BellaOnline

Auto bailout?

Posted By: toddzgrrl02

Auto bailout? - 11/11/08 01:34 PM

So now I am hearing about the auto industries wanting help too. (maybe they should stop making gas guzzling SUVs that no one in their right mind should be buying unless they live someplace it is necessary!) but anyway, why should we bail them out too? Does this seem like a sensible way to use OUR money?

Obama seems to think so.

BellaOnline ALERT: Raw URLs are not allowed in these forums for security reasons. Please use UBB code. If you don't know how to do UBB code just post here for help - we will help out!
Posted By: Straycat

Re: Auto bailout? - 11/11/08 01:54 PM

Hopefully he will keep helping Amtrak. Cars are a big expense with the initial buy, gas, insurance, registration, parking. We should take a lesson from other countries who have a much more efficent rail service.

Posted By: Lynn_B

Re: Auto bailout? - 11/11/08 03:38 PM

In addition to more bailout money for the finance industry (AIG this time) and the auto industry, the new "economic stimulus package" is also likely to include an extension of unemployment benefits for those who cannot find work.

See the Chritian Science Monitor article - Auto Bailout?
Posted By: CrochetQueen

Re: Auto bailout? - 11/13/08 01:51 AM

Just in case anyone wants to see, here is a link to a unemployment chart so that you can fairly compareBellaOnline ALERT: Raw URLs are not allowed in these forums for security reasons. Please use UBB code. If you don't know how to do UBB code just post here for help - we will help out!
Posted By: saga61

Re: Auto bailout? - 11/13/08 03:02 PM

I'm no auto industry expert, but it seems to me that bailing them out will only be artificially propping up the industry. How much money will it take, and how long can this be sustained? As for Obama's economic plan, I've heard that there's no way he can keep his promises of tax credits without running the economy even further into the ground.
Posted By: Lynn_B

Re: Auto bailout? - 11/13/08 03:23 PM

Run the unemployment data back to 1970. The big spikes in unemployment were arond 1973-75 and 1980-83.
Posted By: CrochetQueen

Re: Auto bailout? - 11/14/08 06:34 AM

And for those dates, we had Republican presidents:
President Richard Nixon 1969 to 1974
President Gerald Ford 1974 to 1977
President Ronald Reagan 1981 to 1989

All Republicans
Posted By: whoisjohngalt

Re: Auto bailout? - 11/14/08 06:47 AM

Isn't the idea of capitalism to allow a company to have the opprotunity to not only succeed, but also to fail? If we bail them out, then what incentive will they have to do anything better the next time?

We saw what the mortgage companies did with their money (Expensive Expensive Spa- Field weekends for their executives).
Why do we believe the auto industries will be any different?
Give Capitalism a chance smile

-whoisjohngalt
Posted By: Lynn_B

Re: Auto bailout? - 11/14/08 03:14 PM

"All Republicans"

Yes, they were all Republican presidents. Though I would say party affiliation has little meaning (just as it does now).

I will say, though, the spike we saw in the early 80's followed the mess left behind by Carter. It takes time to fix messes and practical policies and know how to do it. Something neither Nixon, Ford, Carter or Obama had/have good track records with.
Posted By: Vance - Crime Editor

Re: Auto bailout? - 11/14/08 04:00 PM

We wouldn't need a bailout if it wasn't for NAFTA. Say what you want, but that killed our industries here.
Posted By: Lynn_B

Re: Auto bailout? - 11/14/08 04:08 PM

I would argure we don't "need" a bailout now.

As far as NAFTA goes, it certainly led to change. But, opening the borders for trade isn't the root cause for our mess. I would hold that refusal to adapt to market changes, poor management, and irresponsibility (individual, corporate and political) have led us to where we are now.
Posted By: Vance - Crime Editor

Re: Auto bailout? - 11/14/08 04:52 PM

Originally Posted By: Lynn_B
I would argure we don't "need" a bailout now.

As far as NAFTA goes, it certainly led to change. But, opening the borders for trade isn't the root cause for our mess. I would hold that refusal to adapt to market changes, poor management, and irresponsibility (individual, corporate and political) have led us to where we are now.


If we didnt open the borders for free trade like we did, then our companies would not have moved to Mexico and the like where labor is so cheap and the CEO's are getting rich.
Posted By: Lynn_B

Re: Auto bailout? - 11/15/08 03:53 AM

The movement of US companies into Mexico started in the 1960's (the maquiladora movement), which predates NAFTA a good 30 years. The same holds true for countries like India. We make it nearly impossible for companies to grow here in the U.S. (unionization, high payroll costs above market levels, forced contributions from employers towards insurance and other extras, high unemployment insurance contributions, high contributions for workers compensation, etc.). If their leaders/boards/CEO's want to grow, they have to locate somewhere they can do that. I don't like it; but it makes good fiscal sense for the companies who are trying to stay afloat.

If we want to keep jobs here, we have to make it easier for companies to be here.

But, the movement of jobs is not the root cause of the current instability. What we have is a nation of people (individuals, corporations, government) - myself included - living on credit, refusing to save, over extending their obligations. When people refuse to meet their obligations, the entities that extended the credit fail. Our whole economy is wrapped up in this network of borrowing, borrowing, borrowing. The house of cards has fallen. Banks can't make loans because they don't have liquidity. Businesses can't get loans for payroll and have to lay people off. People are laid off and have no money to pay towards their obligations; and the cycle just continues.

If we'd quit trying to find something/someone to blame (NAFTA, the Republicans, the Democrats, fat cat businessmen, Joe Blow down the road, etc.) and start looking in the mirror and owning up to what we've done to ourselves we might get somewhere.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of folks out there that just aren't comfortable with that; and really need to have someone just step in, toss some money and platitudes at the "problem," and sweep the whole mess away for them.
Posted By: cela

Re: Auto bailout? - 11/15/08 05:24 AM

I live where there are a ton of illegals working in the chicken processing industry. There is SUCH a blind eye turned to this problem--both to the employers and the illegal employees. This problem is the reverse of that of industries leaving our borders.

This situation is SO wrong on SO MANY levels. First, it creates an underclass of people who can be truly at a disadvantage if they are mistreated. They can be cowed into not reporting crimes or unfair wages if they are naive enough to fear deportation. On the other hand, they often drain government resources when their children enroll in our schools or they need healthcare. We even have a new scenario---I.N.S. (Immigration and Naturalization Service) raid "disaster" areas. If a large business in your area experiences a federal immigration raid that, ultimately, shuts down the business, your community may be faced with providing shelter/food for the children of deported parents while, at the same time, experiencing a mini-recession created by the void left behind when a large number of employees quit spending money in your community. Believe it or not, communities in our area even have emergency preparedness seminars on what to do if a large business in our area experiences such a raid.

Arrgggggggggh!!! In my opinion, this should not be happening. A) We do not need instant citizens who do not understand or appreciate the value of "rule of law" that this country was founded upon. If we grant citizenship to massive numbers of illegals, the next step is elections that will draw the votes of millions of misguided new voters. Before we know it, our country won't resemble the one these people fled to. B) One of the major effects of the Civil War was to outlaw slavery. Now, we have something that bears a close resemblance to slavery. Just because you "pay" people doesn't make them free. These illegal workers are, in many ways, just like slaves.

I really wish there were a humane way to send these people home. At the very least, we should NOT offer them citizenship just because we feel sorry for them. Basically, we need more than the HONOR SYSTEM we have now with immigration. People flood in here all the time, and NOTHING is done except the occasional raid. One statistic I saw said that less than 3,000 illegals per year are deported in the entire U.S. With estimates of a total illegal population of 2-3 million, that deportation number might as well be zero. I get the impression that people in Central and South America know more about our immigration system then any of us do. They come here with virtually no fear of leaving, and there is even talk of Congress permanently opening both our southern and northern borders for passport-free travel.
Posted By: Vance - Crime Editor

Re: Auto bailout? - 11/15/08 09:29 PM

Originally Posted By: Lynn_B
The movement of US companies into Mexico started in the 1960's (the maquiladora movement), which predates NAFTA a good 30 years. The same holds true for countries like India. We make it nearly impossible for companies to grow here in the U.S. (unionization, high payroll costs above market levels, forced contributions from employers towards insurance and other extras, high unemployment insurance contributions, high contributions for workers compensation, etc.). If their leaders/boards/CEO's want to grow, they have to locate somewhere they can do that. I don't like it; but it makes good fiscal sense for the companies who are trying to stay afloat.

If we want to keep jobs here, we have to make it easier for companies to be here.

But, the movement of jobs is not the root cause of the current instability. What we have is a nation of people (individuals, corporations, government) - myself included - living on credit, refusing to save, over extending their obligations. When people refuse to meet their obligations, the entities that extended the credit fail. Our whole economy is wrapped up in this network of borrowing, borrowing, borrowing. The house of cards has fallen. Banks can't make loans because they don't have liquidity. Businesses can't get loans for payroll and have to lay people off. People are laid off and have no money to pay towards their obligations; and the cycle just continues.

If we'd quit trying to find something/someone to blame (NAFTA, the Republicans, the Democrats, fat cat businessmen, Joe Blow down the road, etc.) and start looking in the mirror and owning up to what we've done to ourselves we might get somewhere.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of folks out there that just aren't comfortable with that; and really need to have someone just step in, toss some money and platitudes at the "problem," and sweep the whole mess away for them.


I am looking in the mirror and wasn't me that put Flint, Michigan in near poverty. It wasn't me that made Michigan number one in unemployment in the country. It wasn't me that put this country in excess of a trillion dollars in debt. A company I used to work for in the 90's shut its doors and put hundreds of people out of work to move to Mexico. We are allowing all of our stuff to be assembled in Mexico and China because it is cheaper. I didn't cause that. Someone has to be blamed for that. Opening up the borders for free trade aided in the mess we are in now. Do you think people in control at companies would not rather pay 1.50 an hour as opposed to 14.00 an hour? People were against NAFTA and now CAFTA from jump street just as they were for the bailout. After the bailout, AIG big wigs spent over 400,000 dollars for their executives to take a retreat to Hawaii. Is that my fault too?
Posted By: Silverwolf

Re: Auto bailout? - 11/15/08 10:58 PM

Vance? I'd love to see Congress put strings on any bailout for the car makers by demanding they make their products real gas sippers - How about a minimum of say, 50 miles per gallon of gas? And I mean inter city travel, not highway, as a yardstick to giving the money out. That could save a lot of problems regardless of whether gas prices rise or fall and stretch out the time fuel makers have to come up with alternate solutions to fossil fuel use.
Posted By: Lady J

Re: Auto bailout? - 11/15/08 11:18 PM

VANCE, SOUNDS LIKE YOUR COMPANY WAS mAYTAG. iT ALMOST BANKRUPT A CITY WHEN IT SHUT DOWN ITS MAJOR PLANT IN ILLINOIS FOR REFRIGS AND SUCH AND MOVED TO MEXICO
Posted By: Lady J

Re: Auto bailout? - 11/15/08 11:19 PM

oops, sorry. was playing a game that requires the caps lock on and forgot to turn it off
Posted By: Barbara, GayLesbianEditor

Re: Auto bailout? - 11/17/08 02:04 AM

My dad and I were having this conversation recently. Not surprisingly, we disagree. I say that "the good old days" of someone getting a job at a factory and making enough money to support an upper middle class lifestyle (as has been true in much of Southeast Michigan for years) are long gone. I think we shouldn't try to close the borders or keep the jobs here but do what Americans do best .... innovate, create new industries and new jobs that will employ the people who would have been employed by manufacturing. The fact is that since all those other countries can do it so much more cheaply, things aren't going to change. Thus, it seems a better use of our time to find an alternative than to rail against it. In the interests of full disclosure: I live in Michigan and my dad was unemployed during the last auto industry crisis in the 70s. I know it's awful but I'm also pragmatic: since it isn't going to change, what can we do?
Posted By: Barbara, GayLesbianEditor

Re: Auto bailout? - 11/17/08 02:06 AM

And about immigration: Keep in mind that unless you are native american, all of you came from immigrants. Perhaps not brown skinned people from Mexico, but immigrants nonetheless. The Irish were just as vilified as lazy, etc back in their time. It isn't new.
Posted By: SNC_Editor_Pam

Re: Auto bailout? - 11/17/08 10:29 AM

I think it's disgraceful to blame people who have worked and saved all their lives, who have lived up to and beyond their responsibilities, for the state of the economy today.

It's not only the older generation but many young couples and families of young children have worked multiple jobs, reached out to their communities to help those in need, were there for the people in Oklahoma City, the sites of the 9/11 attacks, hurricane and flood victims along the Gulf Coast, and many others in need.

People with a healthcare crisis involving just one family member have lost their homes and savings; others who have worked their whole lives for one company have lost their jobs and pensions. Small and medium, and even large businesses know that keeping communities healthy is good for business; law enforcement officials and social service providers know that a bad economic situation causes terrible human suffering due to crimes involving theft, vandalism, domestic violence and child abuse.

AIG executives seem to believe that their 'bailout' help will be paid back and should be considered a loan that will be paid back with interest. If that's true, I will be greatly relieved. As for bailing out the U S automakers - their failure will plunge the surrounding communities into a devastating economic crisis not only from the families who will directly lose jobs but for those who work in businesses that will lose customers from those businesses; tax shortfalls will leave the most vulnerable without options and communities will deteriorate and die. When I was growing up I lived in neighborhoods that were barely recovering from big plant closures after years of rebuilding their economies, and even as a child and teenager I was struck by the psychological and emotional undertones among people who had managed to survive through the hard times. In some neighborhoods, 70% of people just packed up and left. They had to do that, moving to other cities or back home where they could live with relatives. Stable, healthy neighborhoods are necessary for strong families.

We still have two months of Republican leadership in the White House. George W. Bush and his cabinet have had eight years of experience and top level advisors during crisis situations. Hopefully they are addressing our concerns with the U.S. auto industry and can make a good start at re-establishing stability.

In the meantime, don't assume that most Americans have been living on credit and not planning for the future. Many of us have done a much better job than the government and it's their lack of foresight and planning, and slow or inadequte response to economic realities that have caused most of our difficulties.

Remember George W. Bush did win the election of 2004 and expectations were high that Republican fiscal responsibility and good accounting would lead us into greater prosperity.

Blaming the failures of major corporations on the workers who give their lives to the company doesn't make sense. Their boards and shareholders were making good profits and they should have done better.

Why are they not using their resources and ingenuity in figuring out how to compete with foreign auto makers and bringing these ideas to Congress themselves? I bet their employees could make suggestions that would rival those of expensive outside consultants, and be good for the community, too.

Pam W
SE of Seattle
Posted By: SNC_Editor_Pam

Re: Auto bailout? - 11/17/08 10:47 AM

Originally Posted By: toddzgrrl02
So now I am hearing about the auto industries wanting help too. (maybe they should stop making gas guzzling SUVs that no one in their right mind should be buying unless they live someplace it is necessary!) but anyway, why should we bail them out too? Does this seem like a sensible way to use OUR money?

Obama seems to think so.


The question we should be asking is what George W. Bush is deciding to do; have you contacted your elected representatives and the White House with your remarks?

President-Elect Obama seems to have the same opinion as the rest of us:

From the New York Times article about the 60 Minutes interview:

Quote:
In his first post-election interview, the president-elect also reiterated his support for providing additional assistance to Americans facing home foreclosure as well as government involvement in bailing out the troubled automobile industry.

�It can�t be a blank check,� Mr. Obama said of a plan to help automakers. �My hope is that over the course of the next week, between the White House and Congress, the discussions are shaped around providing assistance but making sure that that assistance is conditioned on labor, management, suppliers, lenders, all the stakeholders coming together with a plan � what does a sustainable U.S. auto industry look like?�


Hopefully a good plan will be established before Republicans leave the White House.

Pam W

In my previous post I was responding to a different remark and individual than the 'quick reply' indicated. I am insulted to read that hard working Americans should take the blame for the economic crisis. People I know who are at risk or have lost their homes and savings were not overextended on credit or free-spending non-planners. Most either had their jobs cut out from under them, lost health insurance during a family medical crisis, or had a spouse fall ill or pass away after a long illness. Good Republicans have been caught in this economic downturn and stock market rollercoaster ride into a ditch.
Posted By: Vance - Crime Editor

Re: Auto bailout? - 11/17/08 02:03 PM

Originally Posted By: Barbara - AIDS/HIV Editor
My dad and I were having this conversation recently. Not surprisingly, we disagree. I say that "the good old days" of someone getting a job at a factory and making enough money to support an upper middle class lifestyle (as has been true in much of Southeast Michigan for years) are long gone. I think we shouldn't try to close the borders or keep the jobs here but do what Americans do best .... innovate, create new industries and new jobs that will employ the people who would have been employed by manufacturing. The fact is that since all those other countries can do it so much more cheaply, things aren't going to change. Thus, it seems a better use of our time to find an alternative than to rail against it. In the interests of full disclosure: I live in Michigan and my dad was unemployed during the last auto industry crisis in the 70s. I know it's awful but I'm also pragmatic: since it isn't going to change, what can we do?


That is the real question isn't it? What can we do? It looks like we can do nothing. Congress doesn't let us vote on any of these things so we have to sit back and take it. If we were allowed to vote yay or nay to NAFTA before it was passed back in 93 and we allowed it to happen, then we could only blame ourselves. We weren't allowed to vote on the recent 800 billion dollar bailout, that's right. I said 800 billion dollar bailout and I am sure we won't be allowed to vote on the auto bailout either. Sure the bailout may save some jobs but at what cost and for how long? We are not fed all of the information on these bailouts. All of the ups and downs and are only fed what the government wants us to hear.
Posted By: VickyH

Re: Auto bailout? - 11/17/08 02:18 PM

I am amazed that the automakers did not see this coming. NAFTA is not what caused this. How many years has the government been stating that cars have to be retooled, and are finally forcing their beliefs on the carmakers. I feel the car industry did not have an eye to the future but continued to do business as usual. Now they want us to bail them out. The unions also did not have an eye to the future. They want us to accept and be forced to buy their products, and ignore that there other products are better products out there. You give the consumer what they want.

If you are I, small businesses, were in trouble, we wouldn't be rescued. I feel it is not the auto industry being rescued, but the unions. They have crippled the auto industry. The government should step back and allow this industry to fail and start up again, running them correctly.

Posted By: Helen Doll Making Editor

Re: Auto bailout? - 11/17/08 02:21 PM

I watched Meet the Press yesterday and this was the main topic of discussion. I still don't know how I feel about it, both sides made very good points.

Detroit has known for a very long time that they had to make changes. Their response to the recent $4 a gallon gas was to subsidize gas for their customers who bought huge gas guzzlers. Bad for the country, bad for the planet. Now the CEO of GM says he won't resign, no matter what. He's one of the ones responsible for running the industry into a ditch. If the big three refuse to step into the 21st century, why should the people pay to save them, they weren't trying to help themselves make the necessary changes.

On the other hand, no other country that has an auto industry, is going to let their industry go under. Where does that leave this country if we let ours go?

So I think some sort of compromise must be reached so that the industry isn't completely lost, but the ones who made the bad decisions and led the industry to this point need to be dispensed with. When the government bailed Chrysler the government made money on the loans. That doesn't sound too bad to me. So many other industries depend on the auto industry that it's a scary thought that we might lose all of it.
Posted By: VickyH

Re: Auto bailout? - 11/17/08 02:28 PM

It concerns me that a member of Congress suggested that the CEOs of the auto industry should resign. Perhaps they want to nationalized the auto industry also. I don't know about you, but I won't drive around in a Smart Car or whatever they want us to drive. I won't allow my kids to drive around in those. I bet that members of Congress will still drive around in their SUVs, Limos, etc. while the American people are getting killed driving around in the cars they will "design" if they have their sticky fingers in the industry.
Posted By: Lynn_B

Re: Auto bailout? - 11/17/08 04:53 PM

Pam - I didn't lay the blame entirely at the feet of individuals. But, as I indicated, individuals - through the choices we make - DO have an impact (along with corporations and governments - you may wish to review the whole post).

Hard working Americans DO have an impact on the economy. Our national savings rate is 1 % (yours may be better, if so I applaud you, you're outside the norm). As for debt, the average American has 9 credit cards and owes more than $16K in personal consumer debt - not including home mortgages and student loan debt (See Credit Crunch Takes New Face. No, its not pretty. No, its not complimentary. That's simply the way it is.

Businesses do have a part too. After all, they let Americans purchase their products. Then over produce hoping more Americans will buy. Then wonder what the hecks' going on when no one can buy anything (too much debt, not enough credit to buy, no cash savings to buy).

Then they lay off people because they can't affort to keep expansive operations going. Etc., etc. Then the government bails them out (God, why?).

Then the cycle keeps on going.

Just yesterday, Obama indicated he would do whatever it takes, including bailing out the auto industry, to keep things status quo (see Obama Says He Will Do Whatever It Takes On Economy). Continuing to throw taxpayers dollars at a sinking ship when there individuals basic needs aren't being taken care of (health, safety, welfare) is not good politics in progress.

Yes, I've written my elected representatives (and called them, and written letters to the editors of local papers, and have worked with local groups, etc.). What's happening now has been a work in progress since the 60's (FYI - Border states like California, Texas and New Mexico are very aware of the movement of corporations, just look at what happened in Texas after Levi Strauss moved operations to Costa Rica in 1990 - pre-NAFTA). As I said previously, and I'll repeat, it's not just NAFTA, its not just big business, its not just the Democrats/Republicans, its the culmination of a whole bunch of very bad decisions made be individuals, corporations and big government.

As for immigration, we could debate whether immigrants (undocumented or otherwise) are good or bad for the economy all aday long. The simple fact is, immigrants--even educated immigrants--will take jobs with low pay, long hours, and challenging working conditions simply to be able to work. (See the NCPA statement on Immigrants and the Jobs they Take. Perhaps its time we reconsider what it is we're willing to do to stay stable in difficult times.
Posted By: toddzgrrl02

Re: Auto bailout? - 11/17/08 05:49 PM

I was pretty ticked off this morning when I heard that there is a proposal in the making to bailout Detroit/auto industry by adding a tax to our gasoline, so if it is under $3.50 a gal, whatever the difference is between the actual price of the gas and the $3.50 will go to help bail them out... if gas goes over $3.50 then we won't have to pay the tax during that time... but essentially that means that no matter what we are paying at least $3.50 a gal no matter what, and this is also going to be graduated, meaning they plan on increasing it over time.

Someone called in and pointed out that a lot of the liberals in support of this live in large cities with mass transit so this wouldn't affect them so of course they are supporting it... but the people who move product all over the country are the one's who will be suffering.

Also, for the car companies to accept this money, they have to agree to certain things as well...

I don't like it. I don't agree with it, but what can we do? We have no real say in it if they pass it.
Posted By: cela

Re: Auto bailout? - 11/18/08 03:26 AM

Nobody's vilifying Mexicans--by the way, it's more than Mexicans who arrive here from south of the border. The current system is not fair to them or our existing citizens. The current system smacks of slavery. On the other hand, the current system is enticing a large number of potential citizens, via future amnesty, who do not understand the value of rule of law. You can go back in history all you want and point to bad treatment of various groups, but bygone events can not cancel out current ones. Besides, by now, we have tons of people with such combined heritages that hardly any of us lack genetic ties to one or more of the previously vilified groups or some of the "privileged" groups. What are we going to do? Kick ourselves for what some of our ancestors did and then pat ourselves on the back for what others of our ancestors suffered?
Posted By: saga61

Re: Auto bailout? - 11/18/08 05:30 PM

Originally Posted By: Barbara - AIDS/HIV Editor
My dad and I were having this conversation recently. Not surprisingly, we disagree. I say that "the good old days" of someone getting a job at a factory and making enough money to support an upper middle class lifestyle (as has been true in much of Southeast Michigan for years) are long gone. I think we shouldn't try to close the borders or keep the jobs here but do what Americans do best .... innovate, create new industries and new jobs that will employ the people who would have been employed by manufacturing.


I agree, except I would like to see the borders tightened up. It makes zero sense to me that we should pay a business to keep producing a product that won't sell. The auto industry needs to roll with the changes and create vehicles that will be more energy efficient, or utilize alternative energies.
Posted By: bepart

Re: Auto bailout? - 11/19/08 02:11 AM

Quote:
Do you think people in control at companies would not rather pay 1.50 an hour as opposed to 14.00 an hour?


They are paying far more than $14.00 an hour. The unions make it difficult for US companies to compete with non-US companies. The average hourly wage (with benefits) is $78.21 (see below). This is for a job that requires no education. That is outrageous. I agree with Lynn, we need to make it easier for companies to do business in the US.

Quote:
The current veteran UAW member at GM today has an average base wage of $28.12 an hour, but the cost of benefits, including pension and future retiree health care costs, nearly triples the cost to GM to $78.21, according to the Center for Automotive Research.


The media is making a big deal about the ripple effects that will occur if the auto industry fails, however, the media has much to lose as well since the auto companies spend massive amounts on advertising. The media has lost it's credibility and this is just another demonstration of their bias reporting.

I agree with whoisjohngalt, we need to give capitalism a chance. They have the opportunity to succeed but with that opportunity comes the risk of failure. The government needs to get out of the way and let them figure out how to keep their companies afloat.

Besides, the government lied to us about how they would handle the initial bailout. What reason to we have to believe they will be honest with this one?
Posted By: bri729

Re: Auto bailout? - 11/25/08 09:19 PM

I would like to disagree that the NAFTA caused Job loses in Flint or anywhere else in Michigan. It's just a total mismanagement of the top executives from the Big Three. Why do they want to buy from Mexico? To cut cost? Then why are the Japanese companies like Toyota, Honda and Nissan building manufacturing facilities in the US? To cut cost? The biggest problem with the automotive manufacturers in Michigan are the top executives who take home a big paycheck even if the company loses billions of dollars. How does Toyota and Honda make a profit in a year like this without laying off as much workers in US as the American Automotive companies? Question to ask yourself if Mexico has anything to do with taking jobs away? If you would like to find someone to blame, blame the UAW and Unions here in the US. They are the biggest culprit on why companies and factories are moving manufacturers elsewhere. The Unions push for companies to increase pay, less work, more benefits, it all helps the workers but if the companies don't make money it's still their loss right? Something most companies do or should do, is establish a profit sharing for workers to motivate people to work harder and promote better quality products. I have no idea of how Automotive manufacturer's manage their companies but I do think that there are too many executives in the top level that costs the companies more money for people who don't do anything but sit in their offices. That's where they should be laying off workers.
Posted By: bri729

Re: Auto bailout? - 11/25/08 09:30 PM

A brief story that explains it all.

A Japanese Company and a US company decided to have a canoe race on the Columbia river. Both teams practiced hard and long to reach thier peak performance before the race.

On the big day, the Japanese team won by a mile.

Afterwards, the USA team became very discouraged and depressed. The management of the US company decided that the reason for the crushing defeat had to be found. A "Measurement Team" made up of senior management was formed to investigate and recommend appropriate action.

Their conclusion was that the Japanese had 8 people rowing and 1 person steering, while the US team had 1 person rowing and 8 people steering.

So the management of the US company hired a consulting company and paid them incredible amounts of money. They advised that too many people were steering the boat and not enough people were rowing.

So to prevent losing to the japanese again the next year. The US team chose to ignore the reports findings. The management team 's structure was totally reorganized to 4 steering supervisors, 3 area steering superintendents and 1 assistant superintendant steering manager. They also implemented a new performance system that would give the 1 person rowing the boat greater incentive to work harder. It was called the "Rowing Team Quality First Program" or RTQFP for short, with meetings, dinners, t shirts and free pens for the rower. "We must give the rower empowerment and enrichment through this quality program."

The next year the Japanese team won by 2 miles. Humiliated, the management team laid off the rower for poor performance, halted development of the new canoe, sold the paddles and cancelled all capital investments for new equipment. They then used the money saved by giving a high performance award to the steering managers and distributed the rest of the money as bonuses to the senior executives.
Posted By: Lynn_B

Re: Auto bailout? - 11/26/08 02:24 PM

Love it! Very nice, bri729.
Posted By: jennn

Re: Auto bailout? - 12/09/08 04:34 AM

I have a 'little' problem with the SUV, Pickup, situation. WE NEED them!

FYI there is a difference in a pickup and a Truck.

Please, people in town drive your little electric cars and leave us alone!

It is so ridiculous to see SUV's and pickups in cities and urban areas.

Believe it or not, it's kinda like....blue jeans use to be cheap for us who needed, worked in them until 'Urban Cowboy' made them popular. And then we could hardly afford them.
Posted By: toddzgrrl02

Re: Auto bailout? - 12/09/08 01:21 PM

If the libs have their way, we won't have ANY cars that take fuel. The gov wants the bailout people to agree to make special cars that no one wants to, or can afford to, buy... so much for coming up with a plan that will be successful for the automakers.
Posted By: Tagudinian

Re: Auto bailout? - 01/20/09 03:04 AM

From Bri729: "...blame the UAW and Unions here in the US." I say AMEN to that.
© 2020 BellaOnline Forums