Save the BIG 3 or let them fail?

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2845865
You guys have to realize that this will affect far more than the big 3 employees around here. I agree with everyone that the major problem with the big 3 is that labor costs make it difficult or impossible for them to compete with the foreign companies. They probably have to sell 2-3 times as many vehicles to bring in the same profit.
However I'm torn because I have family and friends who work for the big 3. Imagine working for GM for 15 years, buying a house, starting a family and building a life. And now people are suggesting that the only way for you to keep your job is to cut your salary in half. I feel for these people.
Not to mention that, in areas of Michigan where a large percentage of the citizens work for the auto industry, the effects of a bankruptcy (or even a merger) will destroy many of the surrounding businesses. A lot of the restaurants, bars, retail stores, etc will no longer have a clientele. Fortunately I have security in my professional position, but trust me people, if you see 1 or more of the big 3 go down, Michigan will go into its own mini-depression. And it would be a very long time before this state could recover, as it's prominent industry for the past century will have failed.
And BTW, this isn't just a gift the companies are looking for. The assistance would be in the form of loans, which would be paid back with interest. Such an investment could be profitable for the US government.
In any event, I'm waiting for my Lincoln MKS... doing my part.

Who cares Michigan has been in the dumps for a while anyways?

On a serious note, what you're describing sure sounds a lot like the economic phylosophy of a certain president (at least the opposite), what was his name. He was this actor from California. Died, recently, won a real landslide 49 states...
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2845869
The only reason I'd hate to see the Big 3 fail is because of the trickle-down affect it'll have on all their suppliers.
That is it it was reagan. Oh Yeah, what is that about bottom up growth? There are alot of people on the bottom in Michigan, it should be growing.
CONNECT THE DOTS PEOPLE
Originally Posted by LKGRenegade22

http:///forum/post/2845950
I agree, but a year ago they were trying to gouge everyone they could.
The new thing I have noticed around here at the dealerships is they will put aftermarket parts on the cars/trucks (wheels, tint, grills, etc.) add a RIDICULOUS fee (usually about twice what the parts actually cost) on for those parts and retain the stock parts. One of my friends bought a California Special Roush GT Mustang a few months back and I went with him. They had tacked on 8K in Roush parts to the sticker. I told him he should ask and get the stock stuff with the car since it came on it and they did not take any price off the aftermarket parts. He mentioned it, said he wanted his stock rims and stuff and they look lost. Said nobody had every had that request before. I was like GTFO, he's paying for the stuff in the original sticker price, it's his.
I do think that dealer practices have contributed to the problem. They are pretty much crooks. But when you roll them they get ticked off. When I got my car, (my dad worked for the bank at the time) so he went in and spoke with the loan officer. That guy explained how to worked to my dad and what they were willing to loan. Which was trade in value. The dealer also got a "finders fee of about a grand" so we went back in to negotiate. We said we aren't paying what you want us to pay this is what we are going to pay. Told him what he'd make on the car. And take it or leave it. He moaned groan screamed lied bit and scratched. Finally we started to walk. And he suddenly said well wait. Talked it over. And said ok. It was rediculous. Complete waste of my time. He should have just said, let me speak with the boss and make their decision.
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2846193
Who cares Michigan has been in the dumps for a while anyways?

On a serious note, what you're describing sure sounds a lot like the economic phylosophy of a certain president (at least the opposite), what was his name. He was this actor from California. Died, recently, won a real landslide 49 states...
That is it it was reagan. Oh Yeah, what is that about bottom up growth? There are alot of people on the bottom in Michigan, it should be growing.
CONNECT THE DOTS PEOPLE
I do think that dealer practices have contributed to the problem. They are pretty much crooks. But when you roll them they get ticked off. When I got my car, (my dad worked for the bank at the time) so he went in and spoke with the loan officer. That guy explained how to worked to my dad and what they were willing to loan. Which was trade in value. The dealer also got a "finders fee of about a grand" so we went back in to negotiate. We said we aren't paying what you want us to pay this is what we are going to pay. Told him what he'd make on the car. And take it or leave it. He moaned groan screamed lied bit and scratched. Finally we started to walk. And he suddenly said well wait. Talked it over. And said ok. It was rediculous. Complete waste of my time. He should have just said, let me speak with the boss and make their decision.
I don't have a clue what you're trying to convey. Are you trying to apply Reaganomics to this scenario somehow? It's very simple, if the Big 3 fail, all the companies that support these manufacturers will fail as well. You have companies out there that created their businesses for the sole purpose of supplying a specific product/part to the automotive manufacturer. Are you saying it's a suppliers fault that they only made car seats for GM, and they didn't diversify to make seats for some other product? The company I'm working at makes the internal wiring harenesses for a variety of Ford, Chrysler and GM models. They also make harnesses for other products (Harley, Artic Cat, Freightliner, International, Fleetwood, etc.) Unfortunately, these other 'products' only require a fourth of the demand that the Big 3 require. Do the math. Sooner or later, you only need a fourth of your employees to do the work. Proprietary suppliers like the one's that make specific parts for a vehicle don't have that luxury. They'll just shut down. That's my definition of the 'trickle-down effect'.
 

nwdyr

Active Member
nobody is "bailing" US out right? Let them file BK!!! they force us to buy junk cars and pay 30-40,000 for them , they make record profits ( the CEO's anyway) and now they DEMAND help???? OMG
what are they the MOB??? then the CEO of GM has the nerve to say "well either you save us or we file Chap.11 and you will pay one way or the other"
I would love to meet him in a elevator......scum
OK I feel better now
 

reefraff

Active Member
Letting the companies go bankrupt and out of business are 2 different things.
How many times have the airlines gone through it? They are still here.
GM would either come out of chapter 11 or Ichan would buy it up. It's not going away. Might shut down for a bit though but I really doubt it.
 

veni vidi vici

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2846221
I don't have a clue what you're trying to convey. Are you trying to apply Reaganomics to this scenario somehow? It's very simple, if the Big 3 fail, all the companies that support these manufacturers will fail as well. You have companies out there that created their businesses for the sole purpose of supplying a specific product/part to the automotive manufacturer. Are you saying it's a suppliers fault that they only made car seats for GM, and they didn't diversify to make seats for some other product? The company I'm working at makes the internal wiring harenesses for a variety of Ford, Chrysler and GM models. They also make harnesses for other products (Harley, Artic Cat, Freightliner, International, Fleetwood, etc.) Unfortunately, these other 'products' only require a fourth of the demand that the Big 3 require. Do the math. Sooner or later, you only need a fourth of your employees to do the work. Proprietary suppliers like the one's that make specific parts for a vehicle don't have that luxury. They'll just shut down. That's my definition of the 'trickle-down effect'.
Have we not yet leaned the lessons of these bailouts?They don't work and they reward bad business practices.Look at the AIG execs and there free money parties......or the BIG 3 all arriving in their private jets.

Let them fail and from the ashes we will have new life .This will be the quickest way to a better US auto industry.
But i willing to make you a little bet ,and it is this.If the US government turns them down ,i bet you they don't fold.I bet you they will wiggle out of this mess that they have created for themselves.
 

crimzy

Active Member
I'm not sure why so many people were in favor of bailing out the banks and none are in favor of assisting the auto industry? Isn't this a bit hypocritical? Of the $700 billion provided to the banks, $200 billion went to healthy, financially viable institutions to avoid a stigma.
The big 3 are requesting the $30 billion bridge loan. Did you know that the 3 million Americans employed in the domestic auto industry contribute $50 billion per year in tax revenue? And this is not even counting the suppliers who work along with the auto industry. Do we really want to lose these companies and these jobs?
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2846193
Who cares Michigan has been in the dumps for a while anyways?

On a serious note, what you're describing sure sounds a lot like the economic phylosophy of a certain president (at least the opposite), what was his name. He was this actor from California. Died, recently, won a real landslide 49 states...
That is it it was reagan. Oh Yeah, what is that about bottom up growth? There are alot of people on the bottom in Michigan, it should be growing.
CONNECT THE DOTS PEOPLE

Originally Posted by bionicarm

http:///forum/post/2846221
I don't have a clue what you're trying to convey. Are you trying to apply Reaganomics to this scenario somehow? It's very simple, if the Big 3 fail, all the companies that support these manufacturers will fail as well. You have companies out there that created their businesses for the sole purpose of supplying a specific product/part to the automotive manufacturer. Are you saying it's a suppliers fault that they only made car seats for GM, and they didn't diversify to make seats for some other product? The company I'm working at makes the internal wiring harenesses for a variety of Ford, Chrysler and GM models. They also make harnesses for other products (Harley, Artic Cat, Freightliner, International, Fleetwood, etc.) Unfortunately, these other 'products' only require a fourth of the demand that the Big 3 require. Do the math. Sooner or later, you only need a fourth of your employees to do the work. Proprietary suppliers like the one's that make specific parts for a vehicle don't have that luxury. They'll just shut down. That's my definition of the 'trickle-down effect'.
You are proving my point! Now seriously bury the names for a minute. You have just described/observed the what root of Reagan's economic policy was. The whole concept is build on this observation that you've had.
Let me ask you this, would the opposite be happening in Michigan if the auto industry was booming? Well yes.
Supply-side economics take that concept, then Reagan coupled this idea with another common sense observation. Taxes lower the profit of these companies. So it is in a financial sense government has a negative effect on these companies. When government lowers the negative effect they impose on the companies. They have better growth.
This is why the "bottom up" policy doesn't work. If the big 3 didn't exist would the bottom grow? Nope.
Does that make sense?
 

veni vidi vici

Active Member
Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2846312
I'm not sure why so many people were in favor of bailing out the banks and none are in favor of assisting the auto industry? Isn't this a bit hypocritical? Of the $700 billion provided to the banks, $200 billion went to healthy, financially viable institutions to avoid a stigma.
The big 3 are requesting the $30 billion bridge loan. Did you know that the 3 million Americans employed in the domestic auto industry contribute $50 billion per year in tax revenue? And this is not even counting the suppliers who work along with the auto industry. Do we really want to lose these companies and these jobs?
Throwing money at the problem isnt going to solve the problem it will only put us further in debt IMO.Someone mentioned the Airline Industry ,they managed to pull themselves out of the fire and so have so many other businesses.That what they are going to have to do,i do not want not one more of my hard earned dollars to go to this bailout for anyone.
I really can sympathize with the auto workers Crimzy,I'm a Union Carpenter and i haven't built a home in a long time ,i also haven't had a job with a Union company in a long while either but I'm surviving.I do what i have to do,cut spending and work hard whenever i get an opportunity to work. The UAW may or may not survive but the people will make due out of necessity. I have they will too. As for the Big 3 ,maybe when its all said and done there will only be The Big 2 or maybe The 30 Small.....who knows ,but government has no business spending my money on bailing out bank and failing businesses.
 

crimzy

Active Member
Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/2846353
Throwing money at the problem isnt going to solve the problem it will only put us further in debt IMO.Someone mentioned the Airline Industry ,they managed to pull themselves out of the fire and so have so many other businesses.That what they are going to have to do,i do not want not one more of my hard earned dollars to go to this bailout for anyone.
I really can sympathize with the auto workers Crimzy,I'm a Union Carpenter and i haven't built a home in a long time ,i also haven't had a job with a Union company in a long while either but I'm surviving.I do what i have to do,cut spending and work hard whenever i get an opportunity to work. The UAW may or may not survive but the people will make due out of necessity. I have they will too. As for the Big 3 ,maybe when its all said and done there will only be The Big 2 or maybe The 30 Small.....who knows ,but government has no business spending my money on bailing out bank and failing businesses.
I agree with you conceptually about bailouts. I was, and still am, highly critical of the bank bailouts. However I believe that most of the objection to this bailout is BECAUSE we just bailed out the banks, and not really about the auto companies at all.
Let's not forget that as the auto industry has attempted to restructure over the past couple of years, the feds have put over $100 billion worth of mandates on the industry. These mandates have contributed to the problems for the big 3.
And let's please get past the issue of the private jets. For the amount that the big 3 executives travel, it is likely much less expensive to travel via private jet than it would be to use commercial airlines every time. If you do want to object to the luxuries, however, you would be free to criticize the CEOs $28 million salaries.
 

veni vidi vici

Active Member
Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2846372
I agree with you conceptually about bailouts. I was, and still am, highly critical of the bank bailouts. However I believe that most of the objection to this bailout is BECAUSE we just bailed out the banks, and not really about the auto companies at all.
Let's not forget that as the auto industry has attempted to restructure over the past couple of years, the feds have put over $100 billion worth of mandates on the industry. These mandates have contributed to the problems for the big 3.
And let's please get past the issue of the private jets. For the amount that the big 3 executives travel, it is likely much less expensive to travel via private jet than it would be to use commercial airlines every time. If you do want to object to the luxuries, however, you would be free to criticize the CEOs $28 million salaries.

Maybe now that we have Bailed out the banks ,they can now in return loan money to the Big 3 .Its not like The Big 3 don't have any collateral.I mean for the love of GOD ,wasnt it the purpose of this bailout to get the baking system working again? I'm totally against this idea of giving out money to everyone who is crying broke. Im broke too lol
sheesh Im no economist,but wont that get cash flowing? Isnt that how it works?Bank loan money to businesses that need it and charge interest and then the business that borrowed the money pays it back over time.
 

crimzy

Active Member
Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/2846380
Maybe now that we have Bailed out the banks ,they can now in return loan money to the Big 3 .Its not like The Big 3 don't have any collateral.I mean for the love of GOD ,wasnt it the purpose of this bailout to get the baking system working again? I'm totally against this idea of giving out money to everyone who is crying broke. Im broke too lol
Couldn't agree more. The bank bailout was supposed to end the freeze on financing. However it appears that this has not happened. Meanwhile the bank execs are taking lavish trips and wasting the free money that was given to them. The type of financing needed by the big 3 is EXACTLY the reason for the bank bailout in the first place.
Now we gave a ridiculous amount of money to the banks and Washington may ignore the big 3... talk about taking care of Wall Street and turning your back on Main Street.
 

sickboy

Active Member
Originally Posted by kjr_trig
http:///forum/post/2846175
Typical Democrat response, don't hold anyone accountable right? Just throw money at it, it's Japan, Korea, and Germanys fault for making cars too good....What gives them the right

Someone needs to be held accountable.
If you havent' been paying attention much to the global news: Europe and Asian companies are asking their gov'ts for a bailout as well. Toyota is halting production for 2 full days as a start to cutting costs (this month I believe or Dec), Nissan is scaling back production, etc.
My point is that it is not just the Big 3. Yes, there is a union problem, and yes there is a problem with overcompensated executives that have no idea what they are doing, but that is not entirely to blame if other companies with superior management and cheaper labor are having the same problems.
And for those of you who think there will be a new company that will 'rise from the dust,' as someone put it, I have three words for you: Immense start-up costs. It won't happen without a subsidy. Yes its nice to believe the theory that the free market will provide a better alternative, but its just a theory in this instance.
 

veni vidi vici

Active Member
Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/2846418
And for those of you who think there will be a new company that will 'rise from the dust,' as someone put it, I have three words for you: Immense start-up costs. It won't happen without a subsidy. Yes its nice to believe the theory that the free market will provide a better alternative, but its just a theory in this instance.
I think thats the way they did it in the old days.
We used to work hard and save our money to build a business.
 

ice4ice

Active Member
Let them fail. The CEO's had the nerve to give out huge bonuses to their executives and then turn around and ask for a bailout ? Obviously your priorities aren't straight. Go ahead threaten to file Chapter 11. The jobs lost will be blamed on you - NOT CONGRESS !

[hr]
you GM, Ford, & Chrysler ! You got caught with your hands in the cookie jar now it's time for you idiots to man up and take the blame yourself ! Enough is enough !
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2846344
You are proving my point! Now seriously bury the names for a minute. You have just described/observed the what root of Reagan's economic policy was. The whole concept is build on this observation that you've had.
Let me ask you this, would the opposite be happening in Michigan if the auto industry was booming? Well yes.
Supply-side economics take that concept, then Reagan coupled this idea with another common sense observation. Taxes lower the profit of these companies. So it is in a financial sense government has a negative effect on these companies. When government lowers the negative effect they impose on the companies. They have better growth.
This is why the "bottom up" policy doesn't work. If the big 3 didn't exist would the bottom grow? Nope.
Does that make sense?

Sorry, I don't have a clue what you're talking about. Let me make it clear. I don't agree with the government bailing out the Big 3. I suggest they simply go to the banks to get the loans. The only point I'm making is if the Big 3 fail, it will affect other businesses than just theirs. If the Big 3 didn't exist, 90% of theses supplier companies wouldn't either. That's the point.
 

ice4ice

Active Member
Just saw the news conference. It appears that Congress is demending that the Big 3 come up with a plan to help themselves before bailing them out. About time somebody stood up to them.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2846438
Sorry, I don't have a clue what you're talking about. Let me make it clear. I don't agree with the government bailing out the Big 3. I suggest they simply go to the banks to get the loans. The only point I'm making is if the Big 3 fail, it will affect other businesses than just theirs. If the Big 3 didn't exist, 90% of theses supplier companies wouldn't either. That's the point.

I'm not really talking about what we need to do with the big 3. What I am talking about is that your observations are the same observations that Supply side economics uses as the basis for their economic philosophy.
IMO bailing out the big 3 will only exasterbate the problem. When your labor costs are twice that of your competitor. And you have average management then you are going to have problems. You aren't going to make it for long. By dumping money into detroit you still aren't addressing the root cause of the problem in the first place.
 

kogle

Member
Man as much as I hate to chime in on this I feel compelled. If we bail them out it's doing nothing but rewarding bad business practice. (as mentioned before in this thread) Will it have a bad effect on the already weak economy? YES. Will it be the end of life as we know it?? NO, it will be tough for a while but you know what? Life will go on. The top execs at these companies have not a clue what efficiency means. I work at Toyota and that is not the way we handle these types of issue. I can tell you I've flown to Japan many times in business class becasue it's COST EFFICIENT. Let's all say it together... Cost efficient. It's got a nice ring to it doesn't it.
The biggest problem the top three have is the unions sucking all of the life out of them. For every dollar they pay an employee they are paying the union roughly the same dollar amount. Hell cut out the unions and gain that money right away. The unions have no place in today's business. NO PLACE!!! There was a time when they were needed to make sure workers were safe and compensated fairly. Not any more. It's just excess. Toyota runs just fine as a non union company. Some of their car companies are union but not all. You know what? The workers at the non union plants have the same pay and benefits as the union plants.
Have you ever talked to most of these union employees? They act like it's their right to have that job and don't you dare ask them to sweat while they work. For every one person working 2 are standing around. You just don't see this at Toyota. Everyone is always busy yet no one complains they are overworked. It's that old adage "hard work will get you ahead"
When the market took a dive you know what Toyota did? They cancelled our Christmas party this year and we get no gifts from the companyamong many other aggresive cost reductions. Did this suck? YES, yes it did. But you know what? That's how an efficient company makes sure their employees have a job in the long run.
I guess by saying all of this I just need to say if the big three had the right mind set they could survive on their own. While it would be tough it is doable and if done correctly all of their employees could keep their jobs even in this market we are seeing today.
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2846494
I'm not really talking about what we need to do with the big 3. What I am talking about is that your observations are the same observations that Supply side economics uses as the basis for their economic philosophy.
IMO bailing out the big 3 will only exasterbate the problem. When your labor costs are twice that of your competitor. And you have average management then you are going to have problems. You aren't going to make it for long. By dumping money into detroit you still aren't addressing the root cause of the problem in the first place.
Totally agree. Nix the UAW for starters. Offer the workers the same competitive salaries Toyota and the other foreign auto manufacturers pay their workers. If the UAW yells 'strike', the Big 3 say 'go ahead'. You strike, we close permanently. You'll have no jobs to come back to. You get no benefits or seperation packages. Have a nice day. You want $15 - $20 an hour to work, or $0? Find a job in Michigan that'll pay even that. The Big 3 need to come up with a viable business plan that defines exactly what they plan to do to turn things around, and determine how long it'll take them to start making a profit again. Take this proposal to Chase, Bank Of America, or any of the other remaining banks that are liquid, and pitch it to them. If they loan you the money, you're back in business. If not, file Chapter 11 like the airlines and restructure. It's not rocket science people.
 

kjr_trig

Active Member
Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/2846418
If you havent' been paying attention much to the global news: Europe and Asian companies are asking their gov'ts for a bailout as well. Toyota is halting production for 2 full days as a start to cutting costs (this month I believe or Dec), Nissan is scaling back production, etc.
My point is that it is not just the Big 3. Yes, there is a union problem, and yes there is a problem with overcompensated executives that have no idea what they are doing, but that is not entirely to blame if other companies with superior management and cheaper labor are having the same problems.
And for those of you who think there will be a new company that will 'rise from the dust,' as someone put it, I have three words for you: Immense start-up costs. It won't happen without a subsidy. Yes its nice to believe the theory that the free market will provide a better alternative, but its just a theory in this instance.

Their numbers are down, but they are certainly not struggling like the Big 3....Toyota and Honda are in favor of the bailout in Detroit, that should tell you something.
 
Top