Southern States Gave Auto Companies Tax-breaks and Cash for Training

I'm only this far in the thread, but is this really so? My family would go under if the Big 3 went under. Going bankrupt wouldn't take them under?

 

I'm through the thread now, ugly as it was, and I'm not understanding something----why should GM go bankrupt or shut down just to show those union people? It's not just hurting the union, it's hurting a lot of America, imo. The loss of jobs would be enormous. It's not just GM's factories (or Ford or Chrysler). It's the little factories out in the sticks who make the parts for the big 3. Dh worked at such a shop. Yes, the Unions would hurt, but the people would hurt more, again, imo.

 

No one has suggested they shut down. Bankruptcy (reorganization) does not equal closing the doors.

 

Unless people start buying cars again, none of it wil matter. And that won't happen until they feel more secure in their employment. It is a vicious cycle.

 

As posted by carpro:

 

I stand corrected. Closing down is not a consideration of any of the decision makers.

 

There is a big difference between the groups of automakers being compared. One group is profitable and thus, bringing them to a state brings profitability. There is a reason they are not asking for a bailout from the federal government -- They don't need one.

The other group is not profitable. It is poorly run and refuses to get labor and other costs under control. Sen. Coburn pointed out about the failed vote failed because of the union. All they asked from the union was a date as to when they would be competitive in costs. The union refused. The Senate apparently didn't try to enforce a date, like they did with the companies. The union was merely asked to provide a date to which they could be held accountable, and they refused. So now, rather than having a job and making what would still be a very good wage, they will be out of a job.

So there are two very different ways of doing business here. Lending money to a successful company is a good idea. You get it back with interest. Lending money to a failing company is a bad idea.

The Republicans for all their recent history of spending way too much finally took a stand. Too bad they didn't do this earlier.

 

[off topic]

Didja know that the value of those boogers is going up? Seems that so few are still running, they're becoming rare, and a quirky collectors item (kind of like the AMC Gremlin).

No kidding.

[\off topic]

Look folks, I don't buy either statement--that Republicans hate our country, or that Democrats hate our country. It bothers me how quickly the OP jumped to that conclusion.

 

MP, you're an astute guy, and you've probably already thought of this:

Years ago, to get a car that lasted 100K miles was unusual. Now, even the "substandard cars" will likely last 150, and a honda/toyota can easily go 200K, or even 250K.

It also stands to reason that millions of Americans were buying cars they couldn't afford. Nothing down...leasing...6 year financing??? Come on.

Here's my point: Now that cars last longer, and we're being forced to not trade in every two years for the heck of it (I never did that--I drive 'em till they explode in a spectacular ball of flame, oil, and shock absorbers)--maybe, just maybe...

We don't need as many car companies anymore.​

Maybe the product, our habits, and the sheer cost of the "investment" (actually a depreciating item) means we no longer need to buy as many cars as we once did.

If this is true, the government is not doing us any favor by "propping up" a company (companies) that simply have outlived their usefulness.

I'm just thinking things out here...

 

In your opinion.

Some rust belt states offered even bigger tax subsidies.

The over-riding consideration was labor cost.

 

We must carefullly define "going bankrupt."

We're talking about re-organization...which would void the contractual agreement between the company and union. It would mean a fresh start, and savings in the hundreds per car.

Keep in mind...Delta Airlines, for instance, "went bankrupt," and yet they're still around today.

 

Doesn't matter. "Going under" isn't going to happen anytime soon.

Debt reorganization could save GM.

So...if reorganization eases the chokehold the UAW has on GM, and reduces a production cost by, say, $1500, don't you think that would be healthy for GM? It would instantly make a more competitive car.

 

So either way, you win. The government would own the automotive manufacturing system here. Either through forced government insurance (through the same folks that brought us FEMA, the IRS, Congress, and Walter Reed Army Medical Hospital), or the government bailing out the car companies whenever they aren't profitable. (Maybe we could do like the Communist Bloc, and produce the chicken-wire and paper mache' masterpiece of automotive engineering...the Trabant).

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

That's depressing.

 

Not necessarily. Companies could provide health benefits differently. They don't have to give away the farm just because the UAW asks for it. Other companies provide health benefits at a far lower cost per worker than the Big Three do. They simply got held up and raped by the UAW and now the UAW wants everyone else to bail them out so they can keep their jobs/bennies.

Shouldn't happen. Like every other company, you should have to be successful to survive.

 

I believe that is the plan.

Then government can force them to build the cars they want built and force consumers to buy them or else.

 

First, let me say that I am totally against taxpayer $$$ being given to any private business, bacause it only opens the door to the socialization/nationalization of U.S. industry. However, if Congress is bound and determined to go down that road I fully expect the Senate and the House to look into how that money would be used and demend cost cutting at every possible place when taxpayer $$$ are being used.