Bailout the Automobile Industry ?

[Hoser]

I voted for one. I actualy emailed my Congressman requesting they do the bailout of the Autos.

Dale Kildee wrote a letter for us.
God bless 'im.

 

[DanCPA]

One thing that doesn't make much sense to me is this: If GM is on the verge of BK and total collapse... and will take the money the government offers in a heartbeat, why is it stock higher than Ford's who has said it doesn't need the bailout and can survive without it?

 

[Holdfast]

One thing that doesn't make much sense to me is this: If GM is on the verge of BK and total collapse... and will take the money the government offers in a heartbeat, why is it stock higher than Ford's who has said it doesn't need the bailout and can survive without it?

Ford's market capitalisation is about 3 times bigger than GM's at the moment.

(I don't know the historical trends, to be honest, but I think that's about a mirror-image of what their relative market caps used to be)

 

[drychlick]

NO WAY

 

[trekkerguy]

I voted for one. I actualy emailed my Congressman requesting they do the bailout of the Autos.

I've owned two GM vehicles and worked on a GM lot, my family has always owned GM or Ford vehcles.
The only problem with them is peoples misconception of them. I think they get another shot.

Anyways, not here to argue anything just answering the poll.
And I didn't support the financial bailout and still don't.

Why on earth should a company with a broken business model and legacy costs be saved with OUR TAX DOLLARS???

If you're asking this I have no interest or patience to argue with you.
Just answering the poll and stating why. Julan Tru.

I voted for one. I actualy emailed my Congressman requesting they do the bailout of the Autos.

Dale Kildee wrote a letter for us.
God bless 'im.

I also signed a petition and sent a letter to GM with regards to the
specific brand that my car is. The future of that branch has been in
question within GM so yeah...

They claim they have no intention of dropping the brand however.

 

[RevDMV]

Well January should be a good month to buy a new car in North America. Almost no auto production is now scheduled for the first three weeks of the year, and manufacturers are going to be pushing to clear inventory.

 

[John Picard]

So they have no say in the companies they are giving large wads of taxpayers' cash to? Sounds like a poor deal to me.

[Union Hysteria] BUT THESE ARE GOOD PAYING UNION JOBS THAT THIS COUNTRY CAN'T AFFORD TO LOSE!!!!111111111"[/Union Hysteria]


Read this article from the December 11 edition of USA Today.

Steve Cox, who teaches finance and accounting at Indiana University-Kokomo, was surprised recently when he organized a class debate on the bailout and its opponents won easily.
Cox says most students lack sympathy for blue-collar autoworkers, an attitude he summarizes as, "You can't expect to make $65,000 for a job you can learn in a month."

I certainly feel their pain

The Durhams are a UAW family. Mike, 41, is a fourth-generation autoworker; his wife, Tina, 37, is second-generation. They met at Chrysler and now have three children. Their commute to the plant from their spacious ranch house takes three minutes. He drives a Dodge Ram pickup; she, a Dodge Durango. Both get about 12 miles a gallon. "You gotta drive what you make," Mike Durham says.
They are worried. They see people like them, with 15 years at Chrysler, taking $100,000 buyouts rather than sticking it out. "With two Chrysler incomes, money was never an issue," Tina Durham says. But now, "People say, 'You have all your eggs in one basket!' "
So, she says, "We're hoarding our money." The whole family used to eat out five times a week; now, Tina and Mike go out once a week, alone. Tina buys generic brands and has cut back on sweets and snacks. In the past, the family took several vacations; next year, they'll take one. This Christmas they plan to spend half what they spent last year.
They feel that many Americans don't understand or appreciate the auto industry and its workers. "Congress gave money to the Wall Street bankers, so why not automobile factory workers?" Tina asks. She particularly resents criticism of Detroit's big cars: "I like my Durango. I feel safe, and I need room for the kids and their equipment."

 

[Hoser]

That line of thought is stupid. Everyone in the USA should not need to have a degree to make a living wage.

And, for the last time, ( ) it's not the salaries that's hurting the auto workers. The 70$ an hour figure oft quoted includes benefits for retirees. They have a hundred or so years of retirees compared to the 10s or 20 some years that the Asian companies have. Add to that the combined health care that's been soaring like a hummingbird on speed, and anyone can see what the issues really are.

If you take away the retirees, and get what the auto makers really make, they pretty much are even with each other. Heck, I applied for Toyota a bit ago, and they made more than GM. Especially now, with the concessions the UAW already gave, GM workers start at 15 an hour. Toyota's at 20 something.

I know one of Obama's promises was to help fix health care in this country. Of course, it was Clinton's as well, and look how well that went.....but maybe now people will see how important that is.

 

[trekkerguy]

That line of thought is stupid. Everyone in the USA should not need to have a degree to make a living wage.

Exactly. The Conservatives are holding this up because these Americans are making too much money working in a factory...

How bout we cut their salary for pushing pencils at their desks.

 

[DanCPA]

How bout we cut their salary for pushing pencils at their desks.

Don't touch my paycheck!

As for Toyota paying for more than GM, the fact that GM is so beholden to the UAW and their former employees, including job-bank employees, that they have to pay less than Toyota who has significantly less obligations to retirees

 

[John Picard]

That line of thought is stupid. Everyone in the USA should not need to have a degree to make a living wage.

Exactly. The Conservatives are holding this up because these Americans are making too much money working in a factory...

How bout we cut their salary for pushing pencils at their desks.

Oh boy, the same old tired "living wage' argument, which those who preach it never can give the exact figure of "a living wage". There are people out there who live quite well on $30,000/year as well as people earning $150,000/yr and barely make it from month to month.

If you don't like where you work, LEAVE. Control your own destiny. Don't leave it up to someone else to represent *your* needs.

 

[Crash]

If you don't like where you work, LEAVE. Control your own destiny. Don't leave it up to someone else to represent *your* needs.

That's an extremely faulty argument when nearly every industry is shedding jobs.

To be perfectly frank, this thread is a fine example of the ideological grandstanding that dominates libertarian and objectionist thought, and it's an even better example of why this ideology will never be put into practice. It is un-realistic to expect specialized workers with families to re-train when the costs of education are skyrocketing. It is un-realistic to continue to remove benefits in an era where healthcare costs are through the roof and the gap between the rich and poor is growing, and then expect workers to easily adjust to a substantially lesser qualifty of life. It is un-realistic -- and undesireable -- to move the entire workforce into white collar pencil pushing positions because it fails to recognize that the abilities and talents of many individuals lie elsewhere. Finally, it is un-realistic to cede the entire automotive industry to foreign entities in an era where the next generation of vehicles will, be necessity, require new technologies and innovations to power that very industry. By allowing the US automotive industry to go under we cede the tomorrow's automotive technology to foreign companies, and with it, billions of dollars and who knows how many jobs.

As for trade unions.... Four words: Republic Window and Door.

 

[Goliath]

If you don't like where you work, LEAVE. Control your own destiny.

How does the one follow from the other?

How about this instead: if you don't like where you work, negotiate a new contract with your employer.

That sounds like taking control of your own destiny to me.

 

[trekkerguy]

That line of thought is stupid. Everyone in the USA should not need to have a degree to make a living wage.

Exactly. The Conservatives are holding this up because these Americans are making too much money working in a factory...

How bout we cut their salary for pushing pencils at their desks.

Oh boy, the same old tired "living wage' argument, which those who preach it never can give the exact figure of "a living wage". There are people out there who live quite well on $30,000/year as well as people earning $150,000/yr and barely make it from month to month.

If you don't like where you work, LEAVE. Control your own destiny. Don't leave it up to someone else to represent *your* needs.

I wasn't making any "Living wage" argument in my post.

Just that it's kind of stupid for American politicians to sit back and essentialy claim American workers are making too much.

Of course these are the same assholes who didn't want to raise a severely outdated minimum wage.

 

[Crash]

I wasn't making any "Living wage" argument in my post.

Just that it's kind of stupid for American politicians to sit back and essentialy claim American workers are making too much.

Of course these are the same assholes who didn't want to raise a severely outdated minimum wage.

What's ironic about the auto company bailouts is the the demands that the workers take a heavy pay cut. Okay, fine, but no such provision was made in relation to the $700 billion bail out for financial companies. Point in fact, little to no concessions were required for a much larger bail out plan.

What this amounts to is union busting and playing off of special interests by Southern Republicans who have a love affair with non-union plants from foreign auto companies.

 

[John Picard]

For those of you who think no one would buy a car from a company in Chapter 11.

Bankruptcy wouldn't stop shoppers from buying U.S. cars

Contrary to comments by auto brass and Congress, buyers wouldn't shun products from a U.S. automaker that filed for bankruptcy, according to a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll. General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner first brought up, in his November Senate testimony, the now oft-cited data that 80% of people would not buy a car from a company that filed. It's been a strong argument that Detroit needs government aid, not bankruptcy reorganization.
"It is one of the big contentions the auto industry has made, that people will not buy from a bankrupt company," says Aaron Bragman, an analyst at IHS Global Insight. "They have fought bankruptcy tooth and nail."
But the USA TODAY/Gallup Poll says otherwise. The survey of 1,008 adults Friday to Sunday found that 82% would at least consider a Detroit-brand vehicle. Of those, 67% would do so even if the company were in bankruptcy court. Other highlights:
•30% said they would consider only U.S. brands vs. 15% who'd look only at foreign makes.
•61% favor government aid for Detroit automakers, even if they dislike recent proposals.
•57% think all three Detroit companies — GM, Ford Motor and Chrysler — will survive.
Bragman says bankruptcy might seem less frightening. "If people are becoming more familiar with bankruptcy … there might be a slight change in how people are perceiving this."
Jack Nerad, market analyst for car-shopping site KBB.com, says concerns about warranties and parts still would dissuade buyers. "People will say they will consider a lot of things, but when it gets right down to actually putting their money on the line … it narrows pretty significantly."

 

[John Picard]

In addition to this, GM and Chrysler are once again considering a merger. Also, considering how much class Mr Bush has, he's taking great consideration into the fact that Mr Obama will inherit this, and he doesn't want Mr Obama to end up with a big mess.

White House Considers 'Orderly' Bankruptcy for Automakers

The Bush administration is seriously considering "orderly" bankruptcy as a way of dealing with the desperately ailing U.S. auto industry.White House press secretary Dana Perino said Thursday, "There's an orderly way to do bankruptcies that provides for more of a soft landing. I think that's what we would be talking about."
President George W. Bush, asked about an auto rescue plan during an appearance before a private group, said he hadn't decided what he would do.
But he, like Perino, spoke of the idea of bankruptcies organized by the federal government as a possible way to go.
"Under normal circumstances, no question bankruptcy court is the best way to work through credit and debt and restructuring," he said during a speech and question-and-answer session at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative Washington think tank. "These aren't normal circumstances. That's the problem."
The comments came a day after Chrysler LLC announced it was closing all its North American manufacturing plants for at least a month as it, General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co. await word on government action. General Motors also has been closing plants, and it and Chrysler have said they might not have enough money to pay their bills in a matter of weeks.
Prices of GM and Ford stocks were down substantially after the White House comments Thursday. Though Ford, unlike General Motors and Chrysler, is not seeking billions of dollars in federal bailout loans, a major collapse of the other two would be expected to badly damage Ford as well.

 

[RevDMV]

Walked into NUMMI today and production has stopped for the year. Not to resume until the middle of next month. Not great but better than the folks at Chrysler.

As far as the orderly, or prepackaged bankruptcy, this seems a near certainty at this point. There isn't support for a general bailout, and honestly in the current market it wouldn't do anything long term.

The biggest issue left, and probably what all the current haggling is about, is what to do about the suppliers who are left holding the bag. To continue production the manufacturers need those suppliers, but without some high level of payments or support some of them just can not survive a 25% payout(estimate of what the BK payout might be).

 

[Holdfast]

A prepackaged bankruptcy sounds a much better option to me than a bailout. At least there's a possibility of something with long-term viability emerging rather than just a company on permanent life support.

 

[TheMasterOfOrion]

US$17.4 billion in loans to help three of the nation's automobile makers - Chrysler, General Motors, and Ford - avoid bankruptcy. Incumbent President George Bush said that it was not be "a responsible course of action" to allow the companies to collapse.