefits reduced to that of the average taxpayer.

I know this is an old post I'm quoting, but seriously you're going to play the 'it's a dangerous job card'? I worked in a nickel mine which is a fuck of a lot more dangerous than making cars and made no where near $28 an hour or whatever it is they make in their auto factory. Also worked in a factory that made office furniture had to operate punches, presses, brakes and all the other fun shit to make the furniture that can take an arm off, or take your life, and made o where near $28 an hour.

So them having a cunt hair of risk in their job and making a stupid amount of money for what is basically unskilled labour trying to justify it by saying 'they have a dangerous job' is well funny shit to me.

A lot of people like to believe that automotive assembly is (to paraphrase) "so easy, a caveman can do it." I find great irony in such a statement made by folks who in most cases are completely auto illiterate and wouldn't know how to perform as much as an oil change on the car they own.

This isn't Ikea furniture we're talking about here, and something as mechanically and electronically complex as an automobile requires a bit more skill than what you've assumed it does. Spend some time around your car. Take it apart (if you dare), and when you've failed to put it back together, ask yourself if assembly line work should be given the same lack of consideration as a fast food employee or gas station attendant.

So your compliant is you had a job(s) more dangerous then the auto workers and they made more money? It almost sounds like your solution to this is lower their pay. Wouldn't raising your pay make it better for you and the auto workers?

And $28 an hour isn't a whole lot of money.

I watched a guy on TV today who worked at a GM plant in Southern Ontario, his job on the line was to put in 10 screws on the firewall to attach the console, you want to tell me that isn't Ikea? Brainless labour, it may not all be like that, but too many people are making more money for doing mindless unskilled labour than they should be.
No my complaint is that saying 'they have a dangerous job' to justify their pay is funny to me, plenty of other people have more dangerous jobs and make far less, so the argument it's dangerous makes no sense. Ummmm raising my pay when I was a miner would have caused me to no longer be employed as a miner, so it wouldn't have helped me out in the least, may help out the autoworkers, though I have no clue how. Raising peoples pay doesn't always make things better, sometimes it means the job you have goes up in fuckin smoke.
No shit $28 isn't a whole lot of money, but for putting 10 screws into 10 holes it sure as fuck is.

Let see if I can address a couple of your points. If your job goes up in fucking smoke there's not much you can fucking do about it but find a new fucking job.

Everything is relative. 10 screws in 10 holes doesn't sound too bad. But how many times an hour is he scheduled to fucking do that? When I was a kid I worked on farms a lot in the summer for extra cash and $ for school clothes. Picking berries was easy enough. All you had to do was pick it off the vine and put it in a bucket or flat. But to make any money you had to fucking do that about 5,000 times a day, give or take. I also did something called "picking chickens," no it had nothing to do with jacking off. All you had to do there was take two live chickens out of a cage and put them in a larger cage. If you did that at least 800 times a day you got paid $15. You also got covered in fucking chicken shit.

I know jack about working in a mine, a furniture factory or a auto plant. But I have a feeling when you say it's just 10 fucking screws there's a good chance you're down playing the amount of fucking work involved.

But I don't really fucking know.

No fuckin shit, you've got to be joking me, if I lose my job I can go out and find a new job, wow than you for this nugget of wisdom, I would have never figured out that's how it works.:rolleyes:
Who cares, it's 10 screws, if he can't handle the stress of it, time to learn to say 'welcome to Tim Horton's how may I help you'.

Just trying to fucking help you out.:thumbsup:

All I'm saying is if it's 10 screws every 30 sec all day long it might be more work then it sounds like.

i do appreciate the help Tully, merci beaucoup.....

10 screws every 30 seconds would be a dream to me, being 3600ft or more underground and breathing that shitty air and all the dust and other shit diesel fumes, moist air, fuck 10 screws every 30 seconds would be a dream.

I don't know. I think it could get old. Especially if you have run back and forth grabbing screws or spend all day bent over in some odd position to do it. I can think of a ton of ways 10 screws could make me wish I never saw another screw.

And yes, breathing crappy air at 3600ft underground doesn't sound like fun either.

But I wouldn't be too quick to judge another persons job without having done it myself.

very true, I shouldn't have judged the job as easy, I've never done it, wouldn't really want to do it either, especially with the way layoff notices fly about.
One night we had to run extension cords from one of our drifts with electricity and a drill to one that had no drill or power at it so we could do our tests on the borehole. Sounds easy enough weave the cord in and out of the fencing so it doesn't drop into the sludgy water that runs alongside the rail tracks, and get it to the new drift we were working on. We must have walked about 20 kilometers underground that night making sure nothing hit the sludge mixture so as to short out our shit. I never wanted to see another extension cord again in my life, so I do see your point to no matter if it seems easy it may make you want to claw your eyes out it gets so monotonous.

It sounds to me like there is a problem with the private sector not giving workers enough time off, not enough job security, and not enough share in the profits of their work. The public sector doesn't have a problem, bring the private sector up to the quality of jobs that exist in the public sector.

That might work if the private sector also had a money printing press... or perhaps more government bailouts.

Being a government employee, I can assure you that we don't always have it better than the private sector. Compared to my previous private sector job, my medical benefits were better (company paid all premiums, and the deductible and copays were a lot lower), retirement benefits were better (gov't doesn't offer up stock options that would automatically vest after a fixed period), and the paycheck was better. About the only advantage my government job has is job security, but even that's not a guarantee.

With that said, there's a general assumption here that if if the UAW made significant concessions then GM and Chrysler would be profitable again. That is simply not true. UAW workers could offer to work for free and GM/Chrysler would still be in the same financial bind. Their problem isn't the UAW, their problem is that the Cobalt isn't a car worth considering against the Civic or Corolla, much less the Focus. Their problem is that they didn't direct their engineering talents that brought them the Silverado and Surburban over to the Impala. Their problem is that they turned Saturn from the best idea GM could've ever came up with into just another ho-hum brand (they don't even build Saturns at their Spring Hill, TN plant anymore). Their problem is that when Chrysler was acquired by Daimler, they forced out the team of designers and engineers who brought forth the Neon and Avenger---cars that were rough around the edges to be sure, but were as distinctive to the automotive landscape back then as the Taurus was back in 1986. The problem is that Chrysler replaced them with unattractive and uninspiring cars like the Caliber, Avenger, and Crossfire. The problem is that somebody thought it was a good idea to make a Jeep that is incapable of travelling off road (Compass). The problem is that they failed to follow up on the rare success that the 300C/Charger had become. 3/4th of their problem stems from a flawed culture and an inept corporate governance that fostered it. Now it's obvious that the UAW's aggresssion in negotiation tactics has come back to bite them, but to pin their woes on the UAW is to find a scapegoat and miss the real troubles of what ails GM and Chrysler.

I just have a couple of points that I would like to question:
1) Why is the union brought to the board , and not management? Doesn't mgm't oversee ops? The workers just do the job they are paid to do.
I hate that Pontiac will no longer be around - I owned 2 Firebirds, and my wife owns a GrandAm. Which leads to -
2) WTF w/U.S. technology - my wife has a 1999 GrandAm, 59,000 miles and the AC needs to be replaced ($900). I have a 1998 Toyota Corolla, 101,000+ mile - the AC runs great.

To be fair, QM, I think if Ford/Chrysler had free labor, and didn't have to pay for health benefits, and didn't have to pay for retired workers, they would be "in the black".

Hey, that's fucking funny.

My father has been in a wheelchair for nearly thirty years as a result of an injury he sustained working at a strip mine. Although industrial safety standards are improving all the time, accidents do happen, and when you work in an environment of heavy machinery, those accidents generally have greater consequences than a paper cut.

Didn't make more than $28 an hour? Should've joined a union, or your union negotiator sucked.

And "unskilled labor?" Without unskilled labor you would have nothing, zero, nada, unless you're growing your own food, making your own clothes, refining your own gas, etc., etc. "Unskilled labor" is essential for you being able to live like you do today. But they're just peons, right? Fuck 'em. Fuck the selfish bastards for trying to make a living. You can get by without them. Just wave a magic fucking wand, and all your basic needs will be provided for, and those crybaby peons can take a flying leap.

I think it is amazing some of the different viewpoints we are seeing here. From who has a harder job, to who makes a crappy car/truck, and the unions at fault/not at fault for the labour force problems. For every person who says they have an American designed car that breaks all the time, and a foreign car that is perfect, I can show you a person who has a foreign car that breaks all the time, but their American designed car has no problems. It all depends on who you ask. Also for those who think that the designs suck, or are ugly, if everyone liked the same thing, we would only HAVE one manufacturer. Not everyone likes the same thing everyone else does. Personally I think Ford trucks are ugly in design, inside and out, while I have a friend that says they are the best looking truck he has ever seen. So trying to base a company's failure based on what a car LOOKS like, is heading in the wrong direction.

Jobs vary a lot in their risk and payout. When someone says their job is high risk, I figure if there are moving parts and machinery, then yea, it is a risk job. Also unless things have changed a lot, these workers at the assembly plants rotate out the jobs that they do on a regular basis. He/She may be running 10 screws into 10 holes this week, and then next week they may be lowering the bodies onto the frames. ANYONE can sit outside and say that someone else's job is "low skilled" or "not dangerous", but until one actually WORKS in that field, one shouldn't be quick to judge. While I do agree that the unions in many cases could concede a bit more, I don't think that the labourers should be forced to take TOO big of a pay cut. I get people all the time saying that MY job is easy, and they can't believe how I could make the money I do, but then I ask them, can YOU sit there in front of a car and figure out exactly why your turns signals flash right when you turn them on left? or why their engine runs slightly off? It is all a matter of perspective.

Dunno, but I had a 96 Mustang that my sister tried her hardest to kill, but it just wouldn't die.

I haven't commented on this thread yet, but it keeps coming back to me in my head.

There is clearly a number of problems in the North American industry that aren't just a result of the recession.

You want my opinion? To fix the North American industry, you'd have to overhaul the business operations on all levels (but basically on operations levels). If you compare the manufacturing process of, say, Japanese cars to North American cars, you'd see a big difference even in one aspect: defaults. If they find a fault in the manufacturing line, many in the Japanese operations shut the whole line down until the process is fixed. Most of the workers have the power to shut down the line at anytime. Comparatively, North American practices will find the default and pull it out for analysis while the line keeps running....yes, they quite possibly keep running the same default...until they know what to do to fix it. They place production over perfection. (Recalls anyone?)

Several North American operators have sent people to Japanese operations to learn from them, and yet they haven't seemed to learn much. Now they're paying the price.

It's not just what you make; it's also how you make it. This is a hard lesson Harley Davidson learned years ago back when it nearly dropped off the face of the earth from the onslaught of the better-made Japanese brands. You either learn lessons from your more successful competitors, or you die. Take your pick.

In other news, see all those dealerships they're closing? Ouch.

Sorry to hear about your father.

I don't think anyone is advocating slave labour. The issue is the amount of control that unions exert, and the extent that they push just because they can. You might not think $28/hour is a lot, but that's $58K/year - much higher than average. I'm a skilled worker as a programmer (not to be arrogant) with an education I (mostly) payed for, and I only make about $8k more than that. I rarely do the same thing twice.

Yes risk should be rewarded, and on-the-job injuries should be paid for by the companies that led to them, but does Joe-highschool-dropout deserve to earn as much as someone who earned a masters and has rare/diverse skills to use, just because he works with heavy machinery around instead of the local Taco Bell? In many cases, the same person could do either.

I would let the companies die. If a business operates so deep in the red it SHOULD go under. People will still want cars so they'll get them from someplace else.

If people are upset about losing their jobs then they can go knock on the doors of the private jets of the rich executives and ask them where all the money went.

Who says this will be a bad thing? Without these big car companies lobbying against different technology and alternate forms of transportation we may actually see some progress in these areas. Perhaps these companies can make use of some of the patents they've got stored up like cars that run on water and some such stuff like that there. All of the things that would exist today if the oil and car companies hadn't suppressed them.

well, it's been a few months since i posted anything to this thread and it's kinda interesting to have a look through it again.

i think that most of the arguments i mustered earlier are correct, but the situation's evolved so now things look a bit more--um---clear, if not coherent.

momento mori: a snapshot of the state of things the day after gm's bankruptcy was announced (tailored for american domestic consumption version):

washingtonpost.com

basically, unless something changes in the overall approach to this from the obama administration, the scenario asu outlined above on this page seems to me the likely outcome. hemmed in by the reactionary and counter-productive economic metaphysics of the right, unwilling or unable to take on nationalization as a serious, sustained matter the goal of which is to balance a the gm as a corporate entity in profit-generating terms against the social costs of allowing it to fail--not to mention the symbolic costs....

people act as though nationalization of a major automobile manufacturer is some new step. france nationalized renault directly after world war 2 basically as punishment for louis renault's excessive enthusiasm for the german occupation...renault has operated as a pretty profitable company since, undergoing a series of mutations (merging with volvo, the deterritorialization of production from a nation-state viewpoint, symbolized by the shutter of the main renault factory in boulonge-billancourt--which still sits there, apparently, as the state can't quite figure out which type of amusement complex to put there--and so it goes, the papering over the the past. americans have no monopoly)...

there's all kind of absurd notions about of the types of interaction between state and company in this context. the press continues to filter opinion through the outmoded and dysfunctional lens of neoliberalism, still takes seriously the ridiculous objections of the right that "the state shouldn't interfere in the process of Natural Selection".....

i maintain that this factor, the way infotainment is filtered, plays into a political climate in which the right still matters, and that this climate is in fact debilitating. but obama is no social-democrat, sadly---so i do not have a sense of what will follow from this move to partially nationalize general motors.

meanwhile, notice how the american press is down playing what this means historically.
what do you think it means?
how important a symbolic moment are we passing through?


cyncial aside:

remember the centrality of panic management. if you think we're not still in a tightly controlled press environment, you're dreaming. that the dominant rhetoric has changed doesn't mean that the systems of infotainment management have. that you might like the rhetoric doesn't mean that therefore the context is suddenly free of top-down constraints. don't be chumped the way conservatives were under cowboy george.

And a bit about Canada's role (Feds and Ontario gov't...well, Canadian taxpayers as shareholders):

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...rticle1163443/

FT.com / Companies / Automobiles - Interactive: GM?s fall from grace

this takes you to an interactive timeline that accounts in general terms for the collapse of GM.
you may have to subscribe to see it: there's a free option (a restricted number of articles every 30 days)...but maybe it's a free feature. hard to say.

Just figured I'd post this:I didn't quote the whole thing even though it's not very long; if you want a full explanation of what the short order means (actually, what it doesn't mean), click through to read it.

This seemed noteworthy to me because it's the first speed bump the govt has hit in the Chrysler Chapter 11. I don't know what SCOTUS will do, obviously. I just thought it interesting that Ginsburg didn't think this one was easy; if she did, she wouldn't have granted the interim stay.

GM to repay US$1.2-billion government loans

Some contrasts here to the "Old GM" and the "New GM." Read the article for some performance and balance sheet numbers.

GM's market share is up, and its debt level is a fraction of what it was before bankruptcy protection. And this includes the government loans from both the U.S. and Canada, which it plans to start repaying with a billion-dollar payment next month. It's already repaid some cash to the German government regarding Opel, and it hopes to pay the balance of that US$1.3-billion-dollar debt by the end of the month.

GM's red ink is letting up it appears.