1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.


Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by ethics, Nov 7, 2008.

  1. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

  2. cdw

    cdw Ahhhh...the good life.

    Nope. President elect Obama says we can't do that. Please support your President and stop rocking the boat you unpatriotic bass turd you! :)
  3. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    I know, that's one minus for him.

    But this isn't really about Obama, at least not ALL of it. It's about this tendency of fear to let a giant (what used to be anyway) fail and how symbolic this would look.
  4. cdw

    cdw Ahhhh...the good life.

    Ah, I beg to differ. It's a sign and a very big sign of what is to come. Get ready for it.
    'Cause someone's going to have to pay for it and that will be all of us. Oh, wait. That wasn't the plan, was it? You think they are the only ones that are asking for and going to receive a "bail-out"? And the excuse will be, well, we had to, after all the past goverment.. blah blah blah. This is going to be one expensive ride.
  5. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Well, we will agree to disagree then.
  6. cdw

    cdw Ahhhh...the good life.

    Ok. We'll disagree. And wait for the list to just build longer and longer.
  7. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    You do that. I like to live a more positive life. :)
  8. BigDeputyDog

    BigDeputyDog Straight Shootin Admin Staff Member

    It is rumored that Studebaker is going to ask for a bail out too... ;)

    BDD... :{)
  9. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

  10. Coot

    Coot Passed Away January 7, 2010

    That would be so cool, I could get a brand new Golden Hawk. :happy:
  11. cdw

    cdw Ahhhh...the good life.

    Nicely spoken from the sky is falling man. :)
  12. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    That's right, and if you are more negative than me, what does that make you? Shrill? ;)
  13. cdw

    cdw Ahhhh...the good life.

    I'm not being negative at all. Just realistic. You won't see me crying if Ford or GM fail. I don't work for them. :) You won't see me crying if they bail 'em out either. I'll be happy that people will remain in work. And the long list of bail outs to come? Well, it will help me with my reading skills. Silver lining, babe. :)
  14. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Sweetheart, you lost the train of thought by being negative on Obama because that's what you were talking about building a list on, right? Try and keep up to the thread and the topic and don't go strayin' now. ;)
  15. cdw

    cdw Ahhhh...the good life.

    Uh, cutie... It's you who took it as a negative. I said nothing negative about Obama. At all, what so ever. I'm sorry you disagree with the president elect's stance on bail outs but I didn't say a negative thing about it.
    Your assumption that it is fear is just that, an assumption. Some of it has to do with pay backs, unions, employment. There's big money in them there big businesses and a lot of that money found it's way into the coffers of those in congress and the oval office who are going to make damned sure they don't go down. It's not the first time they got bailed out and it won't be the last.
    You see it as negative. Ooops.
  16. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Oops, my apologies then. I thought you viewed them (bailouts as negative) as do I.

    *I* see it as an Obama negative. Gotta pick and choose who NEEDS to be bailed out and who needs to be culled for a shitty business practice and a crappy product.
  17. MNeedham73

    MNeedham73 Well-Known Member

    Obama won't let Ford, GM, or Chrysler go under. Not deliberately anyway. He's a big union supporter and won't let the UAW tank along with the big three.

    Heh, you think the unemployment rate is bad now? It would jump big time if Ford and/or GM went under. I can't find the article now, but I read recently that if Ford & GM went under, something like 300,000-400,000 jobs would be lost between the companies themselves and all of their various suppliers.

    Not to mention that Michigan and many towns in it would probably go bankrupt.
  18. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Mike, the unemployment rate is now 6.5%. We lost 1.2 million jobs this year alone. Many predict that the rate will go up to about 8.5% which means about 2.5 million ADDITIONAL jobs will be lost. 300-400K is nothing to sneeze at but it's not the end of the world in the proper context.
  19. damonlab

    damonlab Veteran Member

  20. Advocat

    Advocat Viral Memes a Speciality Staff Member

    People keep forgetting that besides the direct job loss, you have parts/feeder plants whose primary business is with GM, Ford or Chrysler, so they go under too.

    While it's true quite a few feeder companies supply one or two of the other auto manufacturers... if GM is their primary customer, they still go down if that company does. That means they're not supplying Ford, Chrysler or Toyota, who then have their own ability to supply vehicles affected. And, except for small, unimportant parts, you don't just call up a new supplier and have them start delivering custom-designed parts the next day. Or week. Or month. In many cases, entire machining systems have to be designed, built, delivered and installed.

    Then there's the "neighbourhood footprint"... the jobs lost in a community when people lose good paying jobs. Sales people, stores, entertainment places, etc. Most of the studies I've seen make the loss to be ten service jobs for every high-paying job lost, and one small private business (store, etc.) for every 5-10 jobs lost.

    I've been scanning the news the last few days, and estimates for combined job losses from all the above should one of the Big Three go down runs between 1.2 to 5 million in the US (a WSJ article I read put it at 3 million)... multiply that by the number of the Big Three going bankrupt, and you have a considerable impact on the national economy, with other car manufacturers and small local factories being directly effected.

    I'm not going to argue that the Big Three should just be handed money; it should be a loan, there should be guarantees of consolidation and/or effective business practices (which have certainly been lacking), with oversight; there should be a guarantee of profit for the public; and certainly, I think everyone agrees union contracts need to be re-negotiated to fit the new environment. BTW, that includes union workers, who would very much like to keep their jobs.

    The point being, if one of the B3 goes down, the ripples are going to drown a lot of people.

    As one analyst said, the Big Three were raking money in hand-over-fist for years. The unions, unsurprisingly upon seeing this, demanded a piece of the pie for workers. The Big Three agreed because 1) they were raking in money hand-over-fist and 2) they expected the party to last forever; so did the union. But then, so did Wall Street and the folks who put together today's mortgage mess.

    FYI, the info I have is that all union labour costs comprise 7-8% of the price of a car, making that about $1500 on a $20k car, and $4500 on a $60,000 vehicle. If you cut those costs in half, you're still not going to save a company who business practices have been shoddy. FYI, advertising costs per vehicle are in the 15-25% range.
    1 person likes this.

Share This Page