backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 281 comment(s) - last by erikejw.. on Dec 12 at 1:14 PM


CEO Robert Nardelli, left, and CEO Alan Mulally of the once proud Chrysler and Ford sit grim as they are mocked by Senators while pleading for a 3 percent cut of the bailout bill. The use private jets by GM, Ford, and Chrysler's executives proved ammo for critics in the heated Congressional testimony Wednesday.  (Source: AP)
The future of many tech programs such as the Chevy Volt and Ford Fusion Hybrid hang in the balance, at the government's mercy

As DailyTech previously reported, both GM and Ford are almost out of cash.  GM will likely run out of cash by the end of the quarter and have to file for bankruptcy or break up its business if the government will provide a financial lifeline.  While it’s obvious that America's big auto companies lost touch in the 90s and early 2000s, producing a slew of inefficient big trucks and SUVs while foreign competitors stole away sales with more compact efficient cars, they are an integral part of America's economy.

With the fate of many major tech initiatives, such as GM's Chevy Volt and Ford's new Fusion hybrid hanging in the balance, the country's economic future also is at peril as if even one of the big three fall, it could plunge the deeper into recession -- or worse -- according to financial experts. 

It’s hard not to draw comparisons to another industry troubled by mismanagement and economic misfortune -- the U.S. banking industry.  And while the federal government was quick to bailout banking, finance, and housing firms to the tune of $750B USD in taxpayer burden, the government appears to be unwilling to offer the automakers a $25B USD bailout.

Flying to Washington, Alan Mulally CEO of Ford, Robert Nardelli CEO of Chrysler and Richard Wagoner CEO of GM met with members of Congress in special hearings, begging them for a share of the bailout money.  Many in the Senate, led by Republican opposition were unimpressed.  Some Senators went as far as to mock the CEOs use of private jets as they came asking for financial relief.

"It's almost like seeing a guy show up at the soup kitchen in high hat and tuxedo. It kind of makes you a little bit suspicious," stated Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-New York.

He added, "There is a delicious irony in seeing private luxury jets flying into Washington, D.C., and people coming off of them with tin cups in their hand, saying that they're going to be trimming down and streamlining their businesses."

He continued to mock the auto executives, remarking, "Couldn't you all have downgraded to first class or jet-pooled or something to get here? It would have at least sent a message that you do get it."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has declined to move the bailout measure towards a vote as the measure appears far short of the 60 vote majority needed.

The automakers were grilled at the hearing from all sides.  Rep. Brad Sherman, D-California, asked the automakers to raise their hands if they flew commercial.  No hands went up.  He then chided, "Let the record show, no hands went up.  Second, I'm going to ask you to raise your hand if you are planning to sell your jet in place now and fly back commercial. Let the record show, no hands went up."

The executives refused to respond to the sarcastic remarks on the Senate floor, instead trying to shift the focus to how they're restructuring their business.  Later, spokespeople for the companies defended the use of jets, saying CEOs need them for safety and most major American companies use them.  GM spokesman Tom Wilkinson stated, "Making a big to-do about this when issues vital to the jobs of millions of Americans are being discussed in Washington is diverting attention away from a critical debate that will determine the future health of the auto industry and the American economy."

Chrysler's spokeswoman Lori McTavish said in a press statement, "While always being mindful of company costs, all business travel requires the highest standard of safety for all employees."

Some political analysts are supporting the harsh Congressional criticism.  Says Thomas Schatz, president of the watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste, "If it is simply the company's money at stake, then only the shareholders can be upset or feel as it might be excessive.  [But in this case] it's outrageous.  They're coming to Washington to beg the taxpayers to help them. It's unseemly to be running around on a $20,000 flight versus a $500 round trip."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Subsidies, Redux
By nah on 11/20/2008 9:16:02 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
And while the federal government was quick to bailout banking, finance, and housing firms to the tune of $750B USD in taxpayer burden, the government appears to be unwilling to offer the automakers a $25B USD bailout.


I wonder why...

As I've said in a previous post--the auto companies should shape up--or shape out




RE: Subsidies, Redux
By 306maxi on 11/20/2008 9:22:25 AM , Rating: 2
I agree that GM and Ford need to shape up but.... a good deal of their problems are down the the deals done with the unions in the past which make life very difficult for Ford and GM.

I also feel that 25 billion is nothing when you compare it to the money that's already been spent on the financial system which will probably end up being a good deal more.

I think if the financial system gets bailed out with 750 million then there's NO reason why they automotive sector shouldn't be bailed out similarly. At least the car makers didn't cause the problem themselves like the banks did.


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By bribud on 11/20/2008 10:03:08 AM , Rating: 5
Ok, but then when do you stop giving handouts? If the auto industry gets a handout, then who is going to be the next large company to stand in line with their tin cups in hand? Eventually, there needs to be a line drawn and the government needs to be very careful with the American taxpayers' money. In tough times, companies fail. That's the way it is. People can't go through life knowing there is always a net under them so it's ok to fail. To me it seems large industries like this should be the ones you would help out LESS because they should be self-sufficient and be held accountable. If the major, large companies aren't held accountable, then who the hell will be?


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By headbox on 11/20/2008 12:05:53 PM , Rating: 4
I agree 100%. It's no longer a free market, but welfare for the rich.


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By teldar on 11/20/2008 7:41:56 PM , Rating: 2
You think it's going to be better under Obama? He's already basically said he's a socialist. Except I bet the ultra-wealthy don't pay any more taxes than what they already do.


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By majBUZZ on 11/21/2008 2:13:45 PM , Rating: 1
clap clap clap you get the i don't think for myself just repeat talking points award for the day.


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By Jim28 on 11/21/2008 3:41:04 PM , Rating: 2
give yourself one as well.


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By erikejw on 11/23/2008 1:10:53 PM , Rating: 3
"IKEA founder Ingvar Kamprad insists on flying coach, takes the subway to work, drives a ten-year-old Volvo, and avoids suits of any kind."
------
Net worth about 50Billion$
------
He argues, how can you expect others in the organisation to make good decisions about how to spend the company money if they see executives waste them like the funds are endless.
------
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_arc...
------


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By AlexWade on 11/20/2008 2:15:49 PM , Rating: 5
I WANT A HANDOUT! I need some money or my business may go under. Small businesses are the backbone of America, and if they go under, we are really screwed. This economy is hurting me. So give me my handout.


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 11/20/2008 3:01:05 PM , Rating: 3
Don't worry, Obama's tax program will have all small business closed inside of two years, which will cause the end of 80% of the jobs in the US. Then we will have no middle class. You will have no more financial problems - because you will have no money. You talk about now being trouble times, just wait for this next ride... If he has his way, you will be sick in the guts in no time flat.

To quote Star Wars: "So this is how a republic dies. To the sound of millions cheering"

Remember the guys who predict the financial future (stock traders), if they thought his plan was worth a nickel, stock would hold steady or start to rise..... Instead they are dropping like a rock. They understand what is going to happen to our financial future, it's not a guessing game to Economist - it's plugging in numbers (inflation, tax rates, GNP, average income....) into formulas which will spells out what will happen. His plan spells out death to the middle and upper middle class - the back bone to this country...

Have a nice day :)


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By michael67 on 11/20/08, Rating: 0
RE: Subsidies, Redux
By Ringold on 11/20/2008 4:54:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah your highs are higher then ours wen economy go's good, but your lows are also lower when it go's bad,


Actually, if you look at unemployment data for several Western European nations, Europe can maintain 8-10% unemployment for long stretches of time where 10% unemployment in generally a short-term low point in America. There's several strange misunderstandings in your post, such as the belief the Euro-zone is in better shape right now, which could be corrected if you bothered yourself with looking at data and financial news.


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 11/20/2008 5:47:08 PM , Rating: 4
Yea, we've had about 16 years of very poor financial status. However, the average American is more concern with the looks and charm of our leaders then they are concerned about the background and knowledge the leaders have to lead us into better times. Most US citizen have their blinders on and refuse to look at the truth... They think the problems are new (last 7 years), when the truth is these are very old problems that have never been address and now the troubles are coming to a head.

It does not matter who is president, going to be a crap job. However every Economist in the world knows if you want to slow down the growth of an economy you raise taxes. We here in the USA can not afford slower growth in our economy .5% has been a killer, we need to be back around 3 to 6% a good heath growth (more then 6% is also bad, some would say 6 is to high...)


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By ggordonliddy on 11/20/2008 7:35:01 PM , Rating: 1
Why are you posting comments when you obviously haven't passed 3rd grade English (or were just socially promoted to graduation)? Your spelling is deplorable.

What the hell does "firing ider" mean? And you do you really think that "and" is spelled as "en", and that "much" is spelled as "mouths"? Are you just trying to make people in Europe look extremely uneducated (if so you are succeeding brilliantly)? Maybe you are very drunk, or on crack, or both?


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By ggordonliddy on 11/20/2008 7:36:42 PM , Rating: 1
> And you do you

Yes, I know that should have been "And do you". !#@$ lack of Edit buttons... who the hell wrote this crappy comment software?


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By Ramos22 on 11/20/2008 9:57:06 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Are you just trying to make people in Europe look extremely uneducated (if so you are succeeding brilliantly)? Maybe you are very drunk, or on crack, or both?


and what culture/country/sect/religion/cult/race are you from? because your just making them look like stupid assholes.
Great logic huh?

There are many incredibly intelligent people in the world that can't speak an ounce of English.


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By michael67 on 11/21/2008 2:32:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why are you posting comments when you obviously haven't passed 3rd grade English (or were just socially promoted to graduation)? Your spelling is deplorable.

I am a offshore piping supervisor, and can do reports perfect in Dutch, and if i need to do one in English, i mailed it to the office. and have a secretary to have a look over it, to fix the mistakes.

So yes I have a small problem whit writing, (mild form of word blind) but i read and speak 6 languages,
Dutch, German, English, Danish, Swedish and Norwegian how many other languages do you speak and even better can wright in ???

I can do it in Dutch and English and Norwegian are sort of OK.

Its easy make crap about other people's little problems, but i wonder if you even can write in a other languish then English because, i have met a hell of a lot of Americans and 90% only can speak English and non other languishes


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By lco45 on 11/21/2008 3:26:59 AM , Rating: 2
Michael, I speak three languages at a business-level proficiency, and English natively.
It would be a dream come true if I could write in any of them as well as you write in English.

Luke


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By Ringold on 11/21/2008 4:17:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
i have met a hell of a lot of Americans and 90% only can speak English and non other languishes


Don't feel bad about your English. I've met a hell of a lot of fellow Americans, to borrow your phrase, who frankly can't read and write English as well as you can. Some times I think we give high school diplomas out as door prizes.


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By ggordonliddy on 11/21/2008 2:39:04 PM , Rating: 1
> languish then English

What the hell is a languish other than English?


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By plinkplonk on 11/22/2008 6:10:42 PM , Rating: 2
seriously, do you think you're some kind of language god or something? seeing as this guy is from europe and english is not his first language why the hell should he be expected to write it perfectly. you clearly understand what he is saying even though it is incorrectly typed so just stfu and stop having a go at someone just for the sake of it.

now back on topic i agree with an earlier post that there has to be a line drawn somewhere otherwise all failed businesses will just come begging for change.


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By majBUZZ on 11/21/2008 2:28:02 PM , Rating: 1
ummm i think your confusing the last 8 years with the next 4


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By AlexWade on 11/21/2008 8:07:02 AM , Rating: 3
Please, I did not want to turn my post into an anti-Obama rant. Neither Obama nor McCain can fix this crisis. Why do I know that? Because they want to meddle! And our Congress, they want to meddle! Both parties have become fat and lazy off power and both parties seem to think they have enough power to affect a global system.

And so an economic crisis comes along. It was an inevitability, capitalism has ups and downs and at times those are drastic both ways. That is the way it is. But our current President, our future President, our current Congress, and our future Congress want to meddle. Just because capitalism is not working the way you want it to does not mean it needs to be fixed or is broken. Leave it alone! That was the point of my post! LEAVE THE SYSTEM ALONE! Stop meddling, you are only making it worse! You cannot help capitalism by socialism.


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 11/21/2008 9:42:29 AM , Rating: 2
agree, markets do change....

Free markets (capitalism) always fixes itself. If Ford and or GM went under, it would not take long before another manufacture was created. When politicians get involved that's when things go bad. Usually because they studied Law/English and not Business or Economics. It's like having a broken leg and going to see a car mechanic, sure he might be able to help you and can do his job very well, but a medical doctor would be a better choice of person to see.


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By eyebeeemmpawn on 11/20/2008 10:27:29 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
At least the car makers didn't cause the problem themselves like the banks did.


Are you serious??? Here in America wee had a functioning electric vehicle nearly 100 years ago:

http://www.conceptcarz.com/vehicle/z11282/Baker-El...

They have offered up token alternatively fueled vehicles, and must be suffering from intellectual property amnesia (like that would ever happen these days).

As an engineer, I refuse to believe that the Big American Auto Industry haven't gotten themselves in the situation they're in today. The Toyota Prius is entering its 8th production year now, you expect us to believe that they haven't seen this coming for a while?


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By acer905 on 11/20/2008 10:39:10 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah... electric vehicles are as old as gas ones. So are steam powered cars. But the same reason we don't use them majorly now is the same reason we never did. Its much less practical.
Situation 1: wake up, go outside, start up your boiler. After a while, you have steam. Hop in your car and go. after a while refil your car with water and fuel.
Situation 2: wake up, hop in your electric car, go either a limited distance at fast speed, or longer distance at reduced speed, find a place to recharge. Wait a while
Situation 3: Get up, start car, go 300 miles, spend ten minutes refilling, go another 300 miles...

In my opinion, battery electric will never be practical. electric using on board energy production, will. Or, if we can start to superheat water really fast, go back to steam. Its got more power anyway.


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By eyebeeemmpawn on 11/20/2008 11:20:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
In my opinion, battery electric will never be practical. electric using on board energy production, will.


I agree that electric with onboard energy production is the most feasable at the moment. I would argue that all electric isn't that far off. The best data I could find quickly is here (2005 ABC News/Time magazine/Washington Post poll)

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Traffic/Story?id=...

The poll indicates that the "an average one-way commute time of 26 minutes (over an average distance of 16 miles)." I would be curious to see more data, but it seems the current Volt all-electric range of 40 miles could cover most commuters. I'm hopeful that with further technological advances, all electric will become more practical. That said, I wouldn't mind seeing emergency backup generator onboard future electric vehicles.


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By Entropy42 on 11/20/2008 10:42:43 AM , Rating: 2
A functioning electric vehicle is a far cry from a profitable electric vehicle. GM created the EV1 quite a while ago, but the battery tech wasn't there to support it, and they lost about a billion dollars on the project.

Did anyone really see the price of gas skyrocketing like it did the past year? No. If anyone really did foresee that, he/she would have made a killing on the futures market. People were buying SUVs and trucks. The Prius was a niche market that most Americans weren't even interested in.

I would completely agree that the financial industry was more to blame for its own downfall. Clearly the US automakers have made poor decisions, and failed to adapt their cost structure and model lines quick enough, but people only care about fuel-efficient vehicles when gas is expensive enough to make it worthwhile. If they had a fleet full of hybrid cars right now, people still wouldn't buy them, because many people either are worried about spending money, or can't get credit to buy the car to begin with, regardless of its fuel-efficiency.


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By Regs on 11/20/2008 5:14:21 PM , Rating: 2
People can get credit. Not unless of course you worked for one of those automakers or financial firms that or just about to go under.

Consumerism at it's finniest, people want more for less. We consume more than we produce, and the statistics and large trading defecate proves this. What we have here are leeches. These leeches take on many forms: inept CEO's or CEO's using old and outdated mythology; companies hiring illegal immigrants for cheap labor; corrupted judges in the judicial system; financial firms and suspect buyers dealing and applying for mortgages with no qualifications; employees defrauding their employers benefits; schools who wont accept applicants because it will effect their rating; patent trolls who scare away both small and large businesses to compete.

Consumerism has been corrupted by a natural human impulse that some label as greed. Bottom line is we need an equal and balanced system for share finite resources. To do this we all must produce as much as we consume.


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By FITCamaro on 11/20/2008 10:43:33 AM , Rating: 2
In all fairness, the Japanese government paid a good portion of the development costs of the Prius. The US government offers GM and Ford no such help.


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By eyebeeemmpawn on 11/20/2008 11:01:25 AM , Rating: 2
what do you call the alternative fuel tax credit? It doesn't go directly to Toyota, but certainly encouraged sales.


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By mdogs444 on 11/20/2008 11:21:49 AM , Rating: 2
I certainly hope you see the difference between tax breaks and subsidies.

Vast difference between the government taking in less revenue to promote something, than giving a person/business money from taxpayers to promote something.

The problem with subsidies is that if you actually asked the taxpayers if they would give their own money for that cause, they would say no. If you asked tax payers to give companies a tax break to build something - they'd say sure.


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By eyebeeemmpawn on 11/20/2008 11:31:51 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
I certainly hope you see the difference between tax breaks and subsidies.


Of course, I hope you see the difference between a tax break and a government bailout...one spurs innovation while the other rewards incompetence, either way we all pay for it.


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By mdogs444 on 11/20/2008 11:34:18 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not for the bailouts of any kind. So I hope that statement isn't for me.


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By eyebeeemmpawn on 11/20/2008 11:56:33 AM , Rating: 2
uh, just wanted to make sure you knew that I know the difference between a subsidy and a tax incentive since you seemed concerned. Subsidy or Incentive, its money out of our pockets. I'd much rather see incentives, more like dangling a carrot in front of a mule. Handing over the carrot first can lead to motivational issues similar to the ones we're seeing now.


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By snownpaint on 11/20/2008 2:40:18 PM , Rating: 2
We gave them money once already..


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By croc on 11/20/2008 7:11:56 PM , Rating: 2
You have a link to that info, yeah?


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By borismkv on 11/20/2008 8:23:35 PM , Rating: 2
The US government dog-eared 25 billion dollars to auto companies to develop alternative fuel vehicles. Part of my disagreement with this is that GM cannot give a firm date of when they'll run out of money without help. Do they not know how much they have? How much they're spending? Are they just stupid? Or are they lying?


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By omnicronx on 11/20/2008 11:57:16 AM , Rating: 5
Are you serious? 100 years ago gasoline was cheap, far more efficient than electric cars of the time and it was an abundant source of energy. Are you really blaming American auto manufacturers for this?

The American people are just as much to blame as the auto industry. The people wanted big gas guzzling SUV's because gas was cheap, and the auto industry liked them because they were high margin. The American auto industry should have been looking to make more efficient cars a while ago, but the finger cannot be pointed solely at them, they gave the public what they wanted, and although the prius has done quite well, its still not an every day use car for many people. (ex: those that drive 60+ miles highway a day)


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By snownpaint on 11/20/2008 4:56:09 PM , Rating: 3
Did you know a 100+ years ago, gasoline was dumped in creeks.. They only really wanted the Kerosene from the refinement of oil. Gasoline was for those few combustible engine tinkerers.


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By michael67 on 11/20/08, Rating: 0
RE: Subsidies, Redux
By masher2 (blog) on 11/20/2008 8:30:28 PM , Rating: 4
> "Uuuhh, issent that mainly due to fact that US cars the last 30 years are only made for the US market?"

Er, no. Ford and GM both are widely profitable on their overseas operations. They're losing money only in the US... and that primarily because of the heavy union cost structure.

> "driving a SUV if you realy dont need one is pritty looked down on over here."

If "over here" is Europe, then you're home to the worst gas-gazzlers on the planet. The least efficient two-seater, subcompact, compact, full-size, small station wagon, and midsize station wagon are all European models.

In Europe as in the US, those who can afford it, drive large powerful vehicles. The difference is that Europe, with its lofty fuel prices and lower per-capita income, has a much smaller percentage of people who actually can afford it.

Secondary factors are, of course, the much higher population density in Europe, which makes driving long distances less neccesary, and smaller roads, which make smaller vehicles more convenient -- but why confuse someone with the facts when they're so desperately searching for something to feel superior about?


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By TheOtherBubka on 11/20/2008 9:39:13 PM , Rating: 2
I believe masher is very correct in that what is killing the Big 3 is their unions and their cost structure. If I remember correctly, for every 1 GM employee working, there are 2.4 in retirement. Talk about having to have some superior productivity to stay afloat. This union cost structure isn't just limited to the auto industry. Look back at all of the US airline deals too. Many, if not all of them, had to ask the pilots union, the flight attendants union, and the grounds-crew/gate agents union for concessions in order to be operationally profitable.

To me, the problem with the Big 3 is they haven't done much on their own to go past CAFE regulations. I *think* if you look back at the Honda Accord as an example, every new model year was larger, had a more powerful engine, and got better fuel economy. Don't recall the domestics being the same. Maybe perception, maybe reality. But somewhere, somehow, someone should have been saying we need to put a vehicle out in that space (i.e, fuel efficient hybrid) just to keep up with the Jones' (Toyota & Honda).


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 11/21/2008 9:59:47 AM , Rating: 2
I believe masher is very correct in that what is killing the Big 3 is their unions and their cost structure."

Not sure that I'd call them "their unions"... If it was their unions the wages would be much lower. :)

I know what you are saying and agree with you, I just could not pass up the chance to point out that the union do not work for the companies, I would even say they work against the company. Unions are good and needed, but just like vitamins they are good and needed but too much of them will get you sick or kill you..


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/20/2008 9:24:46 AM , Rating: 1
That's easy to say, but you have to consider the financial impact to the entire nation for letting them fail. There's no doubt they were mismanaged and out of touch and only now are getting on the right track in SOME ways. However, the question remains should the government sit by idle and watch as one of the nation's most troubled, but also most integral businesses is lost?

The banks/mortgage lenders/etc. were equally out of touch and mismanaged and got a fat $750B USD. Compared to that $25B USD seems like chump change.

I agree the U.S. automakers have a lot of unresolved problems, but look at their situation. GM likely won't survive bankruptcy in any form. Chrysler already filed Chpt. 11. Both will default on payments to their suppliers. Ford may be able to reorganize under Chapter 11, but they will likely be like Chrysler now -- a shell of their formal self. At least 1 in 10 American jobs are directly dependent on the auto business. If even GM went under, it would likely plunge our nation into a depression, via soaring unemployment and plunging consumer spending. Sometimes a bailout isn't a great solution, but its the only one you have unless you're willing to let your nation's economy fall apart.


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By 306maxi on 11/20/08, Rating: -1
RE: Subsidies, Redux
By superunknown98 on 11/20/2008 9:35:19 AM , Rating: 5
I suggest you read this article If you really think 1 in 10 people would lose their jobs.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/how-m...


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By 306maxi on 11/20/08, Rating: -1
RE: Subsidies, Redux
By afkrotch on 11/20/2008 3:10:32 PM , Rating: 1
FYI, try actually reading the blog. He's not disputing the fact that if the Big 3 go under, there would be a wide impact. He's simply saying that the 1 in 10 jobs isn't a true statement.


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/20/2008 9:49:21 AM , Rating: 1
I think you misinterpreted my comments. I said approximately one in ten jobs DEPEND on them. Just because domestic manufacturers collapse doesn't mean these jobs will all be lost (your interpretation). Many of these are in fields such as parts manufacturers, Robotics/automation firms, etc. which do business with foreign automakers and other types of businesses as well.

I agree probably that study Gov. Granholm cited was auto funded and likely slightly inaccurate, but we're arguing semantics here. Maybe its 6-8% rather than 10%. So? The nation's other industries are already struggled, a near-complete failure of the domestic automotive business would be a catastrophic blow to an already wounded economy.

If you can't see that, you're being very foolish.


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By Gzus666 on 11/20/2008 9:55:54 AM , Rating: 5
Do you think that no one will fill the need? Detroit collapses, so suddenly no one else expands into their place? Circuit City is bombing, but Best Buy and many others will take it's place.

The demand for vehicles will go nowhere, just who they get them from will. That just means all the other auto makers will expand their market and they will be working for another company instead.


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By InsaneGain on 11/20/2008 12:25:24 PM , Rating: 5
Do you really think Toyota is going to hire any of the people who lost their jobs if the U.S. auto market and the general economy is in one of the worst recessions in decades? Right now, thousands of unwanted imported cars are piling up in Long Beach port. Toyota will be cutting back its NA operations. I know enough about economics to know the arguments against bailouts, but I also know enough to realize this economic situation is scary. There are many multiplying, cascading factors and positive feedback loops in something as complex as the economy. Many people feel safe in criticizing the U.S. auto companies, because they buy Toyotas and work in a completely unrelated field. They feel safe and sheltered from its issues, but little do they realize that if the industry fails, they may eventually lose their jobs as well.


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By Gzus666 on 11/20/2008 12:38:41 PM , Rating: 2
No, they will never hire ex-autoworkers to work in their plants in the US, that would be crazy. They will just leave that giant market and never come here again /sarcasm. Of course they cut back, cause the economy is slow, do you think it will never come back again? The major thing that will cause this country to collapse will be bailouts. When other countries won't give us loans and our money is worth jack, that is when the real problems will begin.


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By TomZ on 11/20/2008 1:00:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Many people feel safe in criticizing the U.S. auto companies, because they buy Toyotas and work in a completely unrelated field. They feel safe and sheltered from its issues, but little do they realize that if the industry fails, they may eventually lose their jobs as well.

Amen. None of us takes the danger seriously until it affects us personally, at which point we start screaming too.


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By afkrotch on 11/20/2008 3:46:18 PM , Rating: 2
The US economy is crap. The Euro economies is doing crap. Guess what? Also the Asian economies are doing crap. Japan is currently looking at pushing a stimulus check out to it's citizens. They are also looking to fix their own recession, caused by US's recession.

If the Big 3 fail, the odds of any foreign automaker expanding their operation in the states is unlikely. More likely that even less ppl would be in the market to purchase more cars.


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By superunknown98 on 11/20/2008 10:08:35 AM , Rating: 2
I agree, it is all semantics, many people will lose their jobs, but it never hurts to clarify a situation. How many people really believe 1 in 10 people will lose their jobs if the industry fails? Quite a few people believe this, even on this board. In order to make a rational decision we need accurate facts, not propoganda.

As to the blog I posted, I do not have a crystal ball and I suspect that neither do you or the blog author. His opinion is just as good as ours.

What really makes me doubt this bailout is the fact that GM or Chysler could get the money and then still go bankrupt. They still need to sell cars in order to pay us back. They haven't been able to do this since the 90's, so my faith in them being able to do this isn't so great.



RE: Subsidies, Redux
By snownpaint on 11/20/2008 4:26:54 PM , Rating: 2
Does everyone realize the trickle down of them failing?
Marketing of their cars crash, therefore advertising crashes. Other companies (Toyota), won't need to advertise as much, the crash will do that for them. Less money to magazines, marketing firms, ad. designers. Now magazines and marketing firms crash.

Many of the suppliers that make parts, plastics, metal, rubber.. Take a dive, I'm sure many people know that 20% of your customers usually contribute to 80% of your revenue. I'm sure the big 3 are someones 20%.. So they are gone. Some suppliers can't keep order quantities up, so costs go up, and companies that are working on smaller margins fail due to manufacturing (raw supplies) cost increases. (ex. Company that makes mops, brushes, etc.)

Being raw materials will be in surplus, they will be more likely to ship to other countries, making the cost go up here. (first cheaper, then more expensive, as they adjust shipping logistics)

The USDollar will take a dive, which will not help.

Even with this, I say let them Fail.. Fail Fail.. You reap what you sow..
Same thing for Wall Street..

Sure we are all going to hurt, but the way I look at is, "Pull the band-aid off slow, or Pull it off fast"..Ether way its going to hurt little over time or allot at once, but your sill going to have a infection underneath that needs to be cleaned out.. With it pulled off fast (go out of business) you will take some of the infection with the band-aid, and speed recovery of the infection, but the sore will be deeper, and take longer rebuild. Pulled the band-aid off slow (bailout) you will be battling the infection longer, and may never heal the sore.


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By rudolphna on 11/20/2008 4:57:55 PM , Rating: 1
so you basically want the US to become a 3rd world country. I agree with the first half of your post, until you got to the "let htem fail" part. I have the utmost confidence in GM and Ford (chrysler not so much) that they will be able to turn it around.


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By snownpaint on 11/21/2008 10:39:25 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think the US citizens will go back to pooing in holes, and wiping with newspaper. I don't think you will see us using horse and buggy to travel. I don't think we will see sanitation issues like a 3rd world countries. So I doubt we will become one, but we may go in the direction of Japan in 70's, or Poland in the 80's..


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By masher2 (blog) on 11/20/2008 8:58:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Being raw materials will be in surplus, they will be more likely to ship to other countries, making the cost go up here
Ah, so our using less steel will somehow defy the laws of supply and demand, and magically make it more expensive, rather than less? I don't think so.

Honestly, this sky-is-falling silliness is just that -- nonsense. GM would have to go through at least a decade of bankruptcies and restructurings before it would even consider closing up shop entirely...and even if it did, that loss in sales, advertising, and third-party supplier orders would be almost entirely taken up by increased demand by foreign automakers. Depending on which models consumers switched to, a loss of Ford and/or GM could actually *increase* employment in the US.


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By snownpaint on 11/21/2008 12:40:58 PM , Rating: 2
The simple is supply and demand.. The long run is supply and demand vs. logistics and world demand.

Do you think other companies will not need that steel in other countries, growing industrial countries? Do you think other car companies will not increase production to fill the holes in supply when the others fail and their inventory is washed out? So at first steel will be cheap while they blow out the US surplus, which will go to CN and Mex. especially with the US dollar direction. Then as the demand migrates away from the US, Steel companies will change logistics to increase profits where the steel is needed. Because the US won't need as much, we will get the short end of the stick on logistics and begin seeing cost go up. The same amount of steel is being made, it just begins to cost more to bring it to the US, making the cost go up. The only balance will be US surplus in recycled steel, which I don't think will be enough to balance the prices.

When buying in bulk, you save money in shipping and costs.

As for sky is falling.. I'm not worried about that. American weathers well, and we can hold out. Americans are really good at starting businesses and finding niches. I don't think Foreign automakers will pick up the slack in marketing, till after the marketing crash when they develop cars for the American market. I don't think it will increase employment in the US till new companies come in to pick up the pieces of the market, which will be 2-3 years before anything starts.


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By masher2 (blog) on 11/20/2008 12:17:21 PM , Rating: 4
> "but we're arguing semantics here. Maybe its 6-8% rather than 10%."

Stuff and nonsense. If GM and Ford stopped making cars, people would simply buy more Japanese and European vehicles...most of which are made with nearly as much U.S. labor, if not more, than those two "domestic" automakers.

But more importantly, the chances of either companies ceasing operations is nonexistent. If either went bankrupt, they would still continue to operate, just under different ownership and/or management. Companies this large don't simply shut their doors because they run out of cash.

This bailout is about protecting the jobs of the CEOs and upper management, only. Currently GM has one of the worst management teams in existence for a blue-chip, according to financial metrics. If they declare bankruptcy, the rank and file will keep their jobs...but heads will roll in upper management.

As well they should.


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By Gzus666 on 11/20/2008 12:40:05 PM , Rating: 2
And people don't seem to get this. This is exactly what would happen.


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By bob332 on 11/20/2008 2:00:26 PM , Rating: 2
ding, ding, ding

we have a winner here

when the execs are getting grilled about their corporate jets, and their response is that it is a safety issue? give me a f*cking break. hell, even puffy is flying commercial :)

the execs have this ultra elitist thought process that needs to go, these people can't stay w/ their huge salaries and bogus bonuses based off of some f*cked reasoning that doesn't make any sense.

get rid of the management and let the people that actually work there run the company and this would not be a problem.

in this case, you cut off the head and the body will work much better...


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By TomZ on 11/20/2008 2:18:39 PM , Rating: 2
Power to the people! Let's have a revolution! Anarchy!

:o)

Sorry, I for one think this is a load of crap. Who are you to judge what another person can or cannot have or earn for themselves? And point of fact is that most large corporation CEOs are shuttled around in corporate jets. That's how corporate shareholders want it.

I also find it amusing that you suggest that a company could operate without its top management. Without it, a company would get nothing done, period. To suggest otherwise is very naive to put it mildly.


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By bob332 on 11/20/2008 3:22:42 PM , Rating: 2
and by the way that they are doing $$ wise your points make perfect sense /sarcasm


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By TomZ on 11/20/2008 3:29:03 PM , Rating: 1
The domestic automotive companies have more challenges - internal as well as external - than the average American is aware of. Their fate is not completely up to them to decide - quite frankly, the deck is stacked against them.


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 11/20/2008 3:33:15 PM , Rating: 3
CEO's can pay themselves $1.00 or $1,000,000,000,000,000.00 or anything else. It does not matter to me or anyone else. However, before they cut check for dollar one, the company better be making enough profit to cut the check. Every small business owner knows one rule that is universal amongst all small / medium size business owners - "No profit made for this month, no check to take home for this month." Maybe it's time some of these big company re-learn that lesson. I assure you Henry Ford understood it.


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By BadAcid on 11/20/2008 4:56:15 PM , Rating: 3
They've had their heads in the clouds for far too long. Time for a dose of reality.


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By Myg on 11/20/2008 2:06:05 PM , Rating: 3
Spot on masher; your clarity on this issue is very agreeable! Wish there was someone on that senate body with a brain like yours to run those exec's through.


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By Roy2001 on 11/20/2008 12:19:03 PM , Rating: 2
They just threat to kidnap us, the nation.


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By omnicronx on 11/20/2008 1:13:24 PM , Rating: 2
That article is just plain wrong!
quote:
Detroit Three would result in direct and indirect job losses of 2.5 million to 3 million in 2009. (This figure was also cited by Governor Granholm.)
That number is ludicrous, I went to school in Oshawa ontario which is home to one of Ontarios GM plants and there have been many studies on indirect jobs loss should the plant shutdown. This only includes first tier indirect jobs which are companies that make parts, or somehow assist in the manufacturing process, this is not including BS stats like car washes. Whats the number of jobs that would be lost? 50K, with only around 5000 of those being direct GM workers.

Whomever wrote that article is being pretty bias, and while I don't agree with the 1-10 number, it is still very close, and would dramatically effect the economy.

quote:
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.
How much could it have possibly fallen? Blind statements without any numbers are pointless. These numbers would have had to fall 30+% in order to have a dramatic impact, and judging by the lack of a source I really doubt it is anywhere near that number. (even at 30% drop, it will still not change the 1-10 number dramatically)
quote:
2) Much more importantly, it is an industrywide study: The auto-related jobs covered in the report include more than those dependent on the Detroit Three; they are related to cars sold by any manufacturer
Once again, this is totally unfounded, companies like Toyota rarely make their parts in the U.S, they are merely assembled here. If the big 3 were to disappear then sure, other foreign companies would come in to replace them, but you would lose a huge amount of manufacturing jobs as only assembly would be required.
quote:
In other words, the loss of a single American car company wouldn’t necessarily dissolve all those jobs that the entire auto industry “supports.”
I laughed at this one, do they really think only one company will fall? There entire article is suppose to be based upon if the big 3 were to fail, and then the author says this?
If I'm going to read an article with a title of "How Many Jobs Depend on the Big Three?" I expect that the information be given will be based upon all three companies crumbling, which is where that 1-10 number came from.

The writer of this article obviously has a 'lessez fair' point of view, and his writing shows this. A one sided article without making points for both sides is not an argument, its a merely the authors point of view cannot be considered proof in any way or form. (regardless if he writes for the Times or not..)


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By 91TTZ on 11/20/2008 2:29:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Whomever wrote that article is being pretty bias,


That should be "Whoever" not "Whomever"


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By omnicronx on 11/20/2008 3:47:47 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks grammar nazi..


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By Ringold on 11/20/2008 5:08:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but you would lose a huge amount of manufacturing jobs as only assembly would be required.


Last I checked, both "domestic" and "foreign" car makers used equivalent amounts of US-sourced components, which seems to suggest no such long-run outcome.


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By omnicronx on 11/20/2008 8:17:41 PM , Rating: 2
What world do you live in? Approximately 50 percent of Toyota parts are made In the USA or Canada. Toyota happens to be the largest car manufacturer in the world. Toyota has even imported several cars to North America in the last few years.
Honda has the most domestic parts for

http://autos.aol.com/article/general/v2/_a/is-it-m...


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By Ringold on 11/21/2008 1:38:40 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know what world you live in. First you claim US car makers failing would cause some huge drop in manufacturing here, and then link to an article that basically proves my point that all manufacturers are global, and even debating which is really more American than another is almost pointless.


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By Mitch101 on 11/20/2008 9:59:14 AM , Rating: 5
They need to Chap 11 and get money to restructure not money to stay in the bad business model that they are.

GM has a lot of excess waste, union-ized to death, mismanaged, and with too much CEO and retires feeding off GM. If there is a bailout we will find them in this situation again shortly with many top end people running off with the cash and employees with a few more months of paychecks. It wont resolve the problems.

Its a band-aid when a tourniquet is needed.

The people shouldn't bail out bad business models so the gluttony they get continues at our expense.

Lets say I work on Dell computers and if Dell went Chap 11 I would work on HP. The demand for computers doesnt go away with Dell. The same would happen for many who do work with GM they would have to migrate over to a different source. It not like the demand for cars will disappear they will just go to other companies who have their business models more in line with reality.


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By FreeTard on 11/20/2008 10:53:41 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with that.

How do we know that the money is going to be used responsibly.

AIG set an example. Give them a bailout, they ask for more and get it.

Some reports have shown that they are burning through ~11B a quarter, so with the 25B given to the industry GM will burn through their share in one quarter. Then what? How much do we give GM before we allow them to fail? Or do we take on the responsibility of supporting them forever?

I wouldn't have such an objection to a bailout, if I was confident that it would help long term, but that is the one thing I haven't heard from anyone. Will a bailout solve their problems forever?


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By xsilver on 11/20/2008 11:02:46 AM , Rating: 2
you're right on the money but the problem I see is that what is being rescued isnt the company but rather the brand.

I mean if GM went chapter 11 would they be allowed to use the brand again or will another car company have to resurface?

Would you buy: "Globaltron Pony 2 door sports saloon - formerly known as the makers of GM" ??

Large retail companies going under is a rare occurrence no?
The only other example I can think of is polaroid. However there were kodak/canon/nikon to take their place.
If BOTH GM+ford go under are consumers really going to TRUST toyota/honda/VW to take their place?


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By masher2 (blog) on 11/20/2008 9:09:06 PM , Rating: 2
> "I mean if GM went chapter 11 would they be allowed to use the brand again or will another car company have to resurface?"

You're confusing Chapter 11 (reorganization) with a Chapter 7 (liquidation) bankruptcy. Under Ch. 11, GM would still operate and keep the majority of its assets, including such things as brand names.


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By snownpaint on 11/20/2008 4:52:17 PM , Rating: 3
Unionized to death.. That is a big factor.

Personally, I have worked with unions and found some of the laziest people working in them. Job security is so high, they would have to kill someone to get suspended. Even then they would be paid for that time off.

Also C-exe and VP expenses are probably way out there.. Executives seem to always be a glutton on revenue (written in as cost of doing business), especially when the company gets monstrous.


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By GabrielIkram (blog) on 11/20/2008 10:40:47 AM , Rating: 5
"mocked by Senators while pleading for a 3 percent cut of the bailout bill." A bit sensationalist much? Watch the coverage of these automakers on C-Span, and you'll see just how much of a bunch of stuck-up assholes they are. If they truly cared about their companies' welfare or were embarrassed that they are back at the government's door begging taxpayers for money again, they should show a little humility. They are not entitled to any money. Does this mean I think we should not give them the $25B? Not entirely. But I think it should only be given if the management of these companies are fired with no bonuses.


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By masher2 (blog) on 11/20/2008 12:08:32 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
you have to consider the financial impact to the entire nation for letting them fail.
If a company is failing, a government bailout won't save it. Period. Only restructuring its operations will. . . and bailouts *prevent* that. Companies flush with free government funds don't make the tough decisions they should.

A journalist should have some sense of historical perspective. A classic example is the US railroad industry, which received bailout after bailout after bailout, to the amount of what was, at the time, far more than $25B. They still went bankrupt -- multiple times, in fact. It wasn't until the government stopped giving them buckets of free money that they eventually learned to operate in a profitable, sustainable manner.


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By TomZ on 11/20/08, Rating: -1
RE: Subsidies, Redux
By mdogs444 on 11/20/2008 9:43:17 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Also, isn't it kind of a double-standard - I mean we bail out AIG, banks, investment firms without any "tarring and feathering," but when it comes to the auto industry, they bring in the CEOs and make a circus out of them.

But there are some of us who were, and still are, adamantly against the bailouts of AIG & investment banks alike.

The free market economy survives on the principal of self reliance and personal responsibility, not "pick me ups" and handouts/bailouts.

We're seeing it now. Other companies, industries, and even CITIES want bailout money now. Where does it end? Is this what we teach our children - don't worry if you mess up, someone else will make it right?


RE: Subsidies, Redux
By TomZ on 11/20/2008 10:49:13 AM