Folks, we have to get behind saving the Big 3 automakers

[LuckyTheDog]

A lot of you are not fans of the Detroit automakers. Many of you are not big fans of automobiles. But from where I sit -- about 7 miles from GM headquarters -- things are very, very bad.

Real people who have done nothing wrong are being hurt in a big way. If the domestic auto industry goes down, many more will be hurt -- and they will be hurt very badly. I am all for extracting concessions from the automakers in exchange for federal help. But that help needs to come quickly.

If we don't help save the auto industry, the sucking sound you hear could be the sound of the rest if American manufacturing going down the drain with the Big 3. Next down the drain could well be the entire working middle class. This is serious.

[kenny blankenship]

1. Nobody around here cares about jobs

so you can save your breath.

[slampoet]

38. The Big Three haven't cared about their workers for 35 years. Why should we Save the Executives?

Have you seen Roger and Me? 'Cause my uncle lived it in Flint.

[kenny blankenship]

57. Caring about workers is not something any capitalist enterprise does.

They care less about their workers than their capital equipment -much less. Capital equipment can be liquidated for cash. Workers however are pure cost to them. If they could fire them all they'd do it tomorrow.

"Caring about workers" is the purview of industrial policy --a matter of the public interest overseen by government--not corporations. Corporations care for workers only to the extent that they are forced to. The only thing they care about is profit.

If a corporation ever convinces you that they actually "care about workers" then either their PR department is REALLY good, or you're really dumb.

If you want to base all your decisions in life on retribution you will have a short life; a country that follows that model will meet with the same swift end.

Yes, I saw Roger and Me. And the follow up, Pets Or Food. And most of Moore's other movies too.
I have a suspicious attitude toward business - a realistic attitude I like to think. Taking a vengeful attitude toward business and those hated Executives will just ensure that many other people's Uncles live out the same harsh experience. It is a dead end.

[slampoet]

66. Henry FORD cared about his workers.

Henry Ford the second didn't.


The company didn't change, the owners did.

[closeupready]

177. I was just going to post that.

n/t

[Occulus]

235. But wasn't one of them sued by his shareholders for caring TOO MUCH about his workers?

One of the biggest problems with the modern corporate entity (this is a flaw in the charters themselves) is the requirement to put the profitability of the corporation- read, shareholders- above all other considerations. They're literally enjoined from behaving in a compassionate manner by their own charters.

[Greyhound]

240. Yes, Dodge v. Ford and this was one of the absolutely most heinous decisions

to come out of the courts in our bleak (from a labor POV) history. It established the current law that says a corporation has only one responsibility, that being to maximize shareholder profits above any and all other considerations.

[Mr Rabble]

165. Pragmatic, thoughtful and reasonable.

You happen to be entirely correct about the possible solution to this problem, at this time, in this system.

This may well provide a way for a single payer healthcare package to be passed. GM specifically has been warning what healthcare costs are doing to its profitability. Why do we not try to kill 2 birds with 1 stone?

[LuckyTheDog]

127. Why punish MORE workers...

... just to punish the execs? Do I know about Flint? Hell yes. I lived about 20 minutes south of there during the 70s and early 80s.

[defendandprotect]

187. You've got false choices here ... We can help workers w/o saving these treasonous corps ...

We can put these workers to building electric cars in a new corp ...

to be raised by government --

Subsidize manufacture and purchase --

AND SAVE THE PLANET --!!!


NATIONALIZE oil industry --!!!

[StreetKnowledge]

234. Been tried

By the Brits. It resulted in British Leyland - a strike-ridden, terribly run monstrosity that produced among the worst vehicles ever made by anyone, anywhere.

Besides that, electric cars are right now still not viable - range is too short, costs too high. GM's Volt is a good interim solution.

I agree with the original poster. They have to be saved. I would suggest paying for the saving of them on the Japanese makers' back, too. Japan's government regularly manipulates their currency to keep their prices down in order to allow the nation better competitiveness. OK, fine. But we'll hit you for having the priviledge of selling those cars in America.

[wtmusic]

253. Electric cars are viable right now.

I own one, and use it for 80% of my driving. Any family with two cars could use one. Virtually zero maintenance and costs pennies/mile.

http://www.aspire-ev.com

[defendandprotect]

264. Which one is it?

:)

[wtmusic]

267. See link above nt

[defendandprotect]

263. Catch up... thousands of wonderful electric cars were on roads in Calif ....

All were destroyed by GM ...crushed --

See: "Who Killed The Electric Car?"


Additionally, let's nationalize oil industry --

Plenty of green work to be done in America --


We also have the example of Amtrack and our overall lack of mass transportation --

and culprits destroying these systems/efforts are those who have bought and corrupted

our legislators --


These are all simple problems when CORRUPTION is removed from the picture --

[JackRiddler]

170. Bullshit.

Promoting obsolete, failed industry is not the same as "jobs."

I'm all for jobs: well-paid, with proper benefits and insurance and one big union for all, doing things that actually make sense, like the energy conversion. Converting buildings for energy efficiency, outfitting them with solar panels. Building railways. Building electric compact cars, buses and trucks. New power plants, one hopes more wind than gas.

As for the three companies to whom you refer, all primary perpetrators of the eco-cide that threatens civilization if not life on earth: fuck them. If they need a bailout, the government should just take them over directly and relaunch them as builders of hybrids and electric cars. Investigate the executives and, if they were more incompetent than criminal, they can go on the dole.

[Bryan Sacks]

171. Hear hear!

Enough with the economic blackmail. No more bailouts for ANY industry without equal value in return.

Bailouts without reform = "screw us again". Forget it.

[Kalyke]

265. You do know that the first loan was for GM and Ford to retool

their factories to build more fuel efficient cars, don't you?

Or, do you live in the 1980s and think Toyota is all that and a bag of chips?

[defendandprotect]

186. We can put these workers to building electric cars in a new corp ...

to be raised by government --

Subsidize manufacture and purchase --

AND SAVE THE PLANET --!!!


NATIONALIZE oil industry --!!!

[Stinky The Clown]

2. I agree with you

I want the heads of their executives on pikes in return for my tax dollars.

[taterguy]

3. What did you do to save tobacco jobs?

[EOTE]

7. I smoked my ass off for 25 years. 2 packs a day. NT

[taterguy]

10. They're more enjoyable if you use your mouth to smoke

But that's just my opinion and I could be wrong

[EOTE]

18. Says you. You must never have experienced the joys of a tar colonic. NT

[1Hippiechick]

217. Joe Two-Pack? You may have just discovered the cure for plumbers everywhere!

[Romulox]

35. Lousy example. The federal government has subsidized tobacco for 70 years.

[taterguy]

39. Of course they subsidize automobiles too

What's your point?

[Romulox]

42. Um, no they don't. nt

[taterguy]

47. Um, yes they do

[Romulox]

58. Lame. You make an assertion, YOU back it up. Otherwise...zzzzzzz nt

[taterguy]

133. South Carolina's BMW factory got millions from the government.

That's just an example that I know off the top of my head.

And of course automobile usage is heavily subsidized. In my city of 200K the government spends about $5,000,000 more on services it provides for motorists than revenue it collects from taxes and fees that are only paid by motorists. My city is typical so if you extrapolate that it adds up to quite a hunk of change.

I look forward to reading your apology.

http://www.strom.clemson.edu/teams/ced/tax_news/sc-tax-news.html

[SmileyRose]

197. yes they did, and Kia got almost $100 million in Georgia - Ford and GM got zippo

Ford and GM both absolutely grovelled for a little help to keep it's Georgia plants going and couldn't even get this Republican governor to pick up the phone. Another 12,000 decent paying union jobs lost. Not to worry though, quite a few Walmarts were able to get money to slap up a big box somewhere.

And to say the money spent on "motorists" is a gift to the car industry is just silly. The transportation infrastructure supports nearly everyone's lifestyle. Almost everyone benefits. Are their better, more eco-friendly ways to accomplish it? Probably. But until America gets behind that, this is how we move our daily lives.

[StreetKnowledge]

247. Very true

And I will point out what Mercedes got for putting an assembly plant in Alabama in 1995. They got $253 million in incentives - lad bought for them and cleared included. (Not kidding.)

And yet, nobody thinks about Detroit. Nice.

[Romulox]

272. First problem: South Carolina is a state, not the federal government... nt

[taterguy]

274. I'm sure that some of the infrastructure improvements involved federal money

And that if I took the time to research it I could find plenty of other examples of the feds subsidizing the auto industry.

[Romulox]

277. So you've come up with zero examples so far, but they're "probably" out there...

"And that if I took the time to research it I could find plenty of other examples of the feds subsidizing the auto industry."

You've been threatening to do this research for several days now. Don't let me stop you! :hi:

[taterguy]

282. Happy now?

Or will you come up with some bullshit reason that this isn't applicable?

The Commerce Department's Advanced Technology Program is advertized as a job producer. But from 1990-94 the ATP provided more than $250 million to eight firms--Amoco Corp., AT&T, Citicorp, DuPont, General Electric, General Motors, IBM, and Motorola. Over those five years, these firms reduced their total U.S. workforces by 329,000.

http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-sm063099.html

[slampoet]

40. Also a bad example 'cause people are willing to buy US cigarettes,

[Romulox]

43. That's because they're filled with an addictive chemical, dimwit.

:hi:

[slampoet]

Nice manners they have in Dearborn. But what do you expect with a city like that.

[Romulox]

67. Sniping from anti-labor "New" Democrats is what we expect. Thanks for not disapointing.

[slampoet]

95. I am in a union. The IBEW. My Great Uncle was in the Flint Sit-down strike......

So, Do you still read the Dearborn Independent?

[spoony]

192. Meh, people who call themselves

"poet" or the like in user names are usually just Dems in name only anyway. They like to be artsy and voting for Obama is part of the image, but they don't really give a shit about Democratic principles like labour.

[dixiegrrrrl]

114. So are cars.

Ever hear " We must get off our addiction to oil"?

[carlyhippy]

257. dimwit....that wasn't very nice Romulux

[defendandprotect]

188. At $7.00 per pack, how many---??? Constant reminder of costs of the risk--!!!

How many are you buying ---??

[mikelgb]

4. I think we should create new industries in those areas

and if they start churning out affordable electric, air, and other alternative vehicles they can save themselves

[LuckyTheDog]

8. And in the meantime...

... people need to feed their families.

[nichomachus]

5. It's a catch-22

you're basically asking us to buy crap cars in order to help them make more crap cars. I car about jobs -- but there are Toyota and other plants in the US making better cars. If we stop buying them, then we're putting those people out of work.

Detroit blew it big time, when it continued to make shitty gas guzzlers.

[LuckyTheDog]

11. They are NOT crap cars

Not anymore. And if you don't see the need to preserve good-paying union jobs in the U.S., then you don't get it.

[nichomachus]

13. Well, that's their reputation -- and they need to work hard to change that -- quickly

They worked very hard to get that reputation and they need to work even harder to undo it.

[LuckyTheDog]

16. Among some people, it's cool to bash U.S. cars

But they have improved a lot. But even if they have not, I am still enough of an old-school radical to suggest that showing solidarity with union workers is worth paying for.

[Captain Hilts]

23. It's like wearing Bill's Khakis. I'll pay the extra. nt

[LisaM]

27. Lucky the Dog, I know you are right

but for a lot of people, the joy of bashing the easy target - union autoworkers - is too easy.

After unions having been systematically demonized since 1980, the GP needs a lot of education to help bring them back. Strong labor = strong middle class.

[semillama]

268. I'll say they have improved a lot

I personally drive a Toyota, but I generally end up with an American car when I rent on business trips. The last car I had was a Chevy Cobalt, and I liked it. I thought it was a really nice little car - gas mileage was comparable to my Toyota Corolla for the most part. One thing that did sort of bug me was it took me about 3 days to figure out where the trunk latch was!

Detroit's been doing a great job with car aesthetics lately, too. Some people complain about how Chryslers look, but I think that lately they've been putting out some smart-looking vehicles.

But I also agree that Detroit was seriously behind the curve on preparing for the future - they were focused on short-term profibility in place of long-term sustainability and the chickens have come home to roost for them.

The big 3 need help, but they need to publicly commit to produce environmentally friendly cars using environmentally friendly practices. But we also need to seriously re-invest in mass transit, which historically has been widely and successfully opposed by the automakers (it's why we haven't had streetcars since the 40s here in Columbus). So there definitely needs to be a sea change in attitude by top management.

[StreetKnowledge]

238. Agreed 100%

That bad reputation is somewhat deserved, but its overblown.

I worked for Nissan when I was in high school. They had some real shit on the lot when I was there. Sentras of the time felt like tin cans and had engines best described as more suitable for a weed eater than a car. (Having to drive the things like ya hated them didn't help the fuel mileage, either.) My father's cars of the time - an '84 Olds Cutlass and '85 Chevy Monte Carlo - by comparison felt like tanks, drove straight as arrows, had solid quality and got surprisingly good fuel mileage - 24-26 mpg at times. Not bad for something with a five-liter V8. I bought the Monte Carlo from him. Only replaced it about four years ago, after two engines and 383,000 miles. And it still drove well and had little rust then, too. :D

The problem of quality is something GM knew about many years ago. My Pontiac G8 is something I love. It gets good mileage too, despite have 400 horsepower from a six-liter V8 (What can I say? V8s kick ass :D ) and I love it. After my time at Nissan, I've driven a few Nissans testing since then. Why people think the Camry or Altima is better than the Chev Malibu is beyond me. It really is.

To those that despise the big 3 - get out and drive one. You'll be amazed. :)

[CRF450]

252. Those Pontiac G8's are NIIIICE!!!

And I agree the bad rep is overblown. I have an 01 Trans Am WS6, even though the interior is cheap plastic and crap, the mechanics and the drivetrain is rock solid, the car drives good and despite being very powerful, I still average around 23mpg and got a best of 31mpg on the interstate. GM knows how to build an engine, and they've pretty much perfected the pushrod v8!

Not only do they have the Volt in the works right now, there also working on a new compact called the Chevy Cruz (spelling?) the Camaro is also coming back this March and thats looking to be an awsome car for the money. The base model has a 3.6 v6 thats rated just over 300hp and its starting price is just under 23 grand, which is a damn good deal compared to the Mustang GT thats boasting similar HP from its 4.6 v8.

[Captain Hilts]

21. I had an '89 Olds Cutlass and an '87 Cutlass cruiser. Maintenance-free, terrific cars. Still are.

[LuckyTheDog]

32. My 1997 Pontiac Grand Am was a great car

And I like the 2005 Malibu I have now.

[eilen]

76. My 2001 Chevy Blazer is a POS

It literally costs me about $2000+ or more in repairs every year.

[ProfessorGAC]

108. Our "Extra" Car Is A 1995 Buick Regal

Still runs great. The only thing we ever had to do was put a new primary wire off the main computer.

Mechanic says to keep it because he thinks there's still 50k miles in it, at least. So, i'm parking my convertible for the winter and driving the Buick.

It's still a really good car.
The Professor

[TommyO]

211. I have an '05 Malibu as well

It does everything I need it to do, does it reliably, and even with the V6 gets 32mpg (just a wee bit less than I was getting with my 4-cyl VW Passat).

[alarimer]

98. No they are giant gas-guzzling pieces of crap.

They could have built hybrids 10 years ago but they still don't have any decent ones even now. They insist on building new giant trucks. Hummers are an obscenity. Why should I subsidize bad decisions and corporate malfeasance?

[LuckyTheDog]

121. The Detroit 3 make lots of small cars

And are you REALLY willing to put your distaste for Hummers ahead of the livelihood of families that depend on the auto industry?

[SmileyRose]

198. My Ford Fusion gets better mileage than the neighbor's Camry.

Judging a whole car industry by the Hummer is silly.

[yodoobo]

148. Thats ALWAYS true. has been for 30 years

"yes, American cars were bad in the past, but the current generation of product is best in class".

10 years from now, this PR stance will be exactly the same (assuming we still have any American car companies)

That said, I agree, we should save the car companies, but that means demanding better products, not just continuing to buy the same old garbage.

If it were a matter of a lesser style, or the product were a minor purchase, then yes support by buying. But when a product cost a years salary, its foolish to buy anything less than the best for your budget.

I support the government doing everything it can to save the big 3, but I'm not going to buy crap products on faith that it will help them.

[wolfgangmo]

158. I'm a long time toyota driver

But my latest car was ford focus. I love that little sucker. Good gas milage, handles nice, good options, nice acceleration, and it looks good.

Given that problems the big 3 are having there might be some good bargains out there, and we might just save some union jobs.

We all think that is a good thing, don't we?

[Mnemosyne]

184. Focus is a great car, totally agree. And mine was wrecked with a rebuilt title.

My daughter also owns one.

I will always miss being protected by actual steel when driving. Maybe a hovercraft...

We also subsidize the oil and pharma industries.

[mwooldri]

273. Not anymore?

I've had a 1997 Plymouth Neon, I have a 2000 Ford Windstar and a 2004 Ford Focus.

The transmission literally fell out of the Plymouth Neon in February 2003. It had about 65,000 miles on it, I had it at 35,000 miles.

My 2000 Ford Windstar has had two blown head gaskets, had three sensors go wrong and now has the check engine light on AGAIN for something else. Fortunately it has done over 100,000 miles, I had this vehicle at 38,000 miles. Plus it has a huge rusthole below the back door.

My 2004 Ford Focus now has a problem with the drivetrain from transmission to wheels somewhere, except the garage can't pinpoint the problem. It's at 70,000 miles - I drove this from new.

My mother in law's Dodge Ram pickup has been running OK for the most part but the one problem I was aware of was the air conditioner failing.

My sister on the other hand has had a 2000 Renault Clio from new, and to my knowledge it hasn't been in the shop for anything major at all. In fact she probably doesn't change the oil as frequently as the 3,000 miles we're told to over here because her instruction manual doesn't say so. My mother has a 1995 Rover something-or-other - its biggest problem is rust.

I do like American cars. I'm considering for my next vehicle a toss-up between a Chevy Malibu (for practical purposes) or a Jeep Wrangler (for pure fun). I love the notion of a Wrangler but it isn't exactly fuel economical, I don't do off-roading that much (though my in-law's driveway either needs a 4x4 to get down it or a lot of work done to it).

[greguganus]

37. "I car about jobs" lol n/t

[knitter4democracy]

221. Crap cars? I dare you to drive a new Ford, then.

I love my Ford Freestyle, now the Taurus-X. I looked at the Nissan and the Toyota, and they were crap in comparison. Smaller engines, less comfortable inside, less room, same mileage. My Freestyle is the best car I've ever owned, and my last one was a Subaru Outback. When I bought that, I figured I'd keep it forever--until the tranny went bad. That's when SO admitted that it wasn't comfortable for him to drive (he's too tall for a Subaru, apparently). So, I started looking around, and the Freestyle was the only one that met all of our standards. If only it came in a hybrid version.

Take a look at the Fusion, the new Taurus, heck, even the Edge. They're all great cars, and they're very good deals for the money. Even the Car Talk guys say so, and they're known for not liking American cars.

[StreetKnowledge]

237. Not this crap again

Look, the view that Detroit only makes shitty gas guzzlers is a straight up lie. It's garbage. Go out and see what sits on GM lots, then go see what sits on a Toyota or Nissan lot. Everything from small cars to full size trucks, for both the deomestics and the imports. The imports have a total of 16 plants in North America, and import most of the parts to make the cars. (Demanding no tarriffs on them as a condition having the plants here, too. :eyes: ) GM alone has four times that many plants, let alone Ford and Chrysler.

GM is not the same company it was a decade ago. But their financial situation is such, thanks to the credit crunch and the idiotic idea that imports are always superior (read the New York Times if you think that opinion is a myth) the company's financial situation is dire. And people saying "just have them make electric cars" or "make new industries there" is mypoic. Michigan has been trying to create new industries for 30 years! And electric cars are not yet viable things for most Americans - too expensive and the range is too short.

[Warpy]

6. I'll believe they're salvageable when every top management

goon is given a pink slip. I blame top management for continuing to push high profit margin gas hogs even when the writing was on the wall that the era of cheap gas was over. I blame them for never telling people about the very good small cars that Detroit has been making for 20 years now, handing the small car market to offshore companies. I blame them for waddling around with their heads up their asses, ignoring market trends and refusing to develop hybrids and electric city cars.

Once they go, then the industry will be worth saving.

[ProfessorGAC]

110. That Is Actually A Quite Constructive Proposal

Everybody above the level of director needs to be launched. Then bring in some people who don't merely think the old way.

It's time for a major shake-up and a mere "reorganization" won't do.
The Professor

[Buns_of_Fire]

195. I'm even more bloodthirsty than that...

The current boards of directors need to hit the bricks along with the "executives." After all, the CEOs and the like can't just set their own salaries and perks and major objectives without board approval -- be it explicit or implied.

Problem is, the boards are elected by the stockholders. And the major stockholders (the ones who REALLY call the shots) are usually the same greedy, grasping, no-talent nothings that got them into the predicament in the FIRST place.

Sorry. I'm feeling even more pessimistic than usual this morning.

[ProfessorGAC]

196. When I Said Everyone Above Director Level. . .

. . .i meant the management title of director, as in "Director Advertising, Buick Division."

And i sure want all the BoD's replaced by someone who actually has some business expectations.

We're way more on the same page than you think. It seems you think we agree a little. Nope, we agree COMPLETELY!
GAC

[knitter4democracy]

222. I'd agree with that.

Well, the new Ford CEO's okay, but the rest can go.

[BeFree]

9. Of course you're right

The industry is in dire straits. So what do you propose as the change that gets them back up and providing cars that are as good as the Japanese provide?

Because when they do they'll thrive again, maybe.

[LuckyTheDog]

14. The cars are as good or better than Japanese cars

Toyota's quality problems have been growing. Ford now makes the highest-quality cars on the market. GM cars are about as good. Chrysler is still lagging, but has improved a lot.

[BeFree]

29. I wish that were true, maybe it is.

Most people think you are wrong. Foreign cars get better gas mileage, too.

But you didn't answer the question. Oh well. Maybe you don't know the answer? I don't, all I know is that they are losing to the competition.

[knitter4democracy]

223. Ford has a lower recall rate than Toyota.

By any objective analysis, Fords are better than most any other car on the market in the same class. How they're going to turn around decades of opinion against them, I don't know.

[Rockholm]

147. The American auto industry cannot fail.....

and they should not be bailed out UNLESS they create and mass produce hybrid and alternative fuel cars. And you are right, BeFree, they can be as good, if not better, than the Japanese cars.

[JVS]

12. My rescue plan. They make a $10,000 car that is reliable with good mileage, I buy it.

Other than that, I have no offer.

[Critters2]

150. I paid $7500 for a 2002 Ford Focus with 12,000 miles on it. It's still a great car,

which I bought because my Ford Escort died at 304,000 miles. My Focus gets 35 mpg. So, I guess I'm not seein' the problem.

[JVS]

174. That's great, but here's the thing. Buying a used car doesn't help the big three.

So, in order for my idea to be a bailout, the car has to be new.

[Critters2]

179. Oh, good point. What the hell was I thinking? nt

[W_HAMILTON]

15. Why can they not change their ways to fit in with the economy?

They have been having hard times for years. Why do they not take the steps needed to be successful in the global economy? Why do they continue to make huge, lumbering gas hogs if the consumers are turning away from those types? They should have had the foresight to see that this was the way things were trending, and they wouldn't be in the position they are today.

I usually am all for bailing out companies when necessary, and probably would be in favor of helping these companies. But it's shameful that it even comes to that; in exchange for a bailout, are they going to promise to stop laying people off? Are they going to change their ways so they aren't continually failing? And by that, I don't mean cutting even more and more jobs, I mean making the type of cars, and inventing the type of technology that consumers now demand? If not, then they shouldn't be bailed out, because it's only throwing money away. If they don't change their fundamental ways, no bailout is going to save them.

[LuckyTheDog]

24. When it comes to car makers...

... a lot of "liberal" immediately fall back on free-market, conservative arguments. Why is that?

Is the Ford Focus a "lumbering gas hog"? No, it isn't. What about the Chevy Malibu? Nope.

Yes, the Big 3 continue to make big cars and trucks because people keep buying them. The Ford F-150 is still one of the best-selling vehicles in the U.S. I certainly would not suggest that Ford should stop making that vehicle and forgo the profits that go along with that. That would make no sense at all.

I also think I should point out that Toyota, Nissan and even Honda make a lot of SUVs and trucks. Where's the outrage at those companies?

[W_HAMILTON]

116. They are hemorrhaging money.

It's up to them to figure out a way to stop it. This isn't something that just popped up yesterday. They've been having problems for years.

We can't continue to pump money into businesses which are not taking the steps to be financially-stable in the long-run. As I said, I have no problems bailing businesses out if they run into hard times, but what is more money going to do for them? It will only prolong the inevitable. That's exactly why they need to change their tactics, and do whatever it takes to be profitable again.

Unless, of course, it's cutting even more jobs, in which case they should not continue to be financed for laying off more and more workers. There is nothing easier than firing people, and cutting hours. You don't have to go to college to do that, you don't need to be a great business mind to do that, and you don't need years and years of experience to do that.

It's time these companies start doing things to be successful, not doing things to cut costs and hurt our economy even further in futile attempts to stay in business.

They've been having problems for years, and have pretty much stuck by the same plan as always. That type of stupidity is not going to be fixed by giving them billions more. They need to make fundamental changes.

[wolfgangmo]

161. What is this. DU or the Milton Freidman fan club.

I can't believe what is being written here.

DU posters who are not trolls pushing freeper philosophy.

WTF?

[Captain Hilts]

17. Healthcare costs for their retirees are also really hurting them. nt

[sharesunited]

22. Right on. Medicare for all would help American business of every kind.

[Captain Hilts]

25. That's why the Canadian auto makers have a bit of an edge. nt

[sharesunited]

19. I read stories in 2005 about the re-tooling in Detroit to produce more pickup trucks and SUVs.

I knew that was a mistake.

Then gas went to $4/gallon.

Very little foresight or vision on the part of automotive management.

Very little concern for the environment.

What kind of concessions do you suppose would be sufficient to bring political support for rescuing such an incompetent, irresponsible industry?

[LuckyTheDog]

28. That's not entirely right

What you read about was that the Big 3 were coming out with new generations of vehicles that they were already selling. The Ford F-150, for example, was updated. But the Detroit companies also came out with a lot of new, smaller cars over the past few years.

They also have put out a lot of smaller SUVs -- which fill a need in the marketplace. The Ford Flex is a great vehicle for someone who needs all those seats. Some people will always need larger cars. My brother, for example has 4 kids. He could never pack them into a Prius.

[zeemike]

54. Yes and GM made the EV1 which they promptly crushed

After it was a success in California.
See the documentary "Who killed the Electric car".

If we just give them bailout money they will just go back to doing the same thing.
I think the government should fund only the EV or hybrid and let the gas hogs die a slow death.

[blue_onyx]

139. As the movie pointed out, it wasn't just GM

GM wasn't the one who got rid of the law requiring companies to sell vehicles with zero admissions. It was the government. Seems to me the government helped make the mess and should help clean it up.

[yodoobo]

149. GM lobbied HEAVILY to get rid of those laws

As did the other 2.

Those laws would not have been scrapped were it not for the strong arm tactics of the automakers.

[blue_onyx]

159. But that's the purpose of government

to regulate companies. The actions of the government shouldn't be ignored because our officials didn't stand up to the companies. Also, the oil companies probably had just as much to do with the repel of the law as did the auto companies. The oil companies had just as much to gain. We need government officials who will do the right thing because unregulated capitalism's isn't a good thing.

[tkayj]

20. The auto industry may need to be saved but...

We should let Chrysler ride the rapids around the toilet bowl.
A child's Tonka Toy car is more reliable.
Piece of #%^@ *^&$@ #&^%#@% !!!!!!
:hurts:

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

26. If we do it, I think certain conditions should be met

We need to discourage the belief by U.S. automakers that they have to manufacture enormous tanks and land yachts at outrageous prices because there's a big profit margin in them. They should be forced to make low profit margin cars that are small, fuel-efficient, and reasonable in cost. We can't let them engage in business as usual. For years, Detroit auto makers made complete crap. They were years and years behind European automakers in previous years, making the same stiff chassis year after year powered by gigantic engines while European cars had all around independent suspension, small but efficient engines with manual transmissions, unibody design, all disc brakes, and front wheel drive. Detroit previously showed that they don't care about progress if it will benefit their immediate bottom line and their shareholders in the short term future. The same short term mentality about profits has infected much of U.S. business. We can't let Detroit slip into their old ways. Obama should force them to change through incentives where they will have to adopt them in order to survive. At the same time, Obama needs to exercise leadership in convincing the American public that they must change their ways and stop buying enormous pick up trucks, vans, and SUVs unless they absolutely have to have them.

[KansDem]

30. Two things that have jaded me...

1) "Who Killed the Electric Car" documentary. GM made a good, affordable electric car that consumers wanted, but did not pursue this product and instead took all the electric cars off the road.

2) Bush gave a $100,000 tax credit to buyers of gas-guzzling SUVs and Hummers, creating a "false market" that made it appear these cars were popular in and of themselves.

I would like to see Detroit prosper, but as was pointed out in earlier posts, we knew gas availability and pricing was "iffy" during the energy crisis of the 1970s, yet Detroit continued to make gas-guzzlers.

Detroit is going to have to change its thinking about smaller, fuel-efficient automobiles if it expects to survive.

[lelgt60]

157. A $100,000 tax credit to buyers of SUV's?

I know lots of people who bought SUV's. They never mentioned this.

[Blue Diadem]

219. I've never heard of that tax credit either. n/t

[csziggy]

31. I've done my part - been buying American manufactured vehicles most of my life

Well, I did drive a Datsun while in college, buy one used Honda and the Ford truck I hated was built in Mexico. Every other car or truck I've ever owned was a GM manufactured one, including the used one we bought a few weeks ago.

The Republicans I know tend to have Toyota trucks and Volvo cars.

[sellitman]

33. GM chose to make Hummers. Toyota made Prius's.

Management screwed the pooch.

Now unfortunately the workers will pay the price.

[Romulox]

41. Toyota's profits plunged 69% in the past quarter. Try again.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

50. Toyota made profits.

Your turn.

[Romulox]

60. Japan has Universal Health Care. Toyota has a huge competitive advantage. Check and mate. nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

61. So you're in favor of Universal Health Care.

Great! So am I.

Problem solved.

[Romulox]

62. 100%. nt

[jakefrep]

269. Toyota also chose to move aggressively into the full-size truck and SUV market

The Prius is no more than a lame attempt at green-washing.

[robinlynne]

34. really simple. Make electric cars. The ones they made 15 years ago are all in the desert, chopped in

into one inch pieces. 80,000 people were on one waiting list in california for electric cars.
Ford, Gm toyota. They all had fantastic electric cars here when it was the law.
they put all their money into repealing the law.
Make electric cars again. You will get rich. It is just that simple.

[dysfunctional press]

85. how much did the electric cars actually cost to produce?

that's one thing i don't remember them talking about in 'who killed the electric car?'

:shrug:

[robinlynne]

88. not a clue! all who bought or leased them were 100% satisfied!

[dysfunctional press]

115. iirc- they were all leased.

honda's new hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles are going to be lease-only as well- because they cost upwards of $250,000 each to produce, and nobody could afford them.
i have a feeling that the ev-1 from the film was in the same category- WAY too expensive for anyone to actually purchase.

[robinlynne]

118. not according to the people who still own them. there are 30 or 40 people who

bought them (through lawsuits) and adore them!

[dysfunctional press]

130. according to the film, all of the ev-1 were destoyed...

do you have a link regarding the people who purchased them?

i have to believe that if gm could roll out ev-1's at an affordable price, at this point they WOULD.

[robinlynne]

132. I rode in one. spectacular!!! When I saw the film, and then again at

an earthd ay conference, people with elctric cars wre there and even gave us rides in them. Not as ounds to the engine. Amazing speed and power. electric windows. eerything the "other cars have. I ahve been wanting one since then, 2 years or so. gave up waiting, and bought a honda. There are used ones for sale, but they are going for 40,000. way over what I can afford for an old one, becuase there are so few available.

google electric cars. there are several websites.
You can find them on ebay, but for a fortune. (40k)

[wtmusic]

213. There are no EV1s on the road

except for one or two which have been "restored" after being donated to universities (they are defying terms of their donation contract and GM has sent them warning letters).

There are a few hundred Toyota RAV4 EVs still running, owners are ecstatic with them. There are also 40-50 all-electric Ford Rangers on the road, and it's the same story...owners love them.

GM's salvation could lie through re-introduction of the EV1 as the EV2, but they are either too stubborn, too stupid, or enmeshed in "nonproduction" agreements with big oil. The last seems most likely, IMO.

[slampoet]

36. As someone with 20+ autoworkers in the family......LET THE BIG THREE DIE!

If no one wants the cars then no amount of loans or investment will help.

[Romulox]

44. "compassionate conservative". nt

[blue_onyx]

140. They still have 40-50% of the market.

That's a pretty large number of nobodies. One of their biggest problems is we don't have universal health care and the large number of retirees they support. People seem to have forgot that these companies played a huge role in making this country what it is and helped create the middle class. The jobs these companies provide allowed low-skilled, uneducated people to make a livable wage, move up in the world, and provide for their families. It's these things (in addition to their poor their business decisions) that are making it so hard for the auto companies to keep going without government invention.

People who think letting the 3 US auto companies die are misjudging the impact. It would have a huge impact on our country. Here's what the Detroit News said:

"Every direct job at an automaker in the United States creates five more jobs. The next closest industry to autos is high-tech, where each job creates a total of four, including spinoffs. By contrast, one Wall Street position creates a total of about 2.5 jobs, yet Congress expedited aid to the financial services sector this year."

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081103/AUTO01/811030343


Letting these companies die would have a devastating impact. I'm glad Obama has shown support for the US auto makers.

[Mike 03]

45. I know people are hurting, and I am waiting to be convinced.

But you know people are hurting EVERYWHERE. In every industry. Pensions are vanishing, retired men and women are having to go back to work. What is so special about Ford, or GM? The people who ran those companies ran them into the ground.

[acmavm]

46. Yes, we do.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

48. Fine. Let's nationalize them.

I'm not going to support bailing out their execs.

[LuckyTheDog]

78. I'd be OK with that

If it saved jobs and the economy of my home town.

[Selatius]

102. I support your option with a twist. Sack the leadership and hand the company over to the workers.

The government will buy out GM, Ford, and Chrysler. Then, after a certain transitionary period under direct government control, it will turn around and reorganize these companies into labor co-ops where workers are the owners who decide collectively how the company should be run. They would likely end up being the largest labor cooperatives in the United States.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

106. One big co-op sort of thing, eh?

Yeah, I could go for that.

[Selatius]

109. I figure the workers have more common sense than the appalling entrenched corporate management.

The problem with executive management at these companies is that they still get a paycheck regardless if the company does well or does poorly, and their corporate culture is resistant to change. It's the workers who end up getting fired, in droves. Workers are more motivated to do a better job, simply because their paycheck depends upon the company doing better.

[wolfgangmo]

163. It might be just the ticket...

... but having served on more than a few committees, I will reserve judgement.

[SlowDownFast]

119. +1,000,000

Best idea I've seen so far.

[varelse]

129. I love that idea

we've already bailed the *management* of the big 3 once (in the '80s if I remember correctly) - it's now time to stop throwing good money after bad, and save the industry, rather than paying (again) to reward massive incompetence and greed at the top management level.

[Coyote_Bandit]

49. Rebuilding Manufacturing

and the infrastructure to support it is the only way to insure long-term economic improvement.

Unfortunately, I fear it will never happen. That is partly due to a lack or personal and political will. However, it is also due to a work ethic where too many Americans think blue collar work is demeaning and beneath them.

The unwillingness to support US auto workers is a reflection of nothing less than our loss of a sense of national community. We are no longer united. Many no longer care how their own agenda and priorities and consumption affects other citizens.

[sufrommich]

52. Thankyou,hundreds of thousands of union jobs blown away......

but they "deserved" it.:scared:

[Romulox]

97. An extremely insightful post.

"The unwillingness to support US auto workers is a reflection of nothing less than our loss of a sense of national community. We are no longer united. Many no longer care how their own agenda and priorities and consumption affects other citizens."

[ColbertWatcher]

51. They need to get their shit together.

Everyone wants them to succeed it seems, except the auto industry itself.

They need to be forward-looking and until they are, people are hard pressed to be enthusiastic for them and their mid-20th century products.

[petgoat]

53. "Real people who did nothing wrong" except pin their fortunes on an obvious dinosaur... nt

[LuckyTheDog]

81. Feeding their families is not a bad thing

Your neo-libertarian argument is not persuasive.

[petgoat]

135. Making babies you can't feed is. nt

[spoony]

193. You've wandered a long way from your conspiracy forum

so I'll be easy on you, but we're talking about REAL things in this thread and REAL working class people who make up the base of the Democratic party. You can't brush them off with Republican talking points about the lower class scum and all the children they have.

[petgoat]

249. Who said anything about lower class scum? And who said anything about conspiracies?

I'm talking about a culture of willful ignorance in the Great Lakes region
that needs to be broken before people can empower themselves to make change.

Education is devalued by that culture, and conformity and obedience to authority
are demanded. People who married their fortunes to GM embody the culture, and I
see no reason that the taxpayers in more responsible regions of the country should
be expected to bail out the idiots in the auto industry just because they exist.


Also, who said anything about conspiracies? The Jersey widows are still waiting for
answers to 273 out of their 300 questions. That's not a theory, it's a fact. Why
do you think the widows don't deserve answers?

And I'll wander wherever I want, thank you. No urban yahoo who wants help to prop
up a lazy, cowardly, self-defeating culture that can't get out of its own way is
going to intimidate me. Let them show some commitment to education and rational
change. You've had thirty years to fix up the American auto industry, and clearly
it can't be fixed. There's no reason to prop up the rot any more.

[petgoat]

261. So there! nt

[ContraBass Black]

55. If they fail in the marketplace, nothing short of total nationalization will help them.

Propping up these three companies artificially won't recover their market share or cut their cost, and as many companies continue to abandon their pension obligations, it won't help their workers. Encouraging them to overproduce would only delay their collapse, and make them and the economy come down harder.

No amount of aid money will save these manufacturers. They must compete and win to stay alive.

[dkofos]

56. No we don't. They have produced to the wrong cars at the wrong times

and have basically fucked themselves into the corner.
When the executives agree to a 75% cut in pay I may reconsider.

[Romulox]

63. Wall Street produced the wrong investment vehicles. Why did THEY deserve a bailout????

[Romulox]

64. Wall Street produced the wrong investment vehicles. Why did THEY deserve a bailout????

[screembloodymurder]

59. Only if management agrees to scrap 60% of their vehicles in order

to up their average mileage to 60 mpg by 2020.

[Matariki]

65. Well, it seems like a good opportunity to start on green energy initiatives

Tie govt. loans to development of alternate energy technology. With proper encouragement the US automakers could reinvent themselves and lead in that.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

68. I wish somebody would call Toyota HQ

Just think if Toyota built new plants here in the USA.... just five to start with. All the new jobs...

[ContinentalOp]

232. They're building a new Prius plant in Mississippi.

They're also shutting down one of their assembly lines in Indiana to switch it over to the Prius instead of the trucks and SUVs they make there now.

http://www.reuters.com/article/ousivMolt/idUST7800920080710

[ContinentalOp]

233. 3 Companies = Three different strategies.

This is kind of a kooky idea but if we have the opportunity to bailout or retool three different major manufacturing companies, why not figure out the best three possible strategies and do something different with each company. That way it could serve as sort of an experiment, and if one strategy turns out to be a failure, at least we didn't take that path with all three companies.

[ContinentalOp]

236. For example...

One company could be forced to switch entirely to hybrid and fully electric cars. One company could be handed over to an employee-owned model. The third could be completely nationalized and become the supplier for all government fleet vehicles and military trucks and cars.

[Mike 03]

69. Right now, we need to solidify the health of our financial institutions.

Not many healthy ones remain.

Then we have to convince them to lend.

Corporations can wait.

[Romulox]

70. You guys are shameless. MORE money for the banks. The rustbelt can (continue to) wait.

:puke:

[sufrommich]

71. Agreed. We've got nothing but time here in the industrial

Midwest. Things are going swimmingly. Give us a call when you get it all worked out. Call us on the cell,we lost the house.

[Romulox]

74. AIG might need more than the ***$120,000,000,000*** we've already provided. We can't risk it!

$120,000,000,000 to AIG alone in the past 2 months. :wtf:

[sufrommich]

77. I see you live down the road apiece from me,Romulox...

How many foreclosed houses on your street? Mine has 3,one was a young family with 2 small kids who had their worldly possessions unceremoniously dumped on the curb. Are we having fun yet?

[Romulox]

91. Only 2 right now. We've been lucky.

The irony of this whole situation is that my family and I have never done better (I don't work in the auto industry.)

However, I've seen first hand the kind of desperation there is out there right now. People seem to think of an out of work UAW member as some fat old white guy.

They never seem to think of the single African American mother with an disabled adult child in her home, wondering how in the hell she's going to find an apartment with wheelchair access she can afford after she loses her house. :(

[Mike 03]

79. No, my opinion is not what you think, but it would take me a day to sit down with you at a bar

and explain it.

This situation is just incredibly complicated.

I don't think any idea is "wrong" or "right." Nothing like this has happened before.

[Romulox]

93. Sorry, but the dynamics of power aren't that complicated. $$$ to the wealthy because they are rich.

[Mike 03]

80. I wish we could sit down and talk about this.

maybe you are right.

But right now, even the banks are not lending money.

Anyway, please don't be so angry at me. I work on this problem eighteen hours a day, seven days a week.

[Mike 03]

83. You can' t just wave a magic wand and make ten trillion dollars of debt go away. NT

[Romulox]

101. Nor can you wave a wand and make the fact that AIG alone has already gotten 4X

the amount of cash we're speaking about here go away.

[spoony]

134. No shit, this rhetoric against American industry sure doesn't sound

like any Democratic principles I grew up with. Thankfully Obama (*crosses fingers*) won't abandon us like our "allies".

[PinkoDonkey]

172. Now we have a leader from the Rust Belt

We have Obama. Before him? I don't know. Since the rapid de-industrialization of the late 20th century we haven't had a national leader come from this region. I'm not badmouthing anyone here, it's just a fact. I don't know as much about Obama's work with South Side steel workers in the 1980s as I should. But I think this is a guy who understands what de-industrialization can do to a community, to a region. This, along with a lot of other things, is giving me hope. (Esp. the way he keeps mentioning massive infrastructure investments!)

[Zhade]

111. You guys are STILL pushing that failed bailout BULLSHIT?

WAKE UP!

[amitta]

72. no bailouts for any corporation

the money would be spent better on creating a new company to replace these failed ones.
better to make a nationalized auto producer with no CEO's.

[Romulox]

75. American International Group, Inc.

http://www.thestreet.com/story/10446582/1/aig-bailout-borrowing-hits-925-billion.html?puc=googlen&cm_ven=GOOGLEN&cm_cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA

[proud patriot]

73. I agree with you

We should help with conditions though...

Like producing electric cars NOW

[dysfunctional press]

82. Obama should have the top auto execs in for a domestic "summit"...

get them all in a room, and tell them THIS is what the american people want- a full-size electric vehicle that travels at normal highway speeds and gets 100 miles to the charge. more hybrid vehicles.
there should also be some talk of executive compensation, with a formula that puts limits & ties it to blue-collar compensation levels.

if they want bailout loans- we're going to expect RESULTS. SOON. VERY SOON.

[LuckyTheDog]

84. Nt so easy. Battery tech is not there.

If GM could build an electric car with a 100-mile range that could be sold for $20,000 or less, they would. But battery technology just is not there yet. Such a car would cost $50,000 or more. Even the Volt (which will have a 40-mile range at most) will likely cost almost $40,000.

[dysfunctional press]

87. i don't mean that they have to build it NOW- but they need to head in that direction.

the bailout money needs to be tied to development of those vehicles.

capacitors may be the way to go rather than batteries.

bio-diesel/turbine technology would be another sector to develop more fully.

[mdmc]

86. I can get behind the workers or the customers

But any chucklehead that made a buck off of the Hummer deserves what he gets...

[Poseidan]

89. sounds awfully socialist

Why not let the free-market rule? Didn't these auto-makers support the notion of free-markets? Let them enjoy their decisions.

[LuckyTheDog]

122. No, I'd rather be socialistic...

...if it means that ordinary people are able to make a living.

[Mike 03]

90. Okay. How do you propose we pay for this? I'm listening.

Do we pay out of the $700 B dollar package?

[Hannah Bell]

92. There is something seriously wrong with the US auto situation.

The big 3 have been pleading poverty for 30 years, & getting all sorts of bennies from the gov, not to mention miscellaneous bailouts & tax breaks. They've used the $$ to move overseas (started moving to China in the 80's), outsource jobs & screw their employees. They've been making big profits overseas for years, but somehow they just can't manage it in the US.

According to this, in '05 they had 460,000 retirees & 317,000 employees (world-wide). 777,000 employees + retirees.

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-96931 ...


According to this, they took in 181 billion in revenue in 2007.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors

So let's assume half of that revenue goes to cost of materials, overhead, etc. That leaves 90.5 billion. That still leaves about $129,000 per employee/retiree.

That would allow you to pay every employee/retiree 60K & still have 45 billion in profit.


I seriously think these businesses are being skimmed via fancy accounting, & the US auto slump is just one more screw-the-workers scam.

[tammywammy]

94. 1 in 10 jobs in the US are related to the car industry

If the Big Three go down, so do a whole lot of other people as well as plunging our economy even further into a depression.

[ContinentalOp]

243. I don't think that's accurate.

Surely if 1 in 10 jobs are related to the auto industry that also includes things like sales. Even if the big three went under, it's not like all foreign automakers would close up their US dealerships and factories. Not that the big 3 collapsing wouldn't be disastrous, but I don't think it equals that entire 1 in 10 jobs.

[Mike 03]

96. How about the Big Three Airlines.

How about the Big Three truckers and Fed Ex and UPS?

How about the Big Three chemical, industrial, commodity, infrastructure, transport, necessary consumption, retail, and pharmaceutical companies?

You want to bail them all out?

[Romulox]

99. Ummm, we bailed out the airlines after 9/11.

:hi:

[Mike 03]

100. Umm, we gave them a hand-out, and the weak ones are dead. The weak were consumed by

the stronger airlines. And the very weak declared bankruptcy.

[Romulox]

103. Which makes them a poor example of the "bootstrap" capitalism you espouse (except for Wall Street!)

[OhioChick]

104. I agree completely.

Amazing that this has no rec's.

K&R

[LuckyTheDog]

124. I hate to say it, but...

This thread reveals what people used to call the red/green split among progressives. Yes, we need to protect the environment and promote green technology. But we also have an obligation to make sure that working people are able to make good wages and are not punished for problems they did not cause.

Some of the responses here reveal a kind of (dare I say it?) elitism among people who don't seem to "get" what it is like to live in a place like Michigan and who don't understand the lives of average working people very well. One person implied that the workers deserve what they get because they "tied their fates to a dinosaur." Screw that!

If we want to rebuild the American economy and achieve any kind of progressive aims, we need to start with wages. Wages need to start going higher -- and that means preserving and creating new UNION jobs. We won't get there if we let our basic industries go belly-up.

Here is what I say: Don't like the Hummer? Get over it! That division is being eliminated anyway. The workers who built those vehicles have anything to apologize for if those jobs allowed them to support their families. And, frankly, I am not so sure the auto companies should apologize for making vehicles that people wanted to buy and were willing to pay a premium for. Those Hummers might be grotesque. But, to the man or woman who earned wages from building them and used that money to buy a house, pay the bills and send the kids to college, they were a livelihood.

The auto industry needs to change and change in profound ways. And yes, the management of the Detroit 3 made some terrible decisions. But we should not pull the temple down on our own heads just to punish them. That would be nuts.

[blue_onyx]

143. I care about the enviroment but want to save US auto companies

The one problem I have with people who are against the US companies for environmental reasons is that transportation only accounts for 1/3 of greenhouse gases. I think if we did a tax on carbon, we would have a better plan for solving global warming. We could also put a tax on gas so the price would stay at a level that would encourage people to demand small, more fuel efficient vehicles. Instead, people seem to want to put the entire burden of saving the environment on auto companies.

[OhioChick]

215. Well Said.

:thumbsup:

[wtmusic]

218. Who is pulling the temple down?

A better analogy might be the temple collapsing for being built on a faulty foundation.

50% of the fault is Detroit's and the other 50% goes to the Bush administration for providing tax incentives which effectively made the price of a Chevy Suburban the same as a two-door Saturn.

The only benefit of assigning fault is in where it takes us going forward. Turn the SUV tax breaks into environmental breaks and subsidize that way, but no bailouts. Tesla should have an even shot at America's automotive future.

[Mike 03]

105. What are the issues involved?

Is this because of the collapse of pension funds?

Because workers make sixty five dollars an hours?

Because the automobiles are less well made than automobiles produced in other nations, or that few can afford to buy them right now?

Because banks are not making loans, which will allow consumers to buy new automobiles?

This is not a simple issue. It is a kaleidoscope with thousands of moving parts.

[OxQQme]

113. The annual advertising dollars

probably exceeded the billion dollar mark, telling 'consumers' how secure or cool it would be
to be able to drive over that mountain trail and across rivers, in comfort, while the kids are
watching a dvd on the back monitor/ Never mind it only gets 12 mpg. And it's top heavy.
Aaah...advertising.
What are we to do about the ad agencies laying off creative staff?
:banghead:

[KamaAina]

107. I'd like to see them building buses

as long as gas prices stay high, there'll be demand for new buses. Transit agencies across the country report they're packed to the gills, while Hummers quietly rust away on the lot.

Plus, transit creates jobs for drivers, mechanics, dispatchers, etc., too!

edit: Ack! McCain-style typo in "country"!! :spank:

[Chan790]

112. I agree, but...

they in turn need to become more responsive to their customers. The hole that Ford, GM and Chrysler are in is not the result of anything but their own awful business decisions. While others in the industry have been on the leading-edge of technology and meeting changing customer wants...the US automakers have instead insisted on being dragged every step of the way. They're still making bad decisions...when they needed to cut expenses, they shuttered a factory making hybrids.

Foreign automakers have led the charge on fuel-efficiency.
Foreign automakers have led the charge on small responsive sporty vehicles.
Foreign automakers have led the charge on affordable luxury features.
Foreign automakers have led the charge on fuel cells, electric cars, hybrids,...

Ultimately the blame for these decisions lies with upper management and ultimately the people who get hurt by these poor decisions are the labor. I fully support the need to save these jobs, at the same time...that need is tied to other needs that the taxpayers need to be protected and the US automakers need to radically change their mindset.

I support the loan/bailout but I want it tied to nationalization...not the half-assed nationalization of AIG, we own % of the companies and we (the government as our proxy) have a say in the direction of the companies. If we're going to share in the risk...we're going to take our share of the turnaround.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

117. It's A Necessity. Likely, GM Will Go Bankrupt, Restructure, Alter The Union And Salaries.

There are going to have to be drastic changes made to save them. But there is no alternative to saving the big 3. Allowing them to go under is an economic atomic bomb.

[roody]

120. If they will build something equivalent to the VW diesel-hybrid

that I will buy when it is available, I'm for it.

[Hotler]

123. I'll jump in when I start seeing....

The CEO's and the rest of the private big money in this country jump in. WHERE IS THEIR PATRIOTISM?

[lonestarnot]

125. Retool the only answer.

[Kansas Wyatt]

126. There should be strings attached to the bailout

I've always bought American, even in the current age of Globalism.

If they need bailed out, then they should have to comply with:

1) Mandatory U.S. employment requirements, even for parts. No more imported parts / products with the USA stamped on it. American made vehicles have become too saturated with foreign made parts.

2) Rigorous meaningful gas mileage requirements and a sincere effort made to eliminating the combustible engine. Currently, the thought is that it's a way for Obama to push green technology to reduce foreign oil imports, and they must stick to it without exception if the Big Three want bailouts. The CEO's should also have to report progress being made in this area periodically, since taxpayers have done them a huge favor.

3) Oh, and no selling off or giving away new technology to foreign countries, that then get to start importing a lot of autos on the market, which would hurt American workers. You know damn well the Boards of these automakers will do it in a heartbeat and not give a shit about undercutting workers in America.

As noted in #1 & #3, a very strong emphasis should be placed on employment in the United States and a policy set to stop exporting jobs and reclaiming them, even in the event of a green technology boom.

[LuckyTheDog]

128. Sure, why not? (nt)

[NorthCarolina]

131. I totally agree n/t

[earth mom]

136. We must save those Union Jobs people! Otherwise, say hello to 3rd world America!

:argh:

[MadHound]

137. Live by the capitalist sword, die by the capitalist sword

I was against the Wall St. bailout, and I'm against the Big 3 Bailout. If these manufacturers had made the right choices, ie producing better quality cars, not putting all their eggs in the SUV/truck basket, they would have no problem in surviving an economic downturn. However since they failed to do this, they deserve to go under, and thus make way for some other auto company to rise up in this country and take their place.

Sorry, but I don't buy into the "too big to fail" crap. In fact I think that it's detrimental to keep large corporations in any economic area propped up in such a matter. If we're going to be a capitalist society, then let's be a capitalist society and not engage in this quasi sort of corporate socialism that spreads the risk throughout our society while privatizing the profits.

Besides, where's the bailout for some many other corporations, companies and small businesses going under?

[LuckyTheDog]

141. That's B.S.

Why is it that supposedly progressive people turn into ideologically committed laissez-faire capitalist libertarians when it comes to manufacturing jobs and the fate of the working middle class?

If we let the economy fall apart to satisfy an ideological impulse to "preserve the integrity of the free market" or because of blood lust for "evil corporate executives," then we all lose.

[MadHound]

144. Because if we bailout these corporations,

We will be rewarding greed and failure. We will be socializing the risks while the profits will be privatized. That's not socialism, that's just another iteration of crony corporate capitalism, the same beast we've been dealing with for the past fifty plus years. How did that bailout of Chrysler work out in the late seventies? Did they get their shit together, did they learn their lesson? No, what they did was continue to make shitty cars and gas hogging trucks and SUV's that were low on quality and high on stupidity. They outsourced their plants overseas and got rid of a lot of their union jobs anyway. Do you honestly think that a bailout won't include provisions to break union contracts, drain pension funds and generally fuck their workers some more? Get real, the corporations will plead poverty and the government, fearing imminent collapse(and wanting to retain the nominal pride of having a domestic auto industry) will agree with all these demands.

How's that Wall St. bailout going anyway, the one designed to stop the bleeding? Oh, yeah, Wall St. is still hemorrhaging jobs while the execs will walk away with ten fucking percent of the bailout, which will be used to pay out their bonuses, while secretaries and brokers and others will have a crappy Christmas as they watch their minimal severance pay disappear. This is the same thing that will happen with an auto bailout.

Look, what happens to the workers sucks, it always does. But continuing to reward these failed corporations with bailout after bailout simply doesn't make sense. We're not rewarding the workers, we're rewarding the executives and large shareholders. Besides, there are many other industries that are in a vulnerable position right now, along thousands of small businesses, all of which employ more people than the auto industry. Why do we single out the auto industry for rescue and leave the others to sink? Sorry, either we rescue everybody, and become a truly socialist state, or we rescue none and remain a capitalist state, allowing the market to determine matters. What we don't continue is this half assed crony capitalism that rewards some, penalizes others, and leaves most to fend for themselves. It isn't fair, and quite frankly it is endangering our entire economy if we continue to do so.

[LuckyTheDog]

151. Real people's lives are at stake

So, I really don't care much about "teaching them a lesson." If the cost of teaching a lesson to "greedy corporations" is that people lose their homes, families break up under the strain, people kill themselves out of despair and futures are destroyed, then the price is just way too high. You'll just have to live with your outrage. Sorry.

As I responded to another poster:

This thread reveals what people used to call the red/green split among progressives. Yes, we need to protect the environment and promote green technology. But we also have an obligation to make sure that working people are able to make good wages and are not punished for problems they did not cause.

Some of the responses here reveal a kind of (dare I say it?) elitism among people who don't seem to "get" what it is like to live in a place like Michigan and who don't understand the lives of average working people very well. One person implied that the workers deserve what they get because they "tied their fates to a dinosaur." Screw that!

If we want to rebuild the American economy and achieve any kind of progressive aims, we need to start with wages. Wages need to start going higher -- and that means preserving and creating new UNION jobs. We won't get there if we let our basic industries go belly-up.

Here is what I say: Don't like the Hummer? Get over it! That division is being eliminated anyway. The workers who built those vehicles have anything to apologize for if those jobs allowed them to support their families. And, frankly, I am not so sure the auto companies should apologize for making vehicles that people wanted to buy and were willing to pay a premium for. Those Hummers might be grotesque. But, to the man or woman who earned wages from building them and used that money to buy a house, pay the bills and send the kids to college, they were a livelihood.

The auto industry needs to change and change in profound ways. And yes, the management of the Detroit 3 made some terrible decisions. But we should not pull the temple down on our own heads just to punish them. That would be nuts.

[MadHound]

200. Well d'uh, of course real people's lives are at stake, all of our lives

Stop being so melodramatic and trying to persuade through emotion.

Let's say that we bailout the auto industry, which proceeds to use that money to merge, thereby eliminating jobs(which is what GM wants to do). We're left with two weak auto manufacturers who will continue to hemmorage jobs. Meanwhile, those billions of dollars that could be used to create well paying jobs in the renewable energy sector is pissed away on the auto industry, and all we have to show for it is more debt. More debt that is dragging down our economy, costing us even more jobs, and wreaking havoc in our lives. That extra added debt that we used for the Wall St. bailout, that we use for the auto industry bailout, well gee, that finally tips the scales and our bond ratings get downgraded. You want to see holy hell, watch what happens when our US Treasury bonds get downgraded. They are already teetering on the brink, and any additional debt, like an auto industry bailout, would very tip them over. If that happens the Great Depression will look like the Roaring Twenties by comparison.

In this economy we can't save every single industry from the bad decisions it makes. Not only did the big three continuously make poor decisions when it came to marketing, but then folks like GMAC financing decided to get into the whole nothing down, no check liar's loans, thus racking up billions of dollars in bad debt that is virtually uncollectable. Again, why should we reward stupidity.

Let's say the worst happens, and GM, followed by Chrysler go out of business. What will happen? I imagine that yes, lots of people will lose their jobs. That's a shame, and I'm not downplaying the misery that will bring. But a vacum will be in the market place, opening the way for some automotive startup to come in and jump start the industry, making clean, green autos. Yes, change is scary, yes, change is temporarily painful(just ask all those who were in the horse based industries a hundred years ago), but in the end, such change is for the better for all of us. Continuing to hold on to outdated and unchanging industries is foolish, and in the long run, detrimental to all of us. And if that makes me elitist in your eyes, so be it. But frankly, having had more than one industry out-sourced out from under me in my life, I'm willing to bet that I have a better idea of the pain these workers will go through than you do, and what they can do to get out of it. Yes, it will suck, but in the long term both they and us will be better off.

Oh, and one other thing, don't start whining about higher pay for auto industry workers. I'm now in the teaching profession, and until you raise the pay of people like teachers and nurses, those of us who are expected to live on little more than our dedication, auto industry workers need to shut up and get in line. The average starting pay for Grade 1 in the auto industry is aprox. $28,000. This is basically anybody walking in who is unskilled and uneducated, $28,000. Whereas the average starting pay for a teacher, who has gone to four years of college, who is supposedly doing one of the most important jobs in the country is $33,000. If you look over the lifetime of the two professions, the average salary, overall, of an auto worker comes out to be $98,000, whereas the average salary, overall, of a teacher comes out to be $55,000. Sorry if I have little sympathy for raising the pay of auto industry workers.

You state that the auto industry needs profound change, you're right, it does. The only way for the industry to change is through major economic trauma, that is the way the capitalist system is set up. Better we do this change now, while the fallout from the change is manageable, rather than putting it off to later when it isn't.

[Octafish]

138. Detroit saved Freedom's ass during World War 2 and the Cold War.

Plus, with all them high paying jobs in automotive manufacturing,
Detroit built the middle class.
That's why it's fascism and authoritarianism's enemy.

[tabasco]

175. Detroit made profits off of shitty Sherman tanks that killed out troops.

Steelworkers in Pittburgh, farmers in Iowa, and lots of people contributed more than Detroit.

Most of all - the soldiers in uniform.

[Octafish]

180. Never would deny the contributions of America and Americans.

My point is that Detroit was the arsenal of Democracy -- from bullets to bombs to Jeeps and B-24s.
The stuff was made in Detroit and the neighboring region.

The factories were converted from civilian production to making war materiel.
After the war, their union jobs were the engines for growing the middle class.
The benefits from those jobs were copied in other industries across the country.

I know about the Sherman tanks taking a hit from a Panzer's 88 and all.
They did the best they could with what they knew.
And Detroit helped beat the NAZIs -- by numbers.

FWIW: The latest version of the main battle tank, from what I know, has been near-perfect in combat conditions.

[spoony]

194. Is it hard to type with that chip on your shoulder?

[knitter4democracy]

224. Exactly.

Oh, buy why would we help them now? We have to give billions and billions to companies that screwed the entire country a million time over instead.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

142. Whatever happened to "let the market decide"?

Apparently, being a capitalist means never having to say you're sorry. Just soak the taxpayers to bail you out when the much touted "market forces" no longer work in your favor.

[LuckyTheDog]

154. Screw that

That is, unless you have a plan in your back pocket to create hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs right now.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

160. Sure. Skip the middleman.

Give the $50bn to the workers directly. And, why only "high paying" jobs? What about unemployed dishwashers, janitors, nurse's aids, laborers, farm workers?

Why single out the auto-industry among the many businesses going under because the capitalists got greedy?

[Hippo_Tron]

182. Your plan sounds a lot like mine

Give all of the workers enough money to start over, go back to school, relocate, do whatever. It's exponentially cheaper on the taxpayers than subsidizing the auto industry and then doing it again in 5 years and then again in 10 years, and so on.

[Celebration]

145. Unfortunately, I think I agree with you

The ramifications of Ford and GM going bankrupt are enormous, not just for our manufacturing base but for our entire economy. All of us would end up suffering a lot. Talk about deleveraging!

But I admit that it would be rewarding failure and poor choices.

[sub.theory]

166. Demand Concessions

But I admit that it would be rewarding failure and poor choices.

That's exactly why we have to have concessions in return for Federal aid. The Big 3 automakers have been grossly mismanaged for decades, and it would be insane to just allow that to continue. For example, they were fools to think that they could continue to make gas guzzling SUVs and heavy trucks forever.

There are plenty of very smart and talented engineers at the American automakers, and they have a skilled and dedicated workforce. The missing key is some intelligent management at the top.

[Riktor]

146. I have a better idea

We let the Big 3 die, then encourage Toyota or Honda to purchase their factories. The jobs stay, and America's auto workers can finally produce a product they can take pride in.

[Wiegee]

153. That's an insult

They already are proud of what they make.

[JVS]

205. Ok, then strike that and change it to "a product the rest of the country can be proud of...

and more importantly will purchase happily"

[Wiegee]

152. An auto industry failure would harm millions

If you don't want to consider helping the auto industry because you have some gripe against it, consider it for another reason. The collapse of the auto industry would harm millions of families, make unemployment soar and spiral us into 30s-style depression.

http://cargroup.org/documents/FINALDetroitThreeContractionImpact_3__000.pdf">Center for Automotive Research came out with a study this week that pointed out that more than 732,000 people in the US work for auto manufacturers or companies that supply them with parts. Each of those jobs support spin-off jobs (wages from automakers go to buy food at the grocery store, creating jobs there, and so on.) Were all three domestic automakers to collapse, in the first year there would be a job loss of 2.9 million jobs. It would mean a loss in personal income to those employees of by over $150.7 billion in the first year, and $398.2 billion within three years. And as consumer spending is 70 percent of the economy, just imagine what that would do to everyone.

To the government, the loss would represent $60.1 billion in the first year, in lost tax income, expenditures for family aid, etc. Over three years, the loss would be $156.4 billion. And with that hit to federal income, how would the Obama administration be able to put some of its programs in place?

It would cost far more to let the companies go bankrupt than to save them. And that is why I do believe there will be help coming from the government.

[Blue Diadem]

280. People don't seem(or don't want) to understand that.

The impact would be tremendous and devastating.

Thanks for that link to the study.

[sub.theory]

155. I agree

Too many innocent people would be hurt by the collapse of the American car industry. However, we have to extract some major concessions on environmentalism/green technology, offshoring, and executive compensations. We can't just allow business as usual to continue.

[Wiegee]

156. I agree to that

There needs to be help, but there needs to be direction, too.

[lelgt60]

162. No bailout. Nationalize them. Temporarily eliminate profit...

Think of this as a national LBO - the US govt. should take the big 3 "private" - buy them out of bankruptcy court.

Investors are capitalists - they should know all investment entails risk. I'm an investor - I know that. So, sorry to you investors. I hope you're diversified.

Then, produce cars and sell them at zero profit, pay management government level wages, negotiate fair union contracts. Without the requirement for profit, it should be easier to compete. I said no profit, BTW, not losses. Once the companies get healthy again, take them public (say with about 30% of the stock, initially, and a majority of board seats).

[Pavulon]

164. Or let them bankrupt and void all labor contracts

if you fuck them over they will do just that. That is how the airlines dealt with their unions. It was unfair, but it will happen.

[backscatter712]

167. Concessions are good:

Start with more domestic sourcing of parts - no more parts out of China.

Also some R&D efforts for greener cars - better fuel economy, hybrids, full electric cars. This would be a great long-term plan actually. The car makers haven't been willing to invest in the R&D to make cars better and more efficient, preferring to make cars more powerful and making lots of cosmetic changes to make the cars appear shiny. Powerful cars sell well - everyone likes fast cars, but they use more gas, are bad for the environment, and need to be discouraged (though not eliminated completely - I admit that I like fast cars...) The point is that driving the auto makers to do some R&D will result in better cars, which will be more competitive with imported cars, and ultimately sell better, helping the auto-makers come out of their slump. We just have to push them to think further ahead than the next quarterly earnings report.

Getting some .gov help to bail out the industry should come with a mandate for green cars. As in almost all their cars should be green.

[sub.theory]

169. Mandating Green Cars Could be the Silver Lining

Mandating green cars could be the silver lining in this mess. We further need to press for changes on a far more aggressive timetable than the tepid one currently proposed by Detroit. Global warming is real, and we are very quickly running out of time to correct things before we pass the point of no return.

I'd also like to see a mandate to keep jobs in America, and limits on executive compensation.

[entanglement]

168. Nationalize the Big 3. Fire the corporate management and have them run as a workers collective

Rationalize pay, nobody gets millions in pay or bonuses. Eliminate vulture big investors / funds interference completely. Suspend trading of shares till a recovery is effected.

[Omnibus]

173. Only bail them out if it's tied to progressive moves...

...require a certain percentage of hybrid, and fully electric, cars by 2015, a higher % by 2020. Raise mileage standards, especially on SUVs and minivans. Tie the bailout to the Employee Free Choice Act.

It's a good way to save an industry that needs saving, and make sure it gets on track to help us create a better America.

[NoSheep]

176. Get Active then. Tell them to make fuel efficient cars. eom

[blues90]

178. I do understand your concern however

The big three have been letting themsleves fail for many years when they could have been the leaders they cared only about their own profit and no the people or the workers. They didn't care about the gas hogs they sold all over the country in fact they made it sound the thing to be admired.

Now after what they have decided to do they should be bailed out for their greed and mistakes.

How about they take their years of profits and bail themselves out and pay a fair wage and promise to do something for the good for a change.

Does everyone get a free car if we bail them out too?

[Hippo_Tron]

181. Why don't we just give everybody who lost their job enough money to start over?

In the log run it's exponentially cheaper than propping up a failed industry. Of course this country has a "fairness" issue when it comes to handouts particularly ones that they don't get.

[NoSheep]

206. Yep. We only give handouts to the wealthy whose lame ass plans

to get richer and richer, ultimately fail.

[moondust]

183. With strings attached.

Their management cannot be allowed to do all the wrong things as they did in the 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s. They CHOSE to ignore Jimmy Carter's wisdom on energy issues and his energy proposals of the late 70s, instead getting on board with the disastrous Reagan deregulation and fossil fuels forever foolishness. They built SUVs when they should have been developing ever more fuel efficient vehicles. They had 25 years to wise up and get out in front of the curve but obviously didn't/couldn't/wouldn't.

[defendandprotect]

185. BS -- let the oil industry bail them ouy--!!!

[Mind_your_head]

189. self-delete

[Jack Rabbit]

190. If by some miracle I were put in charge of GM (or either of the other two) . . .

. . . the first things I'd do is fire the whole fucking lot of upper level management. And the second thing I'd do is purge the designers and engineers.

You're absolutely right. Real people who have done nothing wrong will be hurt in a big way. As progressives and a humanists, the first thing we should keep in mind is to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe.

However, American auto makers (by which we mean the decision makers therein) are a catastrophe. Knowing the peak oil is coming and that climate change is man made through the overuse of fossil fuels, they built large, unsafe, gas guzzling monstrosities and then tasked the marketing department with creating demand for them. (Take a memo: fire everybody in marketing.)

Having just endured the silly season of an election campaign in which I and my fellow progressives and humanists were mischaracterized as elitists, I think it is time to set the record straight. Modern corporate culture is the most elitist thing to come to light since the European landed aristocracy collapsed two hundred years ago. Note that the system is elitist, not necessarily elite. Just as there was little elite about Louis XV of France or Nicholas I or Russia, so there is nothing elite about a Harvard MBA. Hell, George W. Bush is a Harvard MBA. That tells us how much a Harvard MBA is worth. Look at where these so-called elites have gotten us. We are in a deep hole that they dug for us, so deep we may never get out.

So much for the argument that elites have to run industry and the government in order for society to survive or prosper. These elites (or elite-like frauds, as the case may be) have driven America into the ground. If we're going to bail out the auto industry, it would be foolish to give the money to the class of idiots currently running it, or who have been running it for the last forty years. Turn the auto industry over to the auto workers. Make them responsible for the prosperity -- and the very survival -- of the industry. I, for one, have the utmost faith that the unwashed masses can build and market a better car than those phony elites who have been at the helm of industry for decades.

[susanna]

203. The designers and engineers take their orders from management.

They have no say in what is built; they are given a specification for a part and told to make it happen. Many of them tinker with alternative possibilities when they can get the time away from management directives. Engineers love to tinker, and they are hardly the elite. So with that act alone you'd be cutting off your nose to spite your face. Good designers and engineers are not expendable. Most of them are general salary roll and would work with the assembly workers to make good product.

I do agree with you in your first statement. I'd sack 90% of management because they are worse than clueless. Spineless yes-people, not to put too fine a point on it. I know something of what I speak. I was in the industry for twenty years, just laid off five months ago. In the round of layoffs that cost me my job, only 1% of management was let go vs. 19% for the lower ranks. So they sacked the worker bees who actually know how to design and build the damned product, leaving legions of MBA managers with no one to manage. Far-sighted, huh? So your elite argument makes a whole lot of sense to me on that point.

[Jack Rabbit]

207. Thank you for your insight

Next time I make this rant, it shall be amended to ask for the alternatives from the designers and engineers.

I should know better. I was a computer programmer in my previous life as a worker bee. I've had experience running up against "spineless yes-people" who kept getting in my way of solving problems. I might add that the two greatest offenders were for which I worked were General Motors and Wachovia Bank. Both bought out the company I worked for and within two or three years in each case turned it into a bureaucratic morass that couldn't get a product out the door and had become deficient in costumer satisfaction. They've both been much in the news lately.

If any of those clueless, spineless yes-men are reading this, I have one little message: I told you so!!

[susanna]

214. Not a problem, insight is all I have left after twenty years LOL. :-)

I knew some amazingly visionary engineers and designers over the years, and I know they felt the frustrations I did (I was a quality analyst, just starting to see the fruits of years of labor when I left). I am slightly biased, too, because my husband is an engineer for a supplier that makes advanced interfaces for navigation, radios, etc., and he never ceases to amaze me with all the ideas he has to make his products better. He is very lucky because his boss (even with an MBA) lets him "go for it." Mostly because many of the things he's worked on bring accolades (and business) to the company.

Your insight about GM is spot on; I was there several of my twenty years in the biz and could never understand the resistance to simple common sense. Usually it just ended up a p!ssing contest done for no other reason than to pull rank and outmaneuver internal competitors.

And I would gladly second your "I told you so!" It is very, very appropriate. Thanks for the dialogue! :hi:

on edit: subject clarity

[knitter4democracy]

226. My brother used to be an engineer at Ford.

His team came up with a great engine after a lot of work and arguing with everyone, only for it to get shelved as too expensive. He ultimately helped re-figure Michigan Truck, but he left not long after that. It got crazy trying to deal with everyone, from the union that said an engineer couldn't touch a screwdriver or any other tool to the penny-pushing higher-ups that made his job miserable. Now he's in charge of Cobra Motorcycle, his own company, and it's really hard to sell their great bikes in this economy. Ugh.

[susanna]

227. I might have met him somewhere along the way. :-)

I was at Ford from 1992 - 2008. Your brother's story sounds far too familiar. I was always astounded by the really good ideas that got shelved because of ridiculous penny-pinching or union rules.

I hope your brother's company can hang on through the economic mess we are in. I would love for him to be successful in a way he could not be at the Big 3. I have not looked back, myself, and don't want to. Those companies were toxic places to work the last five years or so. I am now in culinary school...a bit older than my fellow students, but enjoying myself immensely. :hi:

[JCMach1]

191. Get them to bite the bullet on CAFE and make 50% electrics and hybrids by 2012

Then we should talk!

[secondwind]

199. I think we need to do something ........but it is too bad the automakers

didn't think about that when they shipped their technology to China and other countries, who are making their cars cheaper.

[ravencalling]

201. Big 3 automakers need to go progressive

In other words, get on the leading edge of technology with regards to electric cars and hybrids. If they can work together to do this, that would be even better. Build vehicles that get great gas mileage, are affordable and represent top quality. That is how you compete.

Create luxury vehicles that are lean mean and green with the latest technology that will make driving green not only the smart thing to do but also the enjoyable thing to do.

Other automakers need to be coming to us for innovation. We need to stand for innovation. That needs to be the new branding. Innovation and Quality.

When the market changes, be nimble enough to take advantage of the opportunities. Don't just stick to past formulas that used to be successful. Whether we like it or not, we can no longer be dependent on oil, and auto manufacturers need to embrace this direction as leaders, not victims.

Problems should be turned into opportunities.

[sendero]

202. Philosophically...

.. I'm really opposed to bailouts. The automakers, and yes, the unions, have really done a stellar job of making the bed they now find themselves in, and it's really hard to feel sorry for them.

That said, our auto industry is one of the few somewhat viable manufacturing industries left. We need to save it and rehabilitate it.

Employees are not going to be getting the kind of compensation they have become used to. The only way the automakers are going to survive long term is to compete head to head with Honda and Toyota making smaller fuel-efficient cars. If they cannot do that, there is no point in saving them.

[BlueCollar]

204. I agree

But industry-selective bailouts can be dangerous. I think we need to be very concerned with the state of our manufacturing industry but bail-outs need to be carefully packaged and ensure that the employees are a significant part of the package...

[lib2DaBone]

208. Fine. Build a practical Electric car. Ford Escape is a good start.. but needs improvement

[tabbycat31]

212. I had an American car

I had an American car that I loved. I had a 1999 Escort that got 37 mpg on the highway long before carmakers started advertising fuel-efficiency. It was well-maintained and a great little car. However it died at just over 115K miles. I expect a car in this day and age to last longer than that (I am not the kind of person who trades in cars, I buy new then drive them into the ground). Many people who have worked in the auto industry, or who have famiyl working there (in forums, as I live in NJ where there are not too many ties to the industry) told me that I had a "disposable car" and not to worry about it and just lease something for 3 years. I don't doubt the quality that the American automakers put into their trucks. However that has not translated into their cars.

I am currently driving my parents' old vehicle, a car that was bought the same week as my Escort, and is still running strong at 139K miles. The difference is the car is a Subaru, which I LOVE. They have a reputation for lasting for at least 200K miles. My next car will be another Subaru because I like the car better, and they have the reputation that I am looking for in a car.

[Greyhound]

245. For the thousandth time, it was already done and once they managed to buy enough politicians,

GM killed it. The CA legislation forced them to build it and it worked well. The problem was they required almost no service or maintenance, that's why GM refused to sell them, only allowing people to lease them.

This is the dilemma of whether to bail or not to bail, they are reprehensible and foolish...

very much like the banks.

[CRF450]

255. As far as parts go for repairs, or regular maintenance, car makers dont make money on parts

The dealers and auto part stores where you get the work done or parts bought and replaced at, are the ones who make the money off of those things, not the auto makers themselves.

[frogcycle]

209. all the replies about their bad decisions are spot on, but...

we need them to get the message and survive, not necessarily in that order.

Yes, they looked at quarterly results and made Escalades and Navigators like there was no tomorrow. They sold them at huge profit. Shortsighted as hell. The execs should be canned.

OK, that said, we need an American industry cranking out "green" transportation units - cars, trucks, buses - like crazy.

We need to do an "intervention" - get them off crack and a productive part of the family again.

[Moosepoop]

210. I have two questions

After reading this thread, two questions were raised for me.

#1: It was stated here several times that large, gas-guzzling vehicles have higher profit margins than smaller vehicles. Why is that? Are Hummers or F-150s less expensive to produce than Focuses and Priuses? Or is it that people are willing to pay considerably more for them for some reason, thereby considerably increasing the profit margin? I'm not being facetious -- I really don't know why a larger, heavier vehicle would be more profitable to produce than a smaller counterpart. Is the higher profit due to lower production costs, or higher markup on the finished product?

#2: I don't know the first thing about batteries for electric cars (or much about batteries for regular cars or even flashlights, for that matter), but it seems strange to me that with all of today's advanced technology, it's still such a challenge to come up with a battery that holds a charge for an electric car for more than 40 miles or so. We can put men on the moon in the 1960s but not come up with a specific, needed battery 40 years later? I've read here that such a battery would be prohibitive in cost. Why? What contributes to the high cost of producing such a battery? Again -- not being facetious, I really don't know but would like to.

Thanks to anyone that can explain either of these.

[wtmusic]

216. Excellent questions.

Regarding #1:

It wasn't profit margin but ridiculous tax incentives which motivated people to buy 6,000-lb and up trucks and SUVs.

"So, for example, last year a business owner could deduct $25,000 outright off the cost of a new SUV. Under Bush's economic stimulus package (which became law last year) the purchaser got an extra 30% bonus deduction off the balance of the sticker price. Subtract another 20% a year in depreciation over five years, and business owners who purchased SUVs already got a hefty tax write-off. Now, Bush wants to increase the small business deduction from $25,000 to $75,000.

<>

With all the tax breaks and loopholes, some vehicles would in effect, be free. Who knew the day would come when you could buy a new Chevy Suburban for about the cost of a two-door Saturn?"

http://4wheeldrive.about.com/cs/drivingtipssafety/a/aa041603a.htm

#2:

The EV1 with technology of 10 years ago had a verified range of 130-150 miles. While this isn't something you'd want to take on a cross-country trip, it is completely viable as a second or commuter car for most American families, saving CO2 and a lot of money. That has a lot of people wondering whether there is a "nonproduction" agreement between big oil and Detroit to NOT make electric cars. Those with an aversion to conspiracy theories might want to review the history of National City Lines, a scandal of the thirties where big oil, Detroit, and tire companies bought up 100 electric street car lines across the country for the sole purpose of destroying them, so they could be replaced with buses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_streetcar_scandal

I use our electric car for 80% of our family driving, and it only has a range of 40 miles. It is a converted 1997 Ford Aspire, and costs about 4¢/mile.

http://www.aspire-ev.com

[Moosepoop]

230. Thanks for the answers!

#1: So if I'm understanding this right, it was the demand for trucks and SUVs -- at least partly fueled by Bush's small business tax incentives -- that kept the car companies churning them out, rather than an actual higher profit margin per vehicle. Of course, they may also have jacked up the selling price for more profit, since the tax breaks would alleviate some of the "sticker shock" for those who qualified for the breaks and increasing the likelihood that the sale would proceed anyway.

Then I'd say that one thing that should be done in conjunction with any help given to the auto industry should be a change in the tax code, aiming the tax breaks to those buying more fuel-efficient and greener vehicles, either exclusively or including electric ones. Even pickups and SUVs can be done in electric versions, can't they, for the small businesses that need larger vehicles to move things around in? And the tax incentives shouldn't be limited to small businesses, they should apply to anyone and everyone buying the better-for-the-environment vehicles.


#2: Then the technology for longer-lasting electric car batteries has been around for at least 10 years, but isn't being used for some reason?? There goes the argument that such a battery hasn't been developed yet! Was the cost of an EV1 exponentially high? Would the cost come down if they were mass-produced rather than done in small, test-vehicle numbers?

I'm thinking that if there is some sort of "agreement" between the auto industry and big oil to not make electric cars, then it's high time now for that "agreement" to be exposed and done away with! If there is no such "agreement," then there shouldn't be any reason why help for the car companies shouldn't contain mandates to use the already-developed technology to initally produce at least a certain ratio of sustained-battery electric cars, with the ratio to change over to electric ones completely in a given number of years. Some of the aid money involved can be specifically restricted to designing such vehicles and retrofitting the factories for them. Oh, and money can be diverted to the program by denying bonuses to the execs until they meet certain ratios AND show a balance sheet in the black! ;)

[wtmusic]

246. Moosepoop for EPA Director!

Might want to tweak your username for the appointment... ;-)

The cost of the EV1 was high. It was a boutique model for GM, very low numbers, built by hand. But GM engineers outdid themselves, and produced a truly outstanding vehicle. The leases were expensive ($600/month) and virtually impossible to get except for celebrities. But the car worked and it worked well.

It's frustrating that we are contemplating a multi-billion bailout of the Big Three when $500 million directed toward electric vehicles years ago would have made the EV1 and others affordable for Americans, and likely launched the product into mass-production status where it would have been a money maker.

I agree 100% with your ideas. BTW if you haven't seen the film "Who Killed the Electric Car?" it is an eye-opener.

[goforit]

220. NO!!!! WE need to create new auto companies and ditch the old!!!

GM failed!!! And should not be rewarded!!!
GM colluded with Big Oil to keep today's automobile ineffective on gas milage and environmentally hazardous.
GM has also chosen to outsource their jobs!!!!!

The people-employees (engineers, architects, machinists) need to collect together
and recreate a NEW COMPANY that is competative with the consumer's demands!!!
By doing so.....they can create NEW JOBS to those experienced workers!!!!
THE GOV"T NEEDS TO GIVE OPPORTUNITY TO THOSE TO STEP UP!!
GIVING BACK TO THE OLD FAILED INDUSTRY IS NOT A SOLUTION!!!!

[erinlough]

225. Why couldn't the big three combine into one giant American Car Company?

They would be able to pool resources, R&D talent, and retool factories to produce a line of world dominating autos that could compete against Honda and Toyota in the world market. In the days when we were competing to sell cars mainly in America three companies made sense, now I wonder if pooling our resources wouldn't make U.S. cars more competitve.

[cottonseed]

260. Funny. I actually was wondering if we could break the big 3 up

into their component brands. Economies of scale withstanding, I'm not sure that having an auto industry that's "too big to fail" is the right way out of this mess.

[ensho]

228. no we should not save them

climate change demands less cars

[tjwash]

229. Sure...save them and toss the execs and ceo out on their ears. No bonuses, no golden parachutes.

Fuck them and their flawed perception of the market. They could have led the whole world in new hybrid and battery tech 10 years ago, but instead went least common denominator, and every one of the US car companies are now being caught flat footed with most of their lineup being guzzlers.

And how the fuck were Americans so stupid, that we en-masse got convinced that we NEEDED tons of humongous suv's with belchfire v8 supercharged engines and mileage be damned?

And the the volt won't save them now either. They should have had the Volt up and to market 5 years ago, before Toyota beat them to the punch. They had the Volt 10 years ago, when it was called the EV1 and the fucking execs killed it.

Ah...who am I kidding. Of course they will get their bailout, of course there will be a hundred million in executive bonuses and golden parachutes built into it, and of course pelosi, reid, and half of DU will rabidly cheer it on.

[RadicalTexan]

231. I'm a socialist and I totally agree

nt

[Greyhound]

239. Bail out contingent on total replacement of all management positions above

line supervisors.

The problems with US auto manufacturers is, and has been for 60 years, hereditary management that stifles innovation and enforces low standards.

[ContinentalOp]

241. What about actually splitting up these companies and spinning the engineering divisions off...

into three independent engineering/r&d firms? The three firms could compete for contracts from the big three and even foreign automakers. If GM's engineering division is sitting on the design and patents for the ultimate electric car but GM management doesn't want to put it into production, maybe Ford is interested. Or maybe Toyota wants it.

Maybe these engineering divisions could be more innovative if they were freed from the decisions of management. We could also give these spinoff companies government funding toward pure research toward alternative fuels.

It seems like this is the way the auto industry is moving anyway, toward more cooperation, licensing deals and joint ventures between different automakers around the world.

If this is just an issue of jobs then why do we care about keeping the Big 3 manufacturers in business? What does it matter if it's GM opening a new factory or Toyota opening a new factory in the US?

[fed_up_mother]

242. I heard on tv that for every auto job, there's six more that will be lost as well.

That's a lot of jobs!

[lonestarnot]

244. Retool will be my only support of them. They've known or should have known they were fucked!

[leftchick]

248. Ford could start a trend by offering their UK version of the Focus here

this is pretty fucked up. Obviously they could save themselves if they dumped the dinosaur SUV.


http://forums.roadandtrack.com/cars/board/message?board.id=hybrids&message.id=30

<snip>

Look at the Ford Focus, UK model vs. US model. With the 1.8L Diesel it tops around 74mpg (if you think that's imperial gal, then x .83, then that's 61mpg.) That's still 2x the MPG of the US Focus. Plus, the UK Focus looks sporty. Doesn't look like something my grandma would drive to the store. VW will be back in the US this fall with a High MPG diesel

[CRF450]

251. We have strict emission laws against diesels more so than the UK does

And this includes the type or grade of diesel we use also, which kills the fuel milage on our diesel autos.

[mdmc]

250. take my 401K! as long as the Hummer line lives on!

[petgoat]

254. USA! USA! USA! USA! nt

[sampsonblk]

256. Agreed. But there must be some big strings attached

They should have to shift their focus away from the SUVs towards more energy-efficient vehicles.

[CRF450]

258. There doing that right now.

[cottonseed]

259. Too Big to Fail

I wish we would break the big 3 up into any number of the original brands. I realize there's economies of scale here, but if we could break it up into about 10 brands, I'd be willing to invest taxpayer money into the companies. Some would fail, some would prosper. It's just unfeasible to go on supporting the big 3 (or big 1 eventually) forever. We need creative destruction in this industry.

[petgoat]

262. Make the Big 3 manufacture the bodies.

There's your economy of scale.

Let entrepreneurs install electric motors or Fijian gasoline engines in them.

Let's go!

[Romulox]

266. AIG bailout increased to $150 billion today. Still not $0.01 for Detroit. nt

[mdmc]

270. aig going down proves reagan wrong. detroit going down proves

unions wrong. and reagan right.

[TankLV]

271. NO. WE. DON'T.

We didn't save the horse and buggy makers, this is the same thing...

on to the next best thing...!!!

[Ganja Ninja]

275. Save American manufacturing and let GM, Ford and Chrysler die.

Foreign companies will buy the remains and we could offer them help at that point.

[adamuu]

276. Okay. Bail out auto under the following conditions - 1. move factories back to the US ...

1. move factories back to the US
Restore the incentive to buy GM. That's the only thing they have going for them. The cars are not very good quality and are typically not fuel efficient. Only good reason to buy is to support American workers. Let's work with that.

2. US Government gets 51%+ stake until the companies recover
When the companies are deemed to be stable again (1-5yrs), the US sells all of its shares at public auction. (See Chrysler)

3. replace executives
(See Chrysler)

4. put Pensions in a lock-box

5. Implement long-term vision
These companies seem to be horribly lacking in long-term vision.
Force compliance with the SPIRIT of the environmental laws, not just the letter of the law.
A fuel efficient, non-polluting line of cars will be more attractive to buyers and will be good for the companies in the long-term.


Many of these items are typical of a classic bankruptcy.

[Romulox]

279. You're mistaken about bankruptcy...

"Many of these items are typical of a classic bankruptcy."

None of the things you've mentioned have much of anything to do with bankruptcy. For example, bankruptcy has little to do with where a factory is located, and in the prototypical Chapter 11, the "Debtor in Possession" ("DIP") retains control of the company. That means the existing executives and board of directors.

Instead, the first thing the automakers would do in a Chapter 11 is avoid executory contracts. That means goodbye labor contracts. Goodbye pensioner benefits. See you later dealerships.

[slackmaster]

278. I'd like to be able to help them out by buying their products

But that is not going to happen until they start making suitable vehicles that don't suck.

And I probably need to get a job that pays better.

[RB TexLa]

281. Like Hell we do! Someone will replace them when they are gone.

It's time they own their failure.