http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081203/bs_nm/us_usa_economy_employment_adp Another 250,000 jobs lost last month. this economy is a mess. We do not need to add the big 3 to that.
Just to be clear, it should be mentioned that this is satire…
I wish I could find the cite. I read that for every 1 person who works in an auto factory, there are 7.5 people who make supplies, parts, and other things that indirectly keep the auto industry going. If Tuckerfan is right, and I believe he is, the unemployment rate would syrocket. Of course that leads to no one having money to buy anything, furhter slowing down the consumer market, blah, blah… we’ve all heard the rest. Oh yeah, and that much less tax money coming into the government.
Personally, helping out the Big 3 is more preferable to me than the bailout was.
As long as we’re on different perspectives on the matter (thanks Xtisme), he’re an interesting take I found in this NRO article a couple of months ago:
I do know that part of what’s been killing the big 3 is that it takes 3 years to bring a new auto to market, only a fraction of this is the time it takes to retool the plants, most of it is the bureaucratic nightmare of dealing with the regulatory boards of the Feds and the 50 states. If they could bring existing, high mileage European models to the U.S. without being required to redesign the whole damn car from the wheels up, it would give them quick access to cars that are well built, smartly designed and completely competitive with the imports (aside from the roughly $2000/car hole the big 3 are stuck in because of lavish union contracts from the past). Does anyone here really think that cars sold in Western Europe are actually less safe than those sold in the U.S.?
I have to (reluctantly) agree. My initial response was “fuck 'em, that’s capitalism”, but the arguments presented in this thread and in the articles, commentary, etc. I’ve seen elsewhere convinced me that keeping the Big 3 afloat may be a necessary evil.
I think there should be tight restrictions on the money, and a detailed plan by each of the automakers for what they will be doing with the cash, tho. I also think there should be a lot more transparency, huge reforms with regard to executive pay and compensations, and an agreement about what will happen if an automaker fails to turn their business around and start showing a profit.
In other words, it shouldn’t be like the banking bailout.
For what it’s worth, CNN is reporting that 61% of Americans oppose bailing out the auto makers.
Not that our opinion mattered when it came to the banking bailout…
It takes 2 years to retool a plant if you’re going from making pick ups to cars, for example. Year to year design changes are quicker, depending upon the manufacturer. Honda holds the record with it taking them something like 24 hours, while the Big Three come in at over a week.
Nor do car makers have to do a complete redesign to import their cars. It all depends upon what the results of the government testing are. If, for example, the cars don’t have side impact door beams, then they can install those with minor modifications.
All that being said, many of the European regulations are cribbed from the US rules and regulations, so the dangers posed by those cars are minimal.
They believe that because they have been lead to believe it by and large. Look at the focus on the executives flying in on private jets. Consider how that image has shaped public perception. I find it kind of funny where that emphasis came from…and who is pushing for the bailout (and who isn’t). I think some of the folks (in power) who are showing reluctance are being less than honest with the public about their resistance…or their motives for their resistance. I think some parties are looking to take advantage of the situation to try and squeeze more out of the Big 3, control wise. I find this kind of comment telling (and a touch ironic):
So…we need to bail these guys out because if we don’t it’s going to be bad. Our (collective) motives would be, therefore, our own best interests. But…if we, the people, are going to bail these guys out, they need be even more our collective puppets…because we, the people, are SUCH good stewards of our own collective good. WE can certainly run their business better than they can. Oh…and all it will take to make things work is for those fat cat executive types to take pay cuts, because that’s where the problem is. And stop riding private jets and such. If they did THAT…well, everything would be biscuits and gravy!
If it’s in our best interest to save the Big 3 because we CAN’T let them fail, then putting a bunch of conditions on the deal (especially conditions that will probably make an already bad situation worse) is kind of hypocritical. After all, our motivation is basically our own self interest. If it’s not really in our collective best interests…well, let em succeed or fail on their own. Perhaps it’s time for US flagged companies to finally get completely out of the manufacturing business and do something else.
Personally, I think we should take our lumps and let them succeed or fail…and take whatever comes. If that means a lot of people out of work, so be it. I say this as someone who lost my job in the LAST bubble bust…and as someone who worked for a series of companies who weren’t give the option of a bail out to save their necks.
-XT
Weirddave, the Euro regulations for autos are sometimes more strict, sometimes less strict than the U.S. For example, Europe did not require catalytic converters until the mid-80’s, ten years after the U.S. had. But, when they did require them, the allowed metals for the converter were different.
Accepting Euro regulated cars would have made a lot of very nice, fast Euro cars available to me, but since the U.S. consumes so many vehicles, I don’t think that we should allow the originating country to determine the emissions standards. The emssions of early 80’s Porsches, BMWs, and Mercedes would do a lot more damage in the numbers they are consumed at in Los Angeles than in the numbers they are consumed in say, Berlin.
So global standards for safety and emissions would make some sense then?
I almost stuck the line “except emissions” in my previous post, I thought I had, yet somehow I didn’t. In any event, emissions are a minor consideration.
This is completely and utterly false. GM and Ford make fuel efficient vehicles overseas because people WANT them overseas. They (or any other car maker for that matter) don’t make them in the US because Americans don’t want them and never have.
I didn’t read the rest of it because the entire premise is bullshit.
Huh? What universe do you live in? The gas crunch caught the big 3 overstocked on and geared up to produce large, less fuel efficient cars. Demand very quickly shifted to smaller, more fuel efficient cars which they couldn’t provide, but that foreign car companies could.
If you have specific problems with my post, it’s considered proper form in GD to list them and rebut them. “I didn’t bother to read it” isn’t a real strong debating position.
What evidence do you have to support this assertion? I’m sure the Japanese and European car makers would love to see it, because that would mean they could start selling their fuel efficient Japanese/European models in North America instead of manufacturing gas guzzlers specifically for US consumption, as they do now.
I didn’t mean your entire post was bullshit. Sorry. I was referring specifically to wherever you got that quote from.
Kinda. You can’t legislate the spark that leads to a new idea, but you can strongly motivate it to happen.
inb4 market distortion.
When the market makes us so dependent on a single commodity supplied by a monopoly like OPEC to support economy wreaking prices of $4.40 a gallon then it needs some fixing.
The Big 3, but to exceedingly varying extents, want a bailout to protect their incompetence. The Union is a huge monkey on their back, but that’s only half the issue. The other half is that, while they certainly can make a product Americans want, they have a really bad habit of not doing so. Their marketing teams must be completely crazy.
Or, more accurately, I suspect the top management is interfering too much. GM is the worst, and its head honchos have a really, really bad habit of mesing with things they frankly shouldn’t even be in the same state as. The CEO can set the direciton for the company and decide how it will be run and do business, but when he starts getting down to deciding what kinds of vehicles and what styles and sizes it will offer, things are bad. He can’t make those decisions well, because he can’t possibly figure it out. It usually takes sales, marketing, engineering, operations, and maybe supply teams to work this out, and GM definitely does not seem to be doing this. From what I’ve heard, the veeps get together and mandate changes, but of course they’re much too high-up (as in, no contact w/ the lower levels) to really work it, and then they go back to their little fortresses and don’t talk. Not good.
They don’t understand that the fundamental business has changed, and they need to change with it. They may have to drop several lines, or spin them off. And they need to have each line get back and make a distinctive product. No one wants an expensive car which is just like a cheap, crappy car, but with leather. The expensive car needs to be better, and have better quality, and maybe a little more style.
Here are fleet mileage numbers and recent sales losses/gains by fleet. Plus it’s not like Toyota and Honda were doing too badly even before the oil price run up.
As someone buying cars during the oil embargo, the reason for the increased sales of the imports was not just MPG. Once people started buying them, or knew people who did, they realized that the Japanese quality was a lot better than Detroit quality. Detroit was still on the buy a car every two years model. Detroit has gotten its act together, but they have only themselves to blame for making junk for decades.
Again, that is not true. Car sales are down hugely for not only the Big 3, but also Toyota and Honda.
It’s not the GM is making cars that nobody wants, its that nobody wants new cars period, because the economy is in the shitter.
People here like to project their own preferences on America, or even the world as a whole, but it doesn’t make it true. Like it or not, GM sells a HUGE number of cars everywhere in the world. They are NOT incompetent in the sales department. THey are incompetent in the labor department.
According to the news story I heard this morning, GMs Saab division hasn’t made a profit in all the years GMs owned it.
The head of the dealership was just on. He said one dealer complained that 30 potential buyers came in trying to get cars. Their financing was rejected due to the freezing of loans. He said last year all would have been easily approved. So sales drops are not just due to a perceived worse product, but is much due to the terrible problems the banks and financial institutions caused.