We're the big three, we don't need to compete

[lhopp77]

In all fairness, I think you should consider that it is ONLY the 2 that are in trouble. Ford is on sound footing financially as well as producing cars on par in quality with any of the Japanese companies.

Lee

[Green1995SVX]

Originally Posted by lhopp77

In all fairness, I think you should consider that it is ONLY the 2 that are in trouble. Ford is on sound footing financially as well as producing cars on par in quality with any of the Japanese companies.

Lee

+123456789

[92snowmachine]

if ford is on solid ground then why did they take money from the fed? they were just as broke as the others but were much more sly about not letting anyone know. they build the same pieces of junk they always have. hell newer focuses don't even have an air filter. how long do they expect that car to run? just until you forget they build crappy cars and are ready for another.

[Sean486]

Originally Posted by 92snowmachine

if ford is on solid ground then why did they take money from the fed?

To my knowledge they didn't take money from the feds.

[NikFu S.]

Originally Posted by LetItSnow

This is why that attitude is totally ridiculous:
"...the total number of Big Three employees, parts-supplier employees and car-dealer employees comes to 1.59 million."

1.59 million out of work, requiring some sort of survival finances, probably purchasing next to nothing.

"Add the multiplier effect of other jobs dependent on these jobs for their own existence -- in construction, retail, restaurants, and so on -- and you've easily exceeded 3 million jobs, perhaps 4 million."

How does that affect your standard of living, between inevitably increased taxes and loss of income to your employer, possibly costing you your pay, or even your job?

If you'd let 'em sink, you'd get sucked down the whirlpool, too.

You're (arguing from a slippery-slope) talking about artificially sustaining a decaying/unsustainable system just because of a temporary job loss. What does it matter if its 1000 people or a million.
Unemployment rates in this country are already ludicrous but the problem isn't from lack of growth, its from profit siphoning to people who get paid too much to do nothing, or worse figure out new ways to extort money from (idiotic/lazy/ignorant/underpaid/naive) consumers.

Auto companies should be penalized for their stagnation-inducing business models.

There is too much emphasis on production, not enough on quality or progress (towards more sustainable/affordable energy sources perhaps?). Detroit itself is a symbol of the rapid decay eroding at the "profits first, image second, customers last" business model. My family is from Detroit and I can attest to the state of utter ruin that has become of it, yet in the name of keeping things the same because progress is too costly, what does Chrysler do, they make a commercial for another **** car that apparently you don't even have to own to love it because it is so damn great and this makes up for the economic devastation of a city that relied too heavily on auto manufacturing in the first place so let's all just forget **** has already hit the fan, solidified, and grown mold all over the ventilation system because hey! There's another car now! And it's from Chrysler! Whoop-de-****in' doo.

For one thing, a company does not have to completely dissolve itself if it "fails", and for another thing, if one car company fails the probability of the remaining ones failing is reduced because they will absorb the left over business in addition to the previously-stated potential for asset acquisition! Starting your point from a scenario of all 3 "TBTF" companies failing at the same time is unnecessary and a barefaced attempt at massaging your point into the direction you want it to go.

So what about the people who are let go from the company? What do you care? Probably about as much as the executives. Why not a redistribution of wealth? Generous severance packages? Oh, the companies can't afford severance? You think that's because the executives maybe soaked up all the cash for themselves, and therefore deserve to get shafted?
Ex-employees can apply for unemployment just like everyone else. It's not a strain on the system, at least not any more than a friggin' multi-billion dollar bailout for a company that will likely not be able to sustain itself without an extreme morality make-over (and hopefully not from the Xtian fundies). The money is just coined out of thin air anyway.

So businesses in the immediate areas of the closed plants "suffer" for a while due to reduced (though likely not nonexistent) business before resources are reallocated. Isn't that better than continuing on the current path, or do you have some stake in maintaining mediocre industry standards?

How about we set a precedent for quality? If businesses know they will get saved by Big Brother when they fall off their bike of course they are going to keep riding in the sand. When companies are allowed to fail and proven to be inessential in the big scheme of things perhaps their egos will deflate a bit and we can expect more reliable products and less celebrity-faced media chicanery.

[92snowmachine]

According to the data, from October 2008 through June 2009 the fed bought $45.1 billion in commercial paper from the credit arms of four automakers - Ford, BMW, Chrysler and Toyota - along with GMAC (the former General Motors credit arm). Of those, Ford sold the most, with $15.9 billion.

The Fed also lent $13 billion to investors who bought bonds backed by loans to new car buyers from automakers and banks. The Fed made clear that while investors got the loans, the move was meant to keep the lenders in business; the credit arms of Ford, Chrysler, Nissan, Volkswagen, Honda and Hyundai all benefited directly.

Ford spokeswoman Christin Baker said the two programs "addressed systemic failure in the credit markets, and that neither program was designed for a particular company, or even a particular industry." Ford Credit has disclosed through SEC filings and conference calls with media and investors that it was taking part in both programs.

-from previously linked article

[LetItSnow]

Thank you for linking slippery slope, in case your audience and I are struggling to keep up with you.

I've spent eleven years in the auto industry. The facility I worked for peaked at 3,000 employees and is now down to a few hundred, at least until next month when they lock the doors. I'd love for you to show me where these machine operators and engineers are going to work, even in the next ten years, in a two county radius.

You don't need to preach production, quality and progress to me. I quite literally worked from the front to the back of the plant and was familiar with the product from cradle to grave. I saw the facility sell twice, and I know why it bled and why it failed.

I think your anticipation of an influx of manufacturing jobs re-employing a notable number of former workers is somewhat unrealistic. I'm also impressed with your ability to play down the influence that a closing plant influences its immediate area. How long until Detroit's local business comeback? It's kind of mysterious how you can talk about Detroit and temporary setbacks together.

Do some quick math and sort out how much it would cost in the increase in jobless population, compounded by the income loss's influence on the region and the resultant second increase in the jobless population. Figure on the difference between unemployment payout and taxes on those employees' income.

Industry is not as resilient as you play it up to be. I hope it doesn't take a rude awakening for you to realize it.