Auto sector bailout

[jdobbin]

$20-25/hr is enough. If not work someplace else.

Why stop there?

[jdobbin]

Yet we want to throw a massive amount of money on an auto sector???

How much annually does agriculture get subsidized. How much does the auto sector?

[Mr.Canada]

Why stop there?

That's a livable wage. Turf that union, announce the decrease, package off the ones that want out and rehire/train new staff. Reward the ones that stay with promotions.

[jdobbin]

Let the Big Three sink like the dead weight they are.

That will probably about 7 to 8 million out of work. Most analysts are saying each car company is responsible for 2 to 2 1/2 million direct and indirect workers.

I believe the UAW has major concessions coming in 2010. They probably should agree to more but even free labour at the moment won't help the car companies. It won't. Right now, financing has dried up and fear grips the market.

The car companies are shutting down. GM will be down all of January. The others will probably follow.

We could be looking at very grim numbers.

[jdobbin]

That's a livable wage. Turf that union, announce the decrease, package off the ones that want out and rehire/train new staff. Reward the ones that stay with promotions.

According to who? Isn't minimum wage a livable wage? Many conservatives say so.

[blueblood]

How much annually does agriculture get subsidized. How much does the auto sector?

Talk to the Europeans about that. I don't recall having a safe auto supply being on the same level of importance as a safe food and fuel supply.

[guyser]

Now, the Automobile industry contributes only $14.1 billion dollars to the GDP of the country, yet there is huge pressure on the Government for a bailout or stimulus for the auto industry???

Does that include the spin off?

[jdobbin]

Talk to the Europeans about that. I don't recall having a safe auto supply being on the same level of importance as a safe food and fuel supply.

So we have to subsidize food for safety? To the tune of billions?

I expect that you are just saying that because you are in agriculture. The support for ethanol is a farm subsidy since it really isn't an economical fuel nor is it exactly a zero emissions product in production or delivery.

And let's not forget about dairy subsidies, grain supports and the like. Seems farmers are okay with protectionism and income supports when it suits them and use the "food security" issue to ensure the spigot isn't turned off.

Edited December 12, 2008 by jdobbin

[Alta4ever]

Doesn't anyone find it funny that its inly the big 3 in North America that need this bailout? What is it about their business model that is so ineffeicent? Doesn't anyone think that maybe chapter 11 would be good, it would cause them to change everything and start over.

[Oleg Bach]

Does that include the spin off?

The spin off is not measurable. We are a car culture - like turtles with shells that are part of our very being. Also any drop off in the sustaining of our middle class brings us closer to the utlitarianist nightmare that will consist of one tenth of one per cent of the population living like crazed gods - while the rest eat a bowl of rice a day and suffer - this is most certainly an attack on the middle class - what I do know about the super rich who are against the bail out unless it suits them - is that if they could they would make sure that the average person had absolutely NOTHING. We are subhuman to them.

[blueblood]

dp

Edited December 12, 2008 by blueblood

[Oleg Bach]

Right now the elite rulers in the states are bickering and saying "what's in it for us?" ...It's about money- so ironic that the rich ask for money from the poor in the form of taxes and then try to barter as if the money is their money. Again to lower the wage of the auto worker translates into profits not going to the auto-worker.

If there are two piles of wealth - one held by upper management and big rolling share holders.

And - the other pile is held by unionist...If you take from one pile then the other pile gets smaller...it's about who gets the lions share. There is sense of entitlement on both sides - and both sides had better share or there will be none for both.

[blueblood]

So we have to subsidize food for safety? To the tune of billions?

I expect that you are just saying that because you are in agriculture. The support for ethanol is a farm subsidy since it really isn't an economical fuel nor is it exactly a zero emissions product in production or delivery.

And let's not forget about dairy subsidies, grain supports and the like. Seems farmers are okay with protectionism and income supports when it suits them and use the "food security" issue to ensure the spigot isn't turned off.

As well as American and European politicians. They're the ones throwing hundreds of billions away. I'd be fine if nobody got ag subsidies. As far as investing in industries that improve the economy and increase the value of exports, I'm all for it. It's a positive return on investment for any government.

Spending money like how Liberals do when industries go south is pure stupidity. PMPM would throw a couple billion dollars at a problem split it up between hundreds of thousands of recipients which screws over the taxpayers and gets nothing done and brag that he's solved the problem. And you wonder why westerners hate the Liberal party... Now the Liberals want to spend money the same way on the auto sector throw billions of dollars at it and watch it get pissed away. Just because Liberals are complete idiots when it comes to overseeing industry doesn't mean you have to trash gov'ts investing in profitable businesses.

At least when gov'ts invest in the oil and ethanol industry, there is a return on investment. Jobs are created, and our exports increase in value.

[August1991]

Doesn't anyone find it funny that its inly the big 3 in North America that need this bailout? What is it about their business model that is so ineffeicent? Doesn't anyone think that maybe chapter 11 would be good, it would cause them to change everything and start over.

I agree with you, Alta. Chapter 11 does not mean GM or Chrysler disappear off the face of the earth. Here's a good read:

The debate about whether or not to bail out the Big Three carmakers has been mischaracterised. It has been described as a package to help the undeserving dinosaurs of Detroit. In fact, a plan to bail out the carmakers would benefit shareholders and bondholders as much as anybody else. These are not the people that need help right now. In fact they contributed to the problem.

Financial markets are supposed to allocate capital and monitor that it is used to good effect. They are supposed to be rewarded when they do that job well, but bear the consequences when they fail.

...

With financial restructuring, the real assets do not disappear. Equity investors (who failed to fulfil their responsibility of oversight) lose everything; bondholders get converted into equity owners and may lose substantial amounts. Freed of the obligation to pay interest, the carmakers will be in a better position. Taxpayer dollars will go far further. Moral hazard – the undermining of incentives – will be averted: a strong message will be sent.

FT

The same logic applies here in Canada. Clement is talking about helping "innocent victims". What Clement fails to note is that the largest recipient of a government subsidy would be none other than Frank Stronach and Magna International. (Mike Harris happens to sit on Magna's Board.) Link

[Alta4ever]

I agree with you, Alta. Chapter 11 does not mean GM or Chrysler disappear off the face of the earth. Here's a good read:FT

The same logic applies here in Canada. Clement is talking about helping "innocent victims". What Clement fails to note is that the largest recipient of a government subsidy would be none other than Frank Stronach and Magna International. (Mike Harris happens to sit on Magna's Board.) Link

Their is a reason why these people are lobbing so hard for a bailout, and it isn't for the individual worker.

[jdobbin]

As well as American and European politicians. They're the ones throwing hundreds of billions away. I'd be fine if nobody got ag subsidies.

I wonder how well we would do if we dropped ours.

Spending money like how Liberals do when industries go south is pure stupidity. PMPM would throw a couple billion dollars at a problem split it up between hundreds of thousands of recipients which screws over the taxpayers and gets nothing done and brag that he's solved the problem. And you wonder why westerners hate the Liberal party... Now the Liberals want to spend money the same way on the auto sector throw billions of dollars at it and watch it get pissed away. Just because Liberals are complete idiots when it comes to overseeing industry doesn't mean you have to trash gov'ts investing in profitable businesses.

So if Harper invests one penny in the auto industry, you will vote for another party?

At least when gov'ts invest in the oil and ethanol industry, there is a return on investment. Jobs are created, and our exports increase in value.

It is a poor investment. Ethanol is not self sufficient. The cost per job is gigantic. And as far as good for the environment, there are far better choices.

[Oleg Bach]

Their is a reason why these people are lobbing so hard for a bailout, and it isn't for the individual worker.

Capitalism peaks and falls like all systems - The rich got so rich that they got poor...and Canada being a corporate entity and company - needs the share holders to cash in and float that company. You have to remember it is us that are bailing out these mini-companies within our huge company. The share holders of Canada - those that hold the common wealth - are willing to help out with a bailing out...but upper management is deeking about wondering how to get a bonus after all is said and done - the share holders will prevail..cos' we the people are the company of Canada.

[Alta4ever]

Capitalism peaks and falls like all systems - The rich got so rich that they got poor...and Canada being a corporate entity and company - needs the share holders to cash in and float that company. You have to remember it is us that are bailing out these mini-companies within our huge company. The share holders of Canada - those that hold the common wealth - are willing to help out with a bailing out...but upper management is deeking about wondering how to get a bonus after all is said and done - the share holders will prevail..cos' we the people are the company of Canada.

If the shareholders would actually revolt and kick these money grubbing excutives out and hire someone to deal with the unions, restructure , rebuild and listen to the market, none of these companies would be in this mess.

[Mr.Canada]

According to who? Isn't minimum wage a livable wage? Many conservatives say so.

Sure it is but to work for a good company the pay goes up. Uneducated people who have no ambition, skill, deserve to make the minimum wage. Better jobs are out there if they don't want to work hard that's their problem.

[jdobbin]

Sure it is but to work for a good company the pay goes up. Uneducated people who have no ambition, skill, deserve to make the minimum wage. Better jobs are out there if they don't want to work hard that's their problem.

Then minimum wage it is for the auto sector. Stick to your guns with that.

[Mr.Canada]

Then minimum wage it is for the auto sector. Stick to your guns with that.

$20-25/hr is a livable and reasonable wage for auto workers. They deserve more per hour then the person who pours my morning coffee at Tim Hortens.

[Oleg Bach]

Sure it is but to work for a good company the pay goes up. Uneducated people who have no ambition, skill, deserve to make the minimum wage. Better jobs are out there if they don't want to work hard that's their problem.

There are drunken insurance executives that do nothing and make 250 a year. Minimum wage after tax is akin to a welfare payment...I was shocked when I found out recently that there are people working for 250 dollars a week - that's cigarette money. Digging a whole under the aspice of a union you could generate 600 hundrend dollars a week 30 years ago - the jerks that have a million in the bank do not understand that you could not get to work because you do not have bus fare or you are sick from malnutrition....the base hourly rate should be about 15 bucks an hour...That is real minimum wage - right now the American senate, in effect wants auto workers to take a pay down that is minimum....to make them "competative" with a third world labour force - WE DON'T NEED TO COMPETE...To hell with competition - we are self sufficient.

[blueblood]

I wonder how well we would do if we dropped ours.

So if Harper invests one penny in the auto industry, you will vote for another party?

It is a poor investment. Ethanol is not self sufficient. The cost per job is gigantic. And as far as good for the environment, there are far better choices.

Considering that it's a drop in the bucket, not too bad. The dairy people wouldn't be happy.

Ag economists say that without ethanol there would be fuel rationing. It's done its job. It's also increased the value of our exported grain and provided jobs. Sounds like a winner to me. It would also save the forest industry.

Edited December 12, 2008 by blueblood

[Oleg Bach]

When you feed food product to machines you are most definitely out of line and out of touch..Grain is food - and food comes before fuel. To convert corn that can create protein - then concentrate that power in the direction of a machine in the form of fuel is obscene and a type of cut throat profiteering that has gotten us into this mess globally. People first - They are the only real commodity.

[jdobbin]

Considering that it's a drop in the bucket, not too bad. The dairy people wouldn't be happy.

Considering that the dairy subsidy has nothing to do with food security, we can honestly say that it about income supports.

Ag economists say that without ethanol there would be fuel rationing. It's done its job. It's also increased the value of our exported grain and provided jobs. Sounds like a winner to me. It would also save the forest industry.

I cry BS on that argument. There wouldn't be fuel rationing because ethanol was dropped. I don't trust ag economists on fuel issues. I simply don't.

The jobs come at a very high cost. The carbon is only reduced a little compared to other choices out there.