Apples and oranges.....try again...

 

I'm willing to loose my job (which I likely would if GM goes under) if it means my country does the right thing (which is no bailouts of failed companies)...are you willing to do the same?

 

That's easy to say when you don't have any control over the situation.

How about saying "I'll quit my job if the country does the wrong (in your opinion) thing..." ?

 

This is nothing new though. Go back 35 years when most of the Japanese and European compacts were entering the North American market and people began buying them over the following years because of the rising costs of fuel. Back then GM, Ford and Chrysler should have dove into the fuel efficient small car market. Instead, they stuck their big toe in and tested the waters. The foreign automakers then became experts in fuel efficient small cars, while Detroit dabbled in them but maintained the status quo by improving efficiency in their big cars and light trucks. Why, because that's what the North American buyers wanted. And while fuel prices did rise, it was nowhere near what happened in Europe and Japan, where only a few people can afford big cars and the majority want something small peppy and with good gas mileage.

As bad as fuel prices have got here in North America, it has never been enough to drive buyers into smaller cars like it has been overseas. And thus, there really hasn't been the desire for Detroit to ever consider investing their R&D dollars there until now. Even today the economic crisis has dropped fuel prices down enough that people are no longer panic buying small cars to save a few bucks. If we really want to help the industry, we should artificially drive up the price of fuel to help drive the demand for fuel efficient small cars. We could do this by creating a national gas tax and using a portion of the money generated to finance R&D for Detroit to develop fuel efficient small cars. It would need to be significant enough to drive the issue, so we're talking somewhere on the magnitude of $1 a gallon, or more.

Sure GM et al were not forward thinking enough to foresee the downfall of large cars, SUVs and trucks, but you can't blame current management when this has been an industry problem going back for almost 40 years.

 

Apples and oranges? Maybe...but more like opposite sides of the coin.

The Japanese style of business (you did look up the word didn't you?) is what many credit with the imports success; of course that's true only if you ignore every other factor that has played a part (such as building high-quality, dependable cars at reasonable prices that people wanted).

GM has had over 50 years to compete with Japanese imports yet it and its bedmate, the UAW, instead chose to try to protect/preserve rather than actually compete.

The only problem with citing the UAW is that it's difficult to know who really should get the lion's share of the blame; the UAW who continued to make unreasonable and unsustainable demands on the domestic manufacturers or the gutless, cowardly management who gave into those demands.

 

One other thing I think that killed GM...is they have divested a lot of diversified assets. At one point it was a concern that they would stop building cars because they had so many non auto related assets like DirectTV and many of Hughes old companies. As the auto business declined the sold them for cash. However now...it sure would be nice for GM to have some business not related to autos to help weather the storm. Kind of in the same mold as USSteel which owns companies like Marathon Oil.

 

I've tried to bring this up, but people here just like to dismiss this whole arguement. I said it earlier in the thread (once again not replied to ), and I'll say it again . . . the time for unions has come and gone. They served their purpose back in the day, but it is time for this archaic practice to be put to bed.

 

No I'm not. I like and NEED my job.

 

While you might be gracious enough to fall on your sword..the vast majority of you coworkers in the indusrty would not be.

The way I see it...is this a democracy, and we have elected representatives in Washington. If they decide to vote and pass funding to bail out Detroit, then the people have decided what is "right".

Lastly, I think it is wrong to get on a high horse and preech about not helping a company that failed when this country does it in several other instances. Welfare? Unemployment? Social Security? I don't understand how it is okay to not give GM aid to prevent millions of people from loosing their jobs....yet it is okay to give the people government benefits like unemployment when they are laid off from being part of the resulting failure.

 

Even if it meant 20% unemployment nationwide, a ripple effect that would take out major retailers and many small businesses, higher taxes on those left working to make up for lost revenue from those out of work. Billions spent on unemployment and health care for those out of work.

 

I couldn't disagree more. I am management and work in a union "shop". While dealing with 5 separate unions can be a PITA, it does act like a form of checks and balances that assures we maintain fair business practices. Yes it has effected my personal income and my salary would be much greater if it wasn't for the unions. (Here middle management's annual salary increase matches labors.) However, we'd be much worse off it they did not exist. That's not to say that things are the same in other industries, its just to point out that making a blanket statement that all unions should be abolished is preposterous.

 

Easy to say...you think someone nearing retirement age and holding a 401(K) worth half of what it was worth a year ago finds it easy to face unemployment?

Is that really what you think?

Taken another way, I guess you are saying that because I don't control the situation I'm somehow less qualified to speak my mind than those who are trying to protect their jobs (or save their favorite car company for equally selfish reasons) and have an equal lack of control?

 

Actually, it's the constitution that decides what is "right", not the President, not the Congress, not the President-elect.

You won't hear me supporting welfare, or Social (in)Security either; unemployment is at least partially paid for by employers/employees and is (ostensibly) a temporary entitlement.

 

This is the internet remember?

 

Who's saying that the existence/oversight/administration of some of the "socialist" programs you mentioned above is right?......Don't even get me started.....