Automakers: "thanks for the money, but we're laying off everyone anyway"

Uhh… wasn’t the whole reason we would want to bail them out was to avoid massive unemployment? :mad:

Couldn’t we just give the people being laid off $14 Billion? That would tide them over for a while.

I can only hope the layoffs are in their accounting staff. Those guys SUCK!

I’m all broke up.:rolleyes:

I’d say a good 20 percent of the people I talk to at the corporate level could give a shit less about you or your vehicle.

Bye, fuckers.

So, you’d prefer them to pay people to just sit around and twiddle their thumbs, while they waited for the backlog of cars to be sold? :dubious:

Chrysler, at least, is doing more than just cutting jobs.

Detriot, Michigan, January 17, 2010 (AP)

The top level of a parking garage owned by the rump Chrysler operation collapsed today under the weight of two weeks of accumulated snowfall.

Nobody was hurt. About twenty cars were declared a total loss. Among these were seven Mercedes, one BMW, four Toyotas, four Hondas, a Nisan, a Mazda and a Ford pickup.

No, it wasn’t. It’s to avoid their complete collapse.

You sound like someone who wants their cake (financially sound auto companies), but to eat it too (keep all the excess, uneccessary workers).

That’s some pretty impressive weather forecasting.

There are companies with Christmas decoration budgets so big they can cut ten grand out of 'em? Geez, we had to pitch in to buy a little tiny tree and a string of lights!

But we gave them money. That means they have to do what we expect them to do, regardless of whether or not it’s even remotely intelligent. What part of that don’t you get?

Don’t know why this moronic argument has suddenly found traction today, but it’s really pissing me off. Part of stabilizing the companies in question is cutting costs. That means layoffs. Always has. Always will. Grow up and learn to stop jerking your knees.

What do you mean by this? See this thread (to save me some typing): http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=507224

I think you’ve missed the lashings of sarcasm in Harborwolf’s first paragraph.

The left’s understanding of economics is almost embarassing.

It’s not the left or the right. It’s people’s understanding of economics. This idea that we gave the automakers money so they wouldn’t lay anyone off (ever?) is nothing more than a variation on the “customer is always right” horseshit. We’ve given them money. Now they have to do whatever we want them to do cause gol-durnit we’re paying customers. :rolleyes: Ignorance mixed with a dash of good ole american outrage.

I can understand why companies are laying people off, but in a larger sense, I don’t understand how the economy is going to recover if so many people have no job and aren’t spending money. Methinks the snake’s getting a mouthful of tail here. The stimulus will be a fart in the wind if companies keep shedding jobs.

Exactly. DIdnt I read on a link from here that many of the auto companies had employees doing nothing because there wasnt work to keep them busy but because of the jackassery of the unions couldnt be fired/laid off?

I am a big fan on getting rid of unions … I found it offensive that someone I knew back in the 70s worked at an auto plant, and was making in excess of $20 an hour for running 3 feet of cable, and clipping it in at each end … something a reasonably untrained welfare mother could do for $5.00 an hour [and would have been glad to get $2.00 over minimum wage …]ll thanks to union negotiators who seemed to think that they could make any demand and get it met with no concern for the future.

*nothing against welfare mothers in general if they are only treating welfare as a bridge between a lifechanging occurance and when they can get a new job … not using it to support them while they pop out kids like a pez dispenser.

You’re probably right about that. I retract and rescind.