The latest news on the economic front is the proposed bailout of the "big three" automakers....GM, Ford, and Chrysler. Democrats led by Reid and Pelosi can't wait to start writing the bailout checks. This is funny because usually democrats want to take money away from businesses, and now they want to lead in the handouts. However, this in no doubt a way to appease unions whom they give all sorts of promises during election time.
Although many Republicans are still following the heels of their liberal heros on this, some finally are standing up and saying these bailouts are becoming too common and too expensive. I think Americans are getting tired of this nonsense as well, as the auto companies have been another industry which just can't seem to get their act together. Of course nobody wants to see jobs lost, but maybe it's time to consider letting these businesses go.
*sigh* More bailouts? Isn't this pouring money over everything going to result in some horrible inflation or something?
~Zoo
I can see both sides of the debate on this one and can't honestly say I know which is better.
On the one hand I think government bailouts of private businesses are inherently wrong and artificially propping up failing businesses without major changes in the way those businesses are managed is just prolonging the agony.
On the other hand there are a LOT of jobs at stake. Not just the people employed by those companies, but the thousands upon thousands of other people who work for other companies that support those companies as well as the thousands of truckers who transport parts, materials, and finished products for theose companies and those that support those companies. That's a huge number of people out of work and a serious impact on our overall economy.
I tend to look at the middle for a real solution. Help them out, but on condition of major changes that will make them viable again.
I say get rid of the union for they helped alot to drive up costs of making the autos to the point that for the car is costed to much
Unions have actually caused jobs to be lost in this area. A nearby plant was having trouble, and made an offer to the workers: if you guys take a cut, we'll take a cut, and we can muddle on through the downturn together. The union outright refused, and as a result the company started shipping the equipment to Mexico while the workers were still picketing, so that they could afford to stay in business.
The Democrats are more concerned with bailing out their beloved UAW thugs than saving the auto industry. Let the auto makers file Ch11, reorganize and boot the bloodsucking UAW. It doesn't seem like throwing money at the problem would do much anyway when they roll out new lines of Hummers and Escalades.
I say they should let them close. Americans make terrible cars. Only Ford has halfway decent models, and even then that's mostly from their European outfits.
Let them go and then everyone can enjoy the benefits of good, reliable Asian and Euro cars.
See i have been on both union and non union jobs and even gone though a strike myself. it took time for our union leaders and alot of the workers to get it though thier heads that the company was not going to back down...almost a year in fact.
Most times union does not care about the company and the health of it. If there is one I like to know who it is. Most want better health care with little cost to the worker.... that would be fine except that health care cost the company a ton per employee.... the worker only pays such a small % of the cost anyways. Then they always want more money for workers....
the last company i worked for that was union, pretty much said okay... we will pay you but there is a pay freeze once you hit a certain amount. and you know what its been in place for 6 years now.
The problem is not that the auto makers CANT make good cars.... Look at the SUVs. They lived off those cars for god knows how long. So it IS possible for them to make cars that people want. The issue is that the overhead to make those cars with the same bells and whistles are so high compaired to the Japs cars that it just didnt or dont make sense . Overhead on such forgien cars adds only a few hunderd to the sticker price.... where a GM or ford car has to have thousands added to the sticker to cover cost. So when you look at the same budget car from both of course your going to go with the cheaper one.
Seriously cacto, why the need to insult something American when most here are agreeing with you and happen to be Americans? Your comment could have gone without the need to say we suck at making cars. Then you wonder why some here come down hard on you when in a debate.
I think US cars are good. I have a chevy mali and happy with it... the problem is that parts cost alot. I also own a Priz and even with the toyota engine she is made in the US too... so americans CAN build good cars.... the problem is the price
My opinion on this issue is that the automakers should declare chapter 11 and start restructuring their business plans. One area that definitely needs to be restructured in the union contract, the current one needs to be scapped so that the business can survive. Once the automakers have restructured (including pay cuts for their execs as well as workers) then we can talk about the government giving them a loan to allow the automakers to survive the bankruptcy and hopefully come out on the other end a successful business. Throwing money at the current business plans is only going to delay the inevitable not fix the problem.
someone posted this on another fourm and ill share its really eye opening:
Labor cost per hour, wages and benefits for hourly workers, 2006.
Ford: $70.51 ($141,020 per year)
GM: $73.26 ($146,520 per year)
Chrysler: $75.86 ($151,720 per year)
Toyota, Honda, Nissan (in U.S.): $48.00 ($96,000 per year)
According to AAUP and IES, the average annual compensation for a college professor in 2006 was $92,973 (average salary nationally of $73,207 + 27% benefits).
geeeee i wonder where the problem is
Agreed, I just saw it the other day on the news. GM has to add $1500 average to the cost of each it's cars, for pensions in the US. Toyota adds $100 dollars to the price of the car for pensions in the US. Now I like most Americans think pensions are a good thing, but without actually seeing for myself what they offered, are they too generous? I'm not qualified to answer. I do feel that first thing that needs to be fixed is the huge corporate salaries and perks, many of whom get life long benefits for just a few years of "work". I think smart folks should be paid for their work, but it should be fair. Too many suits, getting too much cash, at the expense of the company. They and the unions need to take a good hard look at the greed factor that both are capable of.
Now imagine a pension that pays just 50 percent of your pay.....sweet. Most people wouldn't earn that at a full time job.
So, it's screw the 2 million plus spinoff jobs just to kill UAW, eh? Most of us wouldn't know what the middle class was without the dedication of unions.
I don't think anyone here is denying the importance that unions had to creating decent working environments and livable wages in this country. The problem is that some unions today are actually killing businesses and how exactly does that help the employees? If GM goes out of business is that going to help the workers? No, but is that any reason for the government to step in and give large sums of money to GM just to keep them afloat? No.
The unions need to start realizing that sometimes the way to fight for their members is by offering up salary cuts or benefit cuts so that the business can remain in business. I doubt the employees involved would be too happy if their employer went belly up all of the sudden when they could have done something to prevent it. That doesn't mean that the executives shouldn't start making some sacrifices as well (they most certainly should) but in these economic times everyone needs to help out to weather the storm.
Pftttt yeah I wouldnt mind if the unions actually cared besides lining pockets. Why cant auto maker unions do what the airline unions do? if the company is in trouble...hey lets cut back a bit so we all can keep the jobs, I mean after all... who needs a woody after work right? Its not a need.
Plus how long ago was the last "loan"...thats what 2 or so months ago? And they are asking for more? and where will they be 2 or 3 months from now? thats right in the same fricken situation that they are in now and was 3 month ago
exactly what ive been saying. I was talking somewhere else about this also... and me being in all 3 situations myself ( union, scab ( I NEEDED to work.) and non union ) so I have seen the best and the worst of all 3.
I have seen my last union memebers agree to take a cut on pay ( at least a cap on the pay scale with some bonues per year + cost of living increases ) give a bit in the health area... just to make it competitive. We also looked out for the new hires by raising the starting wage along with the ability to get bigger rasies till they get to the cap.
It can be done. We didnt like it, but we also understood the health of our plant depended on what we did . It was either do that OR watch our jobs get shipped off down south where it could be done cheaper. Pick your poison and I am sorry working and getting that paycheck with job security was much more important than wishing to get more money and ride the wave and HOPE our job was safe.
Unions were good when they were needed but they also have to change the thinking or else they too will be belly up. they are hurting workers more than they are helping in most cases
You shouldn't bail out companies. If a company is performing so poorly it can't make any money, WHY would you want to keep it going? Let it go under, and have a more efficient company take it's place. Or in the case of a sector, let it fail, and have people+funds move to more productive areas where money can actually be made. The obsession with the short term 'must protect jobs' attitude is it's far more costly long-term. As a general rule a bail out is the wrong choice - you need some pretty exceptional circumstances for it to be justified (and even then it'd be debatable).
Unions currently are generally a bad thing. We've got the basic necessities such as laws ensuring workers can work in a safe environment now, meaning unions typically end up forcing up wage costs, and making them far less flexible (by making it incredibly hard for a company to cut wage costs). What does this mean? Increased demand for jobs, decreased supply of them, = higher unemployment. Sure, let's impose severe financial difficulty on some people just to line the pockets of the already decently paid a little bit more, that's fair!
Couldn't expect less of a half-baked comment from you steven. The unions where good at one point in time, no one is denying that (geesh, what does it take to get people to understand this?), what they are saying is that unions have deviated from their purpose of helping people into helping themselves and crushing companies in the process. Ever heard of "too much of a good thing is bad for you"?
I have to agree with El-Duderino (again). The Big 3 are not going to disappear (much to the chagrin of the chicken littles screaming about after market parts - which is a way the Big 3 has gotten around fat Union contracts - so arguing for the Aftermaker and crying poor mouth for the unions is indeed speaking out of both sides of your mouth). But they do need to start responding to consumers instead of dictating to them.
Let them file chapter 11. They will strip down and come back stronger. They still have a lot of good assets, but a lot of junk too, and with any luck, they will know what to strip and what to keep.
Exactly. A woefully inefficient business doesn't deserve to be in the marketplace. Don't forget that Japanese automakers offer fantastic benefits too, but they manage to deliver better engineered cars at a lower cost than most American car makers.
A government handout culture is to blame for the abysmal US car making industry more than the unions. If the car industry was told they were never going to get another handout, special consideration or tax break, we'd see a lot of lost jobs, sure. But the good shops would become vastly more efficient as a result due to the decline in protectionism. A side effect might be a decline in the unions (as they drive any industry they touch into financial disaster, people will stop joining the toxic unions). But union militancy is not the main cause.
Your mum goes down hard on me in a debate.
I thought that the Japanese government subsidizes the auto industry, and that's why they can make less expensive cars?
As a native Michigander, I'm worried about what the ripple effects will be if any of the Big 3 have to shut down, but I don't think that propping them up is going to help for long.
It will only delay the inevitable. GM got a 25 billion dollar loan a couple of months ago which they have burned through and now they want another one. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results, I think that applies here.
I think they might have I forgot the link to the story but it was recently where i read that the Japs bailed out some guys and they are still paying for it now. In a way its happening here and I am sure the same results will happen. If you dont learn then well... yeah
I feel for you and I understand your fear. I also am in fear too because this means even MORE people in the job market which is shrinking with me being a temp its already hard enough to think about the ripples from this, But I know its gonna be more than a ripple but instead a sunami.
Like I said without any change and instead a bail out this is going to repeat again and again...
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
