Automakers plead for bailout

[theguilt engine]

This bailout idea for the automakers is scary. I don't know what they should do

If automakers file for bankruptcy it would shed retirees pension costs and force the government to pick up the tab. On the same note, if one or more of the companies go under the government would be on the gook for unemployment benefits, retraining and pension obligations, while receiving less in taxes.

Great, then more taxes will be thrown at us. What a mess.

[theguilt engine]

They should probably go into Chapter 11 .. start fresh so that if they do encounter layoffs, it would more like tens of thousands (versus 1 million) and it would be over a long period of time.

[Burn That Shit]

Why does the general public always clean up the messes these corporations create? It has to stop somewhere.

[theguilt engine]

Ridiculous.

Critics say Detroit created its own problems by relying too much on trucks and SUVs and cite a healthier foreign auto industry operating mostly in Southern states that isn't seeking a taxpayer bailout. But even Toyota said this weekend that it fears the impact on the parts suppliers it uses if the USA's domestic auto industry collapses.

Absolutely. It's their own fault, but at the same time GM/Ford have always been a "big" company--big trucks, vans for companies, semi-trucks, SUVs, crossovers. Their compact and small cars just do not sell.

[theguilt engine]

Why does the general public always clean up the messes these corporations create? It has to stop somewhere.
There is no way people can blame the government for not helping out a company who is struggling mostly because of self-inflicted wounds.

[Burn That Shit]

There is no way people can blame the government for not helping out a company who is struggling mostly because of self-inflicted wounds.

I'm just saying that if the people are paying the taxes to pay for these company's bankruptcy, shouldn't we get some piece of the company? Just doesn't seem fair to me that these ridiculously rich people can fuck up but be saved by the people and still be ridiculously wealthy.

[theguilt engine]

Oh, yes, I agree with you completely.

[saysmydoctor]

I do not blame the auto companies. Americans are at fault. They bought gas-guzzlers from the American manufacturers, couldn't afford the gas, so they bought cheaper and more fuel-efficient Japanese vehicles. American auto companies were just following the demand, then it disappeared and so did their profits. That happens in business, I don't see it as a self-inflicted wound.

[Burn That Shit]

I do not blame the auto companies. Americans are at fault. They bought gas-guzzlers from the American manufacturers, couldn't afford the gas, so they bought cheaper and more fuel-efficient Japanese vehicles. American auto companies were just following the demand, then it disappeared and so did their profits. That happens in business, I don't see it as a self-inflicted wound.

I don't see how Americans are at fault.

[WarpSpeedChewy]

There is an opportunity here though. If we give them a bailout and force them to reconstitute themselves with a greater emphasis on technology along with environmental concerns, we could end up coming out ahead.

[saysmydoctor]

I don't see how Americans are at fault.
Reread what I said and see if you can find where I said "It's all the fault of the Americans."

[Burn That Shit]

Reread what I said and see if you can find where I said "It's all the fault of the Americans."

Okay.

I do not blame the auto companies. Americans are at fault.

Still don't believe it's the Americans fault. The automobile company's should obviously have invested more money in smaller, gas efficient cars considering that oil isn't an infinite resource.

[boykosaurus]

If you let them bust or even bail them out it forces them to rethink and redevelop what they offer.

[Machu505]

Force them to develop more energy efficient cars and less gas-guzzlers when you bail them out.

[MyWorldEntire]

I do not blame the auto companies. Americans are at fault. They bought gas-guzzlers from the American manufacturers, couldn't afford the gas, so they bought cheaper and more fuel-efficient Japanese vehicles. American auto companies were just following the demand, then it disappeared and so did their profits. That happens in business, I don't see it as a self-inflicted wound.

So the American manufactures should have adapted to the trend, like all smart businesses do.

[saysmydoctor]

Okay.



Still don't believe it's the Americans fault. The automobile company's should obviously have invested more money in smaller, gas efficient cars considering that oil isn't an infinite resource.
...at fault for becoming so fuel dependent. Not because the companies went under. That's completely undeniable.
So the American manufactures should have adapted to the trend, like all smart businesses do.
They DID adapt to the trend. Humers, huge ass gas-guzzlers were the trend. Maybe you haven't been on the road until about a year and a half ago?

[saysmydoctor]

Business are now getting blamed for playing into the trends of the public, fantastic. I'm never one to defend business, but c'mon. The manufacturers have done a lot wrong (stifling the electric car market), but they are not at fault for playing into the demands of the American public. Americans bought the cars, without thinking about oil costs.

[MyWorldEntire]

...at fault for becoming so fuel dependent. Not because the companies went under. That's completely undeniable.

They DID adapt to the trend. Humers, huge ass gas-guzzlers were the trend. Maybe you haven't been on the road until about a year and a half ago?

GM and Ford's sales have been dropping far before a year and half ago. Your argument of gas guzzlers taking down the companies doesn't hold much weight.

[saysmydoctor]

GM and Ford's sales have been dropping far before a year and half ago. Your argument of gas guzzlers taking down the companies doesn't hold much weight.
Wow.

Of course it's been dropping. Foreign competition has cut profits down, HOWEVER, they at least were soooooo much higher than are now during the time before the gas prices leapt to $4 a gallon.

Again, not denying the American manufacturers don't have any fault in this. Oh God do they. They've created the need for foreign oil with their manipulative actions. But to say Americans haven't at the same time bought these unnecessary trucks, jeeps, vans, huge tank vehicles is insane. Who really needs a Humer? None of us are the Pope except for the Pope. Get a minivan.

[MyWorldEntire]

Wow.

Of course it's been dropping. Foreign competition has cut profits down, HOWEVER, they at least were soooooo much higher than are now during the time before the gas prices leapt to $4 a gallon.

Again, not denying the American manufacturers don't have any fault in this. Oh God do they. They've created the need for foreign oil with their manipulative actions. But to say Americans haven't at the same time bought these unnecessary trucks, jeeps, vans, huge tank vehicles is insane. Who really needs a Humer? None of us are the Pope except for the Pope. Get a minivan.

Agreed that the American Manufactures and the Americans consumers both made stupid decisions when it came to these vehicles. It is indicative of poor leadership at GM, Ford, and Chrysler, and if the bailout is somehow passed, their needs to be changes in management. Even before the gas prices started shooting up, the American manufactures were not competing with the foreign companies like they should have. And I agree with those in the thread who said that if the bailout passes, the companies will need to invest heavily in energy-efficient cars.

[boykosaurus]

Force them to develop more energy efficient cars and less gas-guzzlers when you bail them out.

I'd rather have the market have them do it. There's clearly a demand now for fuel efficiency and they would be up against good competition from Europe and Japan.

[samsara]

let them get themselves out of debt

[&IllBeTheReason]

They cannot get themselves out of debt, and by making them do so we would be punishing alot more than just the auto companies and it would be unfair. The government, people, and car companies are at fault here but that isn't the issue. Blame Game politics is horrendous. If we don't bail them out, we are smacking alot of innocent people in the face and emptying their wallets in one fell swoop. Think of all the companies that rely really heavily on these car manufacturers. If we only do it for them, it will have been a good investment.
Also: having this power over them can ensure that we have alot of say in what cars they make in the future.

[theguilt engine]

Wow.

Of course it's been dropping. Foreign competition has cut profits down, HOWEVER, they at least were soooooo much higher than are now during the time before the gas prices leapt to $4 a gallon.

Again, not denying the American manufacturers don't have any fault in this. Oh God do they. They've created the need for foreign oil with their manipulative actions. But to say Americans haven't at the same time bought these unnecessary trucks, jeeps, vans, huge tank vehicles is insane. Who really needs a Humer? None of us are the Pope except for the Pope. Get a minivan.
None of the thee major automakers in the USA have posted a profit in the last 7 years. It's their fault they didn't see it coming. If they really did smart business like you say they apparently did, they wouldn't be begging for billions of dollars.

[open mind]

Force them to develop more energy efficient cars and less gas-guzzlers when you bail them out.

yeah, they should have to meet clearly defined annual benchmarks if they get a bailout.

[saysmydoctor]

The government can't demand standards unless all of its vehicles meet those standards. Lead by example. My dad used to drive a Gov-O--big ass chevy. Does not meet any fuel-efficient standards I know.

[saysmydoctor]

None of the thee major automakers in the USA have posted a profit in the last 7 years. It's their fault they didn't see it coming. If they really did smart business like you say they apparently did, they wouldn't be begging for billions of dollars.
They have seen it coming. They saw the SUV demand as their possibility. It wasn't. 50/50 chance. That's business. It's both parties' fault.

[Jason Tate]

yeah, they should have to meet clearly defined annual benchmarks if they get a bailout.
Complete restructuring of the business as well would be needed before I would support anything like that.

[open mind]

The government can't demand standards unless all of its vehicles meet those standards. Lead by example. My dad used to drive a Gov-O--big ass chevy. Does not meet any fuel-efficient standards I know.

why can't the government say x amount of cars that you produce must meet certain enviormental guidelines?
leading by example is well and good....but we have to start somewhere.

[Machu505]

why can't the government say x amount of cars that you produce must meet certain enviormental guidelines?
leading by example is well and good....but we have to start somewhere.

Because people will scream socialism.

[jtsnazzy]

I'm afraid of what is going to happen here when the car companies go under.

[xshady121]

Because people will scream socialism.

I'd be okay with it.

[hooligan_r1]

Time for the oil industry to step up and bail them out. They had the "Big 3" under their thumb to push all the SUV's, monster-sized trucks, and gas guzzling cars. They lobbied for lower than desirable minimum MPG limits on all new vehicles.

They made their billions upon billions with help from the auto industry of the US. Now it's time to return the underhanded favor.

[wesgemm08]

The world would be a better place if our country paid attention to Jimmy Carter's energy/environmental plans and concerns.

[xshady121]

The world would be a better place if our country payed attention to Jimmy Carter's energy/environmental plans and concerns.

This is the funniest post I've seen on AP.net in my four years here. Congratulations.

[Jason Tate]

This is the funniest post I've seen on AP.net in my four years here. Congratulations.
And yet it's categorically true.

[Jason Tate]

Time for the oil industry to step up and bail them out. They had the "Big 3" under their thumb to push all the SUV's, monster-sized trucks, and gas guzzling cars. They lobbied for lower than desirable minimum MPG limits on all new vehicles.

They made their billions upon billions with help from the auto industry of the US. Now it's time to return the underhanded favor.
I actually definitely like this idea.

[saysmydoctor]

Time for the oil industry to step up and bail them out. They had the "Big 3" under their thumb to push all the SUV's, monster-sized trucks, and gas guzzling cars. They lobbied for lower than desirable minimum MPG limits on all new vehicles.

They made their billions upon billions with help from the auto industry of the US. Now it's time to return the underhanded favor.
They are the true problem at hand here. I agree with this solution.
The world would be a better place if our country paid attention to Jimmy Carter's energy/environmental plans and concerns.
Iran hostage crisis ruined him. He had good ideas.

[EasySkankin]

The business-men who made the american auto industry something to be proud of have been gone for a while and I think people just don't realize that. These companies have been given too many chances for too long. It's time to give someone else a chance.

http://www.alternet.org/workplace/107789/why_we_shouldn%27t_bail_out_gm/

[Jason Tate]

The business-men who made the american auto industry something to be proud of have been gone for a while and I think people just don't realize that. These companies have been given too many chances for too long. It's time to give someone else a chance.

http://www.alternet.org/workplace/107789/why_we_shouldn%27t_bail_out_gm/
Bring back Iaccoa!

[lauren<3s music]

The rescue plan needs to have several components.

1. A focus on the labor side of the equation. Millions of people in some way, shape, or form rely on the auto industry for work. If they lose their income, that creates a ripple effect throughout the economy, making our recession and consumer confidence worse.

2. Refocus the auto industry's priorities. Pretty self explanatory. Consolidate models, improve upon current quality, etc.

3. Shift to alternate fuel sources. There is no reason why money can't be used to refit these factories and go towards the production of models that run on flex fuels, alternative fuels, etc. Hell just improve mpg. The government needs to invest in technology and now is the perfect time to do so. It will be the WPA for the autoindustry. We know we need to move this direction, why not tie the funds to making that happen

[saysmydoctor]

I think blaming the companies solely is just extremely unfair. The public shares the blame. The oil companies share the blame (a lot of it). We gave the banks that were failing money for problems that they put themselves into. Why not for the auto companies?

[xshady121]

Iran-Contra ruined him. He had good ideas.

Check your presidents. Iran-contra was Reagan.

[xshady121]

I think blaming the companies solely is just extremely unfair. The public shares the blame. The oil companies share the blame (a lot of it). We gave the banks that were failing money for problems that they put themselves into. Why not for the auto companies?

This argument wasn't any good when you made it on page 2, it's not going to be good on page 3 either.

[saysmydoctor]

The rescue plan needs to have several components.

1. A focus on the labor side of the equation. Millions of people in some way, shape, or form rely on the auto industry for work. If they lose their income, that creates a ripple effect throughout the economy, making our recession and consumer confidence worse.

2. Refocus the auto industry's priorities. Pretty self explanatory. Consolidate models, improve upon current quality, etc.

3. Shift to alternate fuel sources. There is no reason why money can't be used to refit these factories and go towards the production of models that run on flex fuels, alternative fuels, etc. Hell just improve mpg. The government needs to invest in technology and now is the perfect time to do so. It will be the WPA for the autoindustry. We know we need to move this direction, why not tie the funds to making that happen
I like this a lot. But the government is no place to set standards for MPG unless its vehicles itself fit into these standards. Open Mind made a good point before about this proposal, but I just think the government should say "You want this, do this with your cars. And you aren't the only ones being held accountable. We are doing the same thing." But I think it's wrong for the government to say "Your cars must meet this standard" when theirs don't.

[lauren<3s music]

and while the auto industry hasn't been perfect by any stretch, i feel like they were less disingenuous than the banks.

[lauren<3s music]

I like this a lot. But the government is no place to set standards for MPG unless its vehicles itself fit into these standards. Open Mind made a good point before about this proposal, but I just think the government should say "You want this, do this with your cars. And you aren't the only ones being held accountable. We are doing the same thing." But I think it's wrong for the government to say "Your cars must meet this standard" when theirs don't.
i agree. but i think they should say for example okay you should be looking to produce less suvs and more hybrid versions of those you do keep.

[saysmydoctor]

Check your presidents. Iran-contra was Reagan.
Thank you, meant the hostage situation. Wrong term.
This argument wasn't any good when you made it on page 2, it's not going to be good on page 3 either.
How is it bad? Holding everyone at fault accountable is suddenly wrong?

[xshady121]

and while the auto industry hasn't been perfect by any stretch, i feel like they were less disingenuous than the banks.

I agree.

[saysmydoctor]

i agree. but i think they should say for example okay you should be looking to produce less suvs and more hybrid versions of those you do keep.
Not looking. No, you will make less SUVs and those that you do make, 50% should be hybrid. We also will begin using more hybrid vehicles.

Kind of scenario.

[xshady121]

Thank you, meant the hostage situation. Wrong term.

Yeah, that makes sense. The hostage scandal did quash any hope he had at reelection. I would go a step further and say his presidency was a mess and he lost respect of both the intl community but the american people well before the hostage scandal

How is it bad? Holding everyone at fault accountable is suddenly wrong?
You can't purely blame supply and demand. These companies haven't been in the positive in almost a decade. They could have seen SUVs were short term well before things got this bad.

[lauren<3s music]

Not looking. No, you will make less SUVs and those that you do make, 50% should be hybrid. We also will begin using more hybrid vehicles.

Kind of scenario.
i agree. i think that they should say okay if we're bailing all of you out you need to pick and choose because at the end of the day we dont need 9 million hummers on the streets. and i think that they could likely transition some workers over into say helping to build charging stations or whatever types of stations we'd need for a variety of alternative cars.

and can someone please explain to the resident idiot xihaventtakenagovernmentclassever what IGNORE means.

[saysmydoctor]

Yeah, that makes sense. The hostage scandal did quash any hope he had at reelection. I would go a step further and say his presidency was a mess and he lost respect of both the intl community but the american people well before the hostage scandal

You can't purely blame supply and demand. These companies haven't been in the positive in almost a decade. They could have seen SUVs were short term well before things got this bad.
It was a risky business model. Like you said, they hadn't been in the positive in almost a decade. They saw a possibility of SUVs being a quick gold mine. At least during that short period of time, the decline in profits kind of flatlined before falling again. It was brief.

[lauren<3s music]

oh and one other thing i think they should consider looking at is the trucking industry. it has an extremely powerful lobby but those bastards a) make the roads extremely dangerous (rip my first car) b) produce more wear and tear on our infrastructure and c) need to be more efficient.

[saysmydoctor]

i agree. i think that they should say okay if we're bailing all of you out you need to pick and choose because at the end of the day we dont need 9 million hummers on the streets. and i think that they could likely transition some workers over into say helping to build charging stations or whatever types of stations we'd need for a variety of alternative cars.

and can someone please explain to the resident idiot xihaventtakenagovernmentclassever what IGNORE means.
Essentially, an age of actual government regulation but based on transparent regulation. No more, you have to do this because we said so. Lead by example.

[saysmydoctor]

I think when the government looks at the auto industry more thoroughly, they should also look at the state of transportation earmarks. Of all earmarks, they are the most outrageous and could be budgeted to say education programs. These two aren't really related, but I'd really like to see this looked into. Of all spending, it's the transportation and defense spending that makes think "why?"

[wesgemm08]

The "Energy Policy Conservation Act," (EPCA) was enacted into law in 1975 and established Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for passenger cars and light trucks. The goal of the EPCA was to double fuel economy by model year 1985.
The CAFE standards started at a shamefully low level in 1978 when auto companies selling cars in the United States were first required to meet a meager 18 mile per gallon (mpg) auto fleet standard. In 1981 Joan Claybrook, now the President of Public Citizen, was the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). As the administration of President Jimmy Carter was winding down, Claybrook advanced a NHTSA notice that called for fuel efficiency standards to reach 48 mpg by 1995. Interestingly the notice pointed out that the auto industry itself said it could reach in excess of 30 mpg fuel economy by 1985 with GM saying it could do 33 mpg. The Reagan Administration didn't waste any time and withdrew the NHTSA notice just three months after it was issued. After the original Congressional mandate of 27.5 mpg took effect in 1985, the Reagan Administration rolled the standard back to 26 mpg in 1986. Finally in 1989 the first Bush Administration moved the standard back to the 1985 level of 27.5 mpg. There was no improvement in the CAFE standards underthe Clinton Administration.
The Bush/Cheney Energy plan of 2001 put off raising CAFE standards. In 2002, Senators John Kerry (D-MA), and John McCain (R-AZ) offered an amendment to the "National Fuel Savings and Security Act of 2002". The amendment called for fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks, beginning with model year 2005, to reach a combined average fuel economy standard of at least 36 miles per gallon by 2015. This amendment lost.
The pork barrel energy bill of 2003, didn't improve the fuel efficiency standards and was too offensive to consumer and environmental and taxpayer groups to even make it out of Congress. NHTSA has advocated raising fuel economy standards for sport utility vehicles (SUVs), minivans, and pickup trucks a whopping 1.5 mpg by 2007. But, the average fleet efficiency levels in new vehicles have slipped to the lowest level since 1980.
So, here we are in 2004, almost twenty years later, and the standard is at the same pitifully low 27.5 mpg level for passenger cars and 20.7 mpg for light trucks and vans. Well it is time for a little introspection.

http://www.nader.org/interest/041104.html

[lauren<3s music]

Essentially, an age of actual government regulation but based on transparent regulation. No more, you have to do this because we said so. Lead by example.
i think they can be done simultaneously though. also, i like the idea of creating new "plants" where people can take in their cars to get retrofitted for new technology.

[xshady121]

and can someone please explain to the resident idiot xihaventtakenagovernmentclassever what IGNORE means.

I was agreeing with her. Don't know what she's all mad about. Someone should lighten up. :shrug:

And yeah, NU's political science department is so bad, you can get 3.8's for four semesters without actually learning government policies. That's why our dean is a member of Obama's transition team, because we're such a joke.

Ha ha.

[lauren<3s music]

I think when the government looks at the auto industry more thoroughly, they should also look at the state of transportation earmarks. Of all earmarks, they are the most outrageous and could be budgeted to say education programs. These two aren't really related, but I'd really like to see this looked into. Of all spending, it's the transportation and defense spending that makes think "why?"
earmarks are not the problem of the federal government's budget. trust me. sure there have been plenty examples of misuse, but there have also been earmarks that benefit a community. in the case of transportation, its a shame that funding for basic infrastructure has to rely on this process.

[xshady121]

At least during that short period of time, the decline in profits kind of flatlined before falling again. It was brief.

Interesting perspective. To be honest, I don't know much more about this that isn't in the news. I would like to see a decent study about what you're suggesting.

[saysmydoctor]

earmarks are not the problem of the federal government's budget. trust me. sure there have been plenty examples of misuse, but there have also been earmarks that benefit a community. in the case of transportation, its a shame that funding for basic infrastructure has to rely on this process.
I'm iffy on earmark spending. 1% isn't much, but it's constituency pandering in my eyes--especially in concerns with the House. Bridges to nowhere, funds for small town museums. Podunk village in podunk Iowa doesn't need a $500,000 museum (I'm making this scenario up, but I've similar examples).
Interesting perspective. To be honest, I don't know much more about this that isn't in the news. I would like to see a decent study about what you're suggesting.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/01/business/gm.php

I'm basing this presumption off news reports. They are doing successfully, but internally, the company is falling apart. It has successes in one area and other areas are just becoming blackholes.

[saysmydoctor]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9406E5DD1F31F934A 25752C0A9659C8B63

This also around the time of the SUV boom. I'd say about mid-2004 was when the business model hit a crutch, and it peaked this summer.

http://zfacts.com/p/35.html

[xshady121]

I'm iffy on earmark spending. 1% isn't much, but it's constituency pandering in my eyes--especially in concerns with the House. Bridges to nowhere, funds for small town museums. Podunk village in podunk Iowa doesn't need a $500,000 museum (I'm making this scenario up, but I've similar examples).

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/01/business/gm.php

I'm basing this presumption off news reports. They are doing successfully, but internally, the company is falling apart. It has successes in one area and other areas are just becoming blackholes.

That article suggests that one of the reasons they are losing money is their loan division, GMAC. I wonder how many cars they pushed on people who couldn't afford them?

Interesting read, thanks.

[saysmydoctor]

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/nov2008/db20081119_541539.htm?chan=autos_au tos+--+lifestyle+subindex+page_top+storie s
Auto Bailout: Seeking Signs of Sacrifice

House members push for workers to give up some pay and benefits, and ask why executives still don't seem to get the need for change



Why should they?

[saysmydoctor]

That article suggests that one of the reasons they are losing money is their loan division, GMAC. I wonder how many cars they pushed on people who couldn't afford them?

Interesting read, thanks.
Yeah, exactly. I mean, same with the financial industry. Car companies knew they were taking a risk. And these people are taking loans when they know they can't afford them.

[asmolitor]

I do not blame the auto companies. Americans are at fault. They bought gas-guzzlers from the American manufacturers, couldn't afford the gas, so they bought cheaper and more fuel-efficient Japanese vehicles. American auto companies were just following the demand, then it disappeared and so did their profits. That happens in business, I don't see it as a self-inflicted wound.

the blame is solely on the auto companies, for continuing to market inefficient vehicles while gas steadily rose for the last, what, 5-6 years? the fact that the chevy volt still won't come out until 2010 underscores the fact that american automakers pled blind ignorance to the fact that their market technique of confusing buying american with buying large inefficient vehicles wouldn't work as the emphasis of their business. looking at what toyota did with the prius, i can't imagine why, as automakers, they wouldn't speed up production of a green(er) american alternative - not saying it should be the crux of their business by any means, but ignoring market trends doesn't really fall on anyone but the automakers.

There is an opportunity here though. If we give them a bailout and force them to reconstitute themselves with a greater emphasis on technology along with environmental concerns, we could end up coming out ahead.
Force them to develop more energy efficient cars and less gas-guzzlers when you bail them out.

bingo bango.

They DID adapt to the trend. Humers, huge ass gas-guzzlers were the trend. Maybe you haven't been on the road until about a year and a half ago?

i quoted past tense for a reason - since that clearly wasn't where the industry was headed as soon as the prius/etc became a viable option. considering the R&D costs inherent in large corporations (the big 3 spends a shade under $20 billion in R&D every year - http://www.freep.com/article/20081119/OPINION05/811190346/1068/OPINION), the companies can be completely faulted for not using a bulk of the "bailout" amount, each year, to develop some sort of small energy-efficient alternative.

Business are now getting blamed for playing into the trends of the public, fantastic. I'm never one to defend business, but c'mon. The manufacturers have done a lot wrong (stifling the electric car market), but they are not at fault for playing into the demands of the American public. Americans bought the cars, without thinking about oil costs.

but the thing is, they kept playing the big-vehicle trend far past it's viability, while ignoring a potential market segment that has clearly emerged. it's no stretch that american consumers are, for lack of a better term, retarded, but a fair amount of that has to come from effective advertising - done by the big three continuing to push large vehicles instead of doing something fairly responsible, and potentially largely profitable in the end.

None of the thee major automakers in the USA have posted a profit in the last 7 years. It's their fault they didn't see it coming. If they really did smart business like you say they apparently did, they wouldn't be begging for billions of dollars.

bingo bango, part II.

[saysmydoctor]

That makes sense when you put it that way. We need the resident economics guy here more

[asmolitor]

well, i mean, it's a simple case of businesses not using their R&D to study and capitalize on developing trends. you could probably say the same thing about businesses marketing portable cd players around the advent/popularity of the iPod. or the record industry taking their numerous angles of not embracing digital media and such.

i mean, sure there was a consumer culture propping up the big vehicle industry - but that might be probably due to intense marketing of SUV's/etc over the last 10 years. i mean, even if you look at toyota, sure they have the prius - a fairly sensible energy-efficient alternative - but the advertising seems predominantly geared towards all things tundra, ridiculous obstacle-course and steel beam pendulums included.

the more i think about it, it seems more like a problem of advertising than anything - considered it served to continue the big-vehicle facade, even in the face of of rising gas prices. it's probably a good example of the company being out of touch with consumer trends and resulting declining sales... so probably also a fair assumption as to why the companies are tanking (pun-intended) fast.

[lauren<3s music]

I'm iffy on earmark spending. 1% isn't much, but it's constituency pandering in my eyes--especially in concerns with the House. Bridges to nowhere, funds for small town museums. Podunk village in podunk Iowa doesn't need a $500,000 museum (I'm making this scenario up, but I've similar examples).

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/01/business/gm.php

I'm basing this presumption off news reports. They are doing successfully, but internally, the company is falling apart. It has successes in one area and other areas are just becoming blackholes.
i've seen the up side of it too so I can't be solely against it. and part of the use of earmarks is then you don't have to create a whole bill for one project. or do a whole reauth. just to add one component. the federal budget and approps process is so complicated that earmarks have become a necessity.

[lauren<3s music]

update

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/21/AR2008112103680.html?hpid=topnews

[maffei18]

It's ridiculous. They want to be bailed out, and yet they are arriving in their own personal jets, each one with their own. If someone came to me asking me for money, in a private jet, I'd just laugh in their face. And if they do get bailed out, they will take the money for themselves, so they can fuel their jets.

[GuitarR0cker1]

The world would be a better place if our country paid attention to Jimmy Carter's energy/environmental plans and concerns.
One of the most true posts I have ever seen here.

[Tony Pascarella]

Ford's going to invest $14 billion in hybrids and electric vehicles and improve fuel efficiency over their 2005 fleet by 14% for 2009 models and 36% by 2015.

14% in 4 years really doesn't seem like that much when you consider the number of pickup trucks and SUVs in their fleet. That's probably somewhere between 2-3 mpg overall, I'd assume.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/02/AR2008120201600.html?hpid=topnews

[saysmydoctor]

14% is really small.

[Tony Pascarella]

What I wonder and I don't know if there's an easy way to find this out, is if they haven't gone to 14% since 2005 already. So then they're basically saying, we're not going to do anything until 2012, when we expect to be breaking even or profitable again anyway.

[open mind]

It's ridiculous. They want to be bailed out, and yet they are arriving in their own personal jets, each one with their own. If someone came to me asking me for money, in a private jet, I'd just laugh in their face. And if they do get bailed out, they will take the money for themselves, so they can fuel their jets.

wall street probably came to town in the same fashion.....and they asked for and got way more money.

[open mind]

14% is really small.

they could probably do a bit better if really pushed but i don't believe anyone was seriously asking them to do so before now.

[GuitarR0cker1]

14% is really small.
That is an understatement, 14% is a tiny amount.

[saysmydoctor]

Looking at this.

14% is miniscule.

[Crazy JoeDavola]

http://www.boingboing.net/images/x_2008/youwouldntbuyour.jpg

Since every car I've bought has been under the Chrysler band, I will be exempt from higher taxes... right?

[batmannj]

the thing is, if the big three go under, so many jobs will disappear. this is not about the ceo's this is about the working american who drives this economy. this bailout not going through is a fast forward button to a depression.

[asmolitor]

holllllllllllllllly shit this is the biggest drop i've ever seen in the late-night dow futures: down 297? friday should be pretty rough...

EDIT: 309 from when i posted to refreshing the page. i honestly wouldn't be surprised to see the dow test 8000 tomorrow. sigh.

[splitsecond]

jesus christ, the president of UAW is a fucking moron, he just blamed open markets for their inability to compete. WOW. what decade does he live in?

[lauren<3s music]

jesus christ, the president of UAW is a fucking moron, he just blamed open markets for their inability to compete. WOW. what decade does he live in?
i didn't see the statement, but I would assume it has something to do with the cost of labor in the United States. I mean we have to pay more for labor(even before the unions get to work), have more environmental regs (which translate into more cost), etc than other countries.

[splitsecond]

i didn't see the statement, but I would assume it has something to do with the cost of labor in the United States. I mean we have to pay more for labor(even before the unions get to work), have more environmental regs (which translate into more cost), etc than other countries.

He was essentially attacking republicans for trying to make them make more concessions, and was blaming every other fact or as to why the makers are not competitive. Apparently they were asked to give a drop dead dead as to when they could be competitive with other automakers who build inside of the USA (BMW, Nissan, Honda, Toyota) wage wise, and they either could not or refused to give a date, and walked away from the table.

Sen. Corker took a huge hit on the blame but his explanation in his multiple interviews is very good, if you can find him on somewhere.

For those who do not know, UAW workers earn on avg 3 times as much as the average laborer in the US. Total compensation is around $70/hr whereas Toyota's USA works are making total compensation around $44/hour.

Don't get me wrong, the labor costs are not even close to being the sole reason for the big 3's problems, but unskilled laborers certainly shouldn't be making more money than I did in my first job as a lawyer. Thats INSANE.

[lauren<3s music]

He was essentially attacking republicans for trying to make them make more concessions, and was blaming every other fact or as to why the makers are not competitive. Apparently they were asked to give a drop dead dead as to when they could be competitive with other automakers who build inside of the USA (BMW, Nissan, Honda, Toyota) wage wise, and they either could not or refused to give a date, and walked away from the table.

Sen. Corker took a huge hit on the blame but his explanation in his multiple interviews is very good, if you can find him on somewhere.

For those who do not know, UAW workers earn on avg 3 times as much as the average laborer in the US. Total compensation is around $70/hr whereas Toyota's USA works are making total compensation around $44/hour.

Don't get me wrong, the labor costs are not even close to being the sole reason for the big 3's problems, but unskilled laborers certainly shouldn't be making more money than I did in my first job as a lawyer. Thats INSANE.
thanks for the clarification. i mean i think the UAW is abusing the situation, but i mean those are the same problems any industry faces in a global economy. and the UAW has people being paid to sit around and do nothing. Sure that helps productivity in the auto industry

[splitsecond]

That is pretty much the consensus. To me its like the people who are trying to cling on to inflated home prices from 2 years ago- you should have known how good you had it, and that it was going to have to end at some point. This is not exactly a surprise to ANYONE.

[sjb2k1]

i am speechless at the figure of $70/hr.

[lauren<3s music]

That is pretty much the consensus. To me its like the people who are trying to cling on to inflated home prices from 2 years ago- you should have known how good you had it, and that it was going to have to end at some point. This is not exactly a surprise to ANYONE.
Anyone*

with a brain and/or common sense

[splitsecond]

i am speechless at the figure of $70/hr.

well let me clarify that - its total compensation/cost, which includes hourly, benefits, and legacy costs. Legacy costs are pensions/retirement, and that number reflects CURRENT works. UAW is refusing to budge on legacy costs, which virtually every other industry has had to cut for new/current employees upon restructuring. We are not talking people who are retirees - we are talking current employees. The UAW is still fighting for pensions that by common knowledge bring down industries in the current world market. Airlines anyone?

[lauren<3s music]

i am speechless at the figure of $70/hr.
just the straight math if they're working 40 hours a week, thats basically 146k a year. god damn i'm in the wrong field!

[splitsecond]

just the straight math if they're working 40 hours a week, thats basically 146k a year. god damn i'm in the wrong field!

From what I understand the divide is somewhere around 70k a year, with the rest going to benefits and legacy costs. Which is still WAY TOO MUCH for an unskilled labor position.

[lauren<3s music]

From what I understand the divide is somewhere around 70k a year, with the rest going to benefits and legacy costs. Which is still WAY TOO MUCH for an unskilled labor position.
i mean it's fine if we're going through hyperinflation and we just decide to all print money at home but I agree. I think people should be able to live at a comfortable wage, and i'm sure it's hard work, but when you have people who've gone to grad school not making that much, its a problem

[lauren<3s music]

THE MOURNING AFTER. With the Senate's failure Thursday night to provide short-term help to the automakers, the White House and Treasury Department today indicated they will step in to help the companies avoid bankruptcy. "Because Congress failed to act, we will stand ready to prevent an imminent failure until Congress reconvenes and acts to address the long-term viability of the industry," said a Treasury spokesman. Just how they will do so remained unclear, although White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said it may involve tapping the Troubled Assets Relief Program, where about $15 billion of the first half of the $700 billion authorized by Congress remains uncommitted. "Given the current weakened state of the U.S. economy, we will consider other options if necessary -- including use of the TARP program to prevent a collapse of troubled automakers," she said, adding that to allow such a collapse to occur to be "irresponsible." Perino could not say how quickl! y the administration might act. "This vote just happened late last night," she said on Air Force One as Bush headed to Texas to deliver a commencement speech at Texas A&M. "Just give us a little bit of time to look at it." But Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, who supported the loan, said: "I wouldn't wait at all because the longer you wait, the worse it gets. One thing I'd sure not want to have on my record is I'm known as George Herbert Hoover Bush."


from congress daily. too funny

[asmolitor]

For those who do not know, UAW workers earn on avg 3 times as much as the average laborer in the US. Total compensation is around $70/hr whereas Toyota's USA works are making total compensation around $44/hour.

http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/market-movers/2008/11/18/the-return-of-the-70-per-hour-meme

Don't get me wrong, the labor costs are not even close to being the sole reason for the big 3's problems, but unskilled laborers certainly shouldn't be making more money than I did in my first job as a lawyer. Thats INSANE.

it's not only that, which i agree with given the inherent "value" of a person with an advanced degree versus someone getting paid for 8 hours of "part A into slot B"-ing... it's their wage relative to all manufacturing.

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/12/middle-class-uaw-how-about-upper-class.html

and the UAW has people being paid to sit around and do nothing. Sure that helps productivity in the auto industry

the jobs bank program is the epitome of the troubles facing the auto industry in terms of just awful business tactics.

[Tony Pascarella]

So basically the UAW's arrogance is going to screw it all up? What would you rather, a cut in pay or no pay at all? Hmmmmmmmmm.

I'll have to dig around; I could have sworn I read the other day that the actual hourly difference was $3-4 an hour more than companies like Toyota were at, once you adjust that whole $70/hour number to something that actually reflects the true hourly rate these people are making.

[splitsecond]

http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/market-movers/2008/11/18/the-return-of-the-70-per-hour-meme
.

Yes, that is how the math is done. However, the same formula is applied to Toyota's USA operations, and the number is $44. Thats an enormous difference.

The other graph you posted is the most telling. I know several people out here who work in manufacturing/assembly/machining and generally they start around 14-16, and top out around 22. $18 an hour is pretty typical around here as a general average wage.

[splitsecond]

So basically the UAW's arrogance is going to screw it all up? What would you rather, a cut in pay or no pay at all? Hmmmmmmmmm.

I'll have to dig around; I could have sworn I read the other day that the actual hourly difference was $3-4 an hour more than companies like Toyota were at, once you adjust that whole $70/hour number to something that actually reflects the true hourly rate these people are making.

It has to do with legacy costs. UAW is clinging to pension programs that simply are not cost-competitive in ANY industry anymore.

[AShannon04]

I do not blame the auto companies. Americans are at fault. They bought gas-guzzlers from the American manufacturers, couldn't afford the gas, so they bought cheaper and more fuel-efficient Japanese vehicles. American auto companies were just following the demand, then it disappeared and so did their profits. That happens in business, I don't see it as a self-inflicted wound.

As someone who is from Detroit and sees the effect this is having on people, I agree completely. The car companies have always been responding to public demand. When gas was at 2 bucks a gallon, it didn't make any sense to develop and market alternative fuel cars; nobody would want to buy them. Everyone wanted to buy big SUV's, so they made them.

Think about it: if gas is cheap, the average American won't pay the premium for a hybrid engine. It costs millions and millions of dollars to research and develop alternative fuel cars, so it didn't make sense to do this 10 years ago.

The foreign markets have never relied heavily on SUV's and have always made smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles, so when gas prices went up, the Big 3 lost their bread-and-butter.

[Tony Pascarella]

It has to do with legacy costs. UAW is clinging to pension programs that simply are not cost-competitive in ANY industry anymore.I realize that the pensions are tied into the $70. I'm saying the actual hourly rate, in what I read, was only about $3-4 higher, and they're fighting like hell to keep that.

The pension program should be overhauled anyway; again, would you rather less money or none at all? This keeps up and none might be a possibility.

I was originally against the bailout on the principle that the government is locking itself into spending exorbitant amounts of money (on top of the recent financial bailout), but after watching some of the hearings and such, something needs to be worked out, but it needs to definitely play to the taxpayer's favor, not the company at this point.

Hybrids, fuel efficiency, etc. Do we really need all of these SUVs and ridiculously inefficient vehicles on the road anymore? Do we really need ten different types of pickup truck, each larger than the last? Cut the fleets down, and focus on buyer cost and fuel efficiency standards. The oil industry which has made a ton of money over the past few years isn't helping bail out the car companies right now; why not make more efficient vehicles?

They need to adapt to the current market, and if anything, you produce and sell limited numbers of SUVs as almost a luxury vehicle rather than losing an entire market (hybrids and highly fuel-efficient gas vehicles) to foreign companies because of an inability and unwillingness to shift production.

[AShannon04]

A great article from Mitch Albom:

http://www.freep.com/article/20081126/COL01/811260327/1082

OK. It's a fantasy. But if I had five minutes in front of Congress last week, here's what I would've said:

Good morning. First of all, before you ask, I flew commercial. Northwest Airlines. Had a bag of peanuts for breakfast. Of course, that's Northwest, which just merged with Delta, a merger you, our government, approved -- and one that, inevitably, will lead to big bonuses for their executives and higher costs for us. You seem to be OK with that kind of business.

Which makes me wonder why you're so against our kind of business? The kind we do in Detroit. The kind that gets your fingernails dirty. The kind where people use hammers and drills, not keystrokes. The kind where you get paid for making something, not moving money around a board and skimming a percentage.

You've already given hundreds of billions to banking and finance companies -- and hardly demanded anything. Yet you balk at the very idea of giving $25 billion to the Detroit Three. Heck, you shoveled that exact amount to Citigroup -- $25 billion -- just weeks ago, and that place is about to crumble anyhow.

Does the word "hypocrisy" ring a bell?

Protecting the home turf?

Sen. Richard Shelby. Yes. You. From Alabama. You've been awfully vocal. You called the Detroit Three's leaders "failures." You said loans to them would be "wasted money." You said they should go bankrupt and "let the market work."

Why weren't you equally vocal when your state handed out hundreds of millions in tax breaks to Mercedes-Benz, Hyundai, Honda and others to open plants there? Why not "let the market work"? Or is it better for Alabama if the Detroit Three fold so that the foreign companies -- in your state -- can produce more?

Way to think of the nation first, senator.

And you, Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona. You told reporters: "There's no reason to throw money at a problem that's not going to get solved."

That's funny, coming from such an avid supporter of the Iraq war. You've been gung ho on that for years. So how could you just sit there when, according to the New York Times, an Iraqi former chief investigator told Congress that $13 billion in U.S. reconstruction funds "had been lost to fraud, embezzlement, theft and waste" by the Iraqi government?

That's 13 billion, senator. More than half of what the auto industry is asking for. Thirteen billion? Gone? Wasted?

Where was your "throwing money at a problem that's not going to get solved" speech then?

Watching over the bankers?

And the rest of you lawmakers. The ones who insist the auto companies show you a plan before you help them. You've already handed over $150 billion of our tax money to AIG. How come you never demanded a plan from it? How come when AIG blew through its first $85 billion, you quickly gave it more? The car companies may be losing money, but they can explain it: They're paying workers too much and selling cars for too little.

AIG lost hundred of billions in credit default swaps -- which no one can explain and which make nothing, produce nothing, employ no one and are essentially bets on failure.

And you don't demand a paragraph from it?

Look. Nobody is saying the auto business is healthy. Its unions need to adjust more. Its models and dealerships need to shrink. Its top executives have to downsize their own importance.

But this is a business that has been around for more than a century. And some of its problems are because of that, because people get used to certain wages, manufacturers get used to certain business models. It's easy to point to foreign carmakers with tax breaks, no union costs and a cleaner slate -- not to mention help from their home countries -- and say "be more like them."

But if you let us die, you let our national spine collapse. America can't be a country of lawyers and financial analysts. We have to manufacture. We need that infrastructure. We need those jobs. We need that security. Have you forgotten who built equipment during the world wars?

Besides, let's be honest. When it comes to blowing budgets, being grossly inefficient and wallowing in debt, who's better than Congress?

So who are you to lecture anyone on how to run a business?

Ask fair questions. Demand accountability. But knock it off with the holier-than-thou crap, OK? You got us into this mess with greed, a bad Fed policy and too little regulation. Don't kick our tires to make yourselves look better.

[lauren<3s music]

A great article from Mitch Albom:

http://www.freep.com/article/20081126/COL01/811260327/1082
HOLY shit. Seriously i want to clap. I'm going to print it out and put it on my must reads wall

[splitsecond]

I realize that the pensions are tied into the $70. I'm saying the actual hourly rate, in what I read, was only about $3-4 higher, and they're fighting like hell to keep that.

The pension program should be overhauled anyway; again, would you rather less money or none at all? This keeps up and none might be a possibility.

I was originally against the bailout on the principle that the government is locking itself into spending exorbitant amounts of money (on top of the recent financial bailout), but after watching some of the hearings and such, something needs to be worked out, but it needs to definitely play to the taxpayer's favor, not the company at this point.

Hybrids, fuel efficiency, etc. Do we really need all of these SUVs and ridiculously inefficient vehicles on the road anymore? Do we really need ten different types of pickup truck, each larger than the last? Cut the fleets down, and focus on buyer cost and fuel efficiency standards. The oil industry which has made a ton of money over the past few years isn't helping bail out the car companies right now; why not make more efficient vehicles?

They need to adapt to the current market, and if anything, you produce and sell limited numbers of SUVs as almost a luxury vehicle rather than losing an entire market (hybrids and highly fuel-efficient gas vehicles) to foreign companies because of an inability and unwillingness to shift production.

Well I am fundamentally against forcing them to make fuel efficient/alt fuels vehicles in exchange for a bailout. That is NOT why they are failing, and is social engineering at its worst. On the production end of things, GM's primary problem is that they produce the same car, and restamp it 3 times, and then pour money into marketing the same car under different brand names. Their corporate structure also keeps their vehicles from rolling out for something like 2 years after design and test, so they were still stuck in SUV mode when people quit buying them (which quite frankly could be temporary so long as gas prices stay low for a while).

[Tony Pascarella]

Well I am fundamentally against forcing them to make fuel efficient/alt fuels vehicles in exchange for a bailout. That is NOT why they are failing, and is social engineering at its worst. On the production end of things, GM's primary problem is that they produce the same car, and restamp it 3 times, and then pour money into marketing the same car under different brand names. Their corporate structure also keeps their vehicles from rolling out for something like 2 years after design and test, so they were still stuck in SUV mode when people quit buying them (which quite frankly could be temporary so long as gas prices stay low for a while).America as a whole is spending beyond their financial means. The average person can't afford these gas-guzzling SUVs, even with gas prices low. I can think of several family friends who are longtime lawyers and owned those sort of cars and ultimately traded them in a few months ago, and they're doing pretty well financially. It was just unreasonable and made little to no sense to keep a Cadillac Escalade for a family of four.

We have the research and the ability to make hybrid/alt fuel cars; if the oil companies were part of this bailout, giving money to the Big Three, I could understand the hesitation. The fact is, the country wants cheaper cars that consume less gas. If they won't produce them, American consumers have shown they WILL buy foreign cars. Foreign cars can pay workers less, be made cheaper, and be sold cheaper. In some cases, they're very dependable, and in others, you really get what you pay for.

I agree their corporate structures are pretty fucked. Sometimes less is more; less car choices means (potentially) more plants can produce more cars that Americans truly want, with more interchangeable parts between models, resulting in cheaper cars for the buyer. I'm fully in favor of cutting down these fleets from 40 or 50 (if I remember correctly, that's about where Ford is) to 15 or 20 models. You can market dependable cars year after year with minor tweaks and a good ad campaign. You can even re-brand the same car, but you can consolidate the fleet and still offer a wide variety of vehicles, keeping your company competitive with a lot more money to put toward research and development.

[saysmydoctor]

How can you be fundamentally against forcing them to make fuel efficient vehicles yet they are forcing the government's hand by saying they have to bail out the companies? Scratch our back and scratch theirs.

[sjb2k1]

The average GM assembly-line worker makes about $28 per hour in wages apparently i really am in the wrong profession. stupid bachelor's degree, not making me any money.

and they get a pension plan? hmmmm

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

Last night, the Senate failed to approve the auto rescue package, voting 52-35 (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110 &session=2&vote=00215) in favor of the bill – just eight short of the 60 votes that were needed. Over on the Wonk Room, Dan Weiss takes a look at the 20 senators (http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2008/12/12/tarp-yes-auto-no/) who voted for the Wall Street bailout but voted against the auto rescue last night (as well as the 10 others who skipped the vote last night, but voted for the financial bailout):


Yes to TARP, No to auto
Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT)
Sen. Robert Bennett (R-UT)
Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC)
Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN)
Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN)
Sen. John Ensign (R-NV)
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Sen. Kay Hutchison (R-TX)
Sen. John Isakson (R-GA)
Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL)
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Sen. John Thune (R-SD)

Yes to TARP, Absent for auto
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE)
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX)
Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID)
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA)
Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR)
Sen.Ted Stevens (R-AK)
Sen. John Sununu (R-NH)

Biden was tending to transition duties, while Kerry was in Poznan (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gKVYp84tILSD8N6nFQACR29P6Cyg) , Poland, participating in U.N. climate change talks. Alexander was home recovering from surgery (http://www.wbir.com/news/national/story.aspx?storyid=71412&catid=16). Why did these other Senators feel auto workers weren’t as deserving as Wall Street?

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

Some FYI : GM auto works do NOT (http://mediamatters.org/discuss/200811220004)get paid over $70 /hour :

Let's note that any suggestion in the press that most UAW workers earn, or are paid, $70 an hour is spectacularly dishonest. Period. (As one Daily Kos diarist pointed out (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailykos.com %2Fstory%2F2008%2F11%2F19%2F04636%2 F389%2F733%2F663386) last week, according to the UAW website (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uaw.org%2Fba rg%2F07fact%2Ffact02.php), the base pay for a worker in a UAW plant is about $28 an hour.)
What that $70 figure (or $73) actually represents is what it costs GM in total labor expenses, on an hourly basis, to manufacture autos.
Do you see that there's a big distinction? General Motors doles out $70 an hour in overall labor costs to manufacture cars. But individual employees don't get paid $70 an hour to make cars. (The discrepancy between costs and wages is explained by additional benefits, pension fees, and health-care costs GM pays out to current and retired employees.)
Simply put, GM's labor costs are not synonymous with hourly wages earned by UAW employees. Many in the press have casually used the two interchangeably. But they're not.
Felix Salmon at Portfolio did perhaps the best job (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.portfolio.co m%2Fviews%2Fblogs%2Fmarket-movers%2F2008%2F11%2F18%2Fthe-return-of-the-70-per-hour-meme) explaining the misinformation at play: The average GM assembly-line worker makes about $28 per hour in wages, and I can assure you that GM is not paying $42 an hour in health insurance and pension plan contributions. Rather, the $70 per hour figure (or $73 an hour, or whatever) is a ridiculous number obtained by adding up GM's total labor, health, and pension costs, and then dividing by the total number of hours worked. In other words, it includes all the healthcare and retirement costs of retired workers. [emphasis in original]

[Tony Pascarella]

Last night, the Senate failed to approve the auto rescue package, voting 52-35 (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110 &session=2&vote=00215) in favor of the bill – just eight short of the 60 votes that were needed. Over on the Wonk Room, Dan Weiss takes a look at the 20 senators (http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2008/12/12/tarp-yes-auto-no/) who voted for the Wall Street bailout but voted against the auto rescue last night (as well as the 10 others who skipped the vote last night, but voted for the financial bailout):


Yes to TARP, No to auto
Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT)
Sen. Robert Bennett (R-UT)
Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC)
Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN)
Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN)
Sen. John Ensign (R-NV)
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Sen. Kay Hutchison (R-TX)
Sen. John Isakson (R-GA)
Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL)
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Sen. John Thune (R-SD)

Yes to TARP, Absent for auto
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE)
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX)
Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID)
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA)
Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR)
Sen.Ted Stevens (R-AK)
Sen. John Sununu (R-NH)

Biden was tending to transition duties, while Kerry was in Poznan (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gKVYp84tILSD8N6nFQACR29P6Cyg) , Poland, participating in U.N. climate change talks. Alexander was home recovering from surgery (http://www.wbir.com/news/national/story.aspx?storyid=71412&catid=16). Why did these other Senators feel auto workers weren’t as deserving as Wall Street?Hmm, let's see here. Sununu, Stevens, Smith, and Craig were all defeated or are retiring, so it's not like they're particularly accountable to anyone at this point.

I don't think there was as much perceived urgency this time around, especially with all of the skepticism, and obviously the Republicans had some issues with the wording of the legislation. With the financial bailout it was seen as a much bigger deal--it wasn't so much is this going to pass, but let's hammer something out to make it pass. It's a bummer, but at the same time, the Big Three could have done a hell of a lot more to bolster their case.

[WarpSpeedChewy]

Hagel is up for retirement as well.

[Tony Pascarella]

Hagel is up for retirement as well.Interesting article from Friday:
Hagel inclined to support automaker bailout (http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/apwire/7d61c285e83e51c67d2a152446a6d121.ht m)

Clearly someone convinced him to change his mind.

[WarpSpeedChewy]

Interesting article from Friday:
Hagel inclined to support automaker bailout (http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/apwire/7d61c285e83e51c67d2a152446a6d121.ht m)

Clearly someone convinced him to change his mind.
It sounds more to me his mind wasn't made up at all.

[benn10]

i mean it's fine if we're going through hyperinflation and we just decide to all print money at home but I agree. I think people should be able to live at a comfortable wage, and i'm sure it's hard work, but when you have people who've gone to grad school not making that much, its a problem

If you lower wages beyond a certain point, you're opening the door to outsourcing. Michigan's economy can't afford to lose those jobs. (and that's the beauty of a union)