Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

KDakotaFund (23.78)

Ten Reasons Why the Auto Bailout Is a Bad Idea

Recs

0

November 22, 2008 – Comments (23) | RELATED TICKERS: GM , F

The auto industry sees other industries getting government bailouts, and wonders why not? Others hear the pleas of the Big Three carmakers and wonder, why?

Democratic leaders in Congress crafted a plan to fork over $25 billion to Detroit, above and beyond the $25 billion in loans the government already committed to help the Big Three make more fuel-efficient cars.

But a majority in Congress, along with the Bush administration, balked at the idea. Critics of the bailout plan argue that the real problem for General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler is that their cost structures are bloated, their management doesn’t work, and they can’t make cars of high enough quality to attract American buyers.

Throwing money at the same people who couldn’t get it right wouldn't solve any of that.

Following are 10 top reasons why a bailout is not a good idea:

1. A bailout would provide money only for short-term survival. It wouldn't alter carmakers' flawed business models. GM is running through cash at the rate of $2 billion a month. So $10 billion from the government would give it only five months’ breathing room. Can they turn over their business practices in that period? Please. The temptation would be simply to come back to taxpayers for more.

2. A government handout would allow the Big Three to avoid necessary cost cutting. Because of a strong union, the average GM employee received $70 an hour in combined pay and benefits last year. And it’s not just line workers who are making too much. GM chief executive Richard Wagoner garnered about $24 million a year in 2006 and 2007, while leading his company toward oblivion.

3. Bankruptcy isn’t all bad. It doesn’t mean liquidation. It means taking the painful steps the companies have been unwilling to contemplate to date. The real losers in such a deal are carmakers, equity shareholders and creditors. Bankruptcy would give the automakers the chance to throw out existing employee contracts with their onerous health and pension systems. The unions would be forced to temper their demands if they want the car companies to survive. In the case of GM, it could also dump some of its uncompetitive product lines such as Pontiac and Saturn. Discontinuing five of GM’s eight domestic brands would save the company $5 billion annually.

4. Taxpayer money won’t change the fact that many foreign cars are made better than their U.S. counterparts. Kelley Blue Book announced its top 10 brands for resale value this week, and not one of the Big Three was on the list. Chryslers, for example, keep only 24.2 percent of their sticker price on average after five years. By contrast, Hondas retain 44.5 percent of their value.

5. Bailout funds would help automakers continue their outsourcing of auto jobs to foreign countries, where costs are lower. All of the Big Three have increased the percentage of manufacturing and assembly done overseas in the past year, especially in China and Mexico. In May, Ford agreed to build $3 billion auto plant in suburban Mexico City and upgrade two other Mexican plants, the largest foreign investment in Mexican history.

6. Big Three bankruptcies wouldn’t mean the end of auto industry in the United States. Foreign companies, which already have plants here, could pick up the slack and open new factories. Some 78,000 Americans already work for foreign carmakers, a number likely to rise in the wake of any U.S. automaker demise. The depressed South could benefit particularly from increased production of foreign auto companies.

7. Other industries have survived bankruptcy just fine. Most of the major airlines have spent time in bankruptcy, including United, Continental, Delta, Northwest, and US Airways. Their predicament looked particularly dire after 9/11. But the major carriers made it through. And to the extent that they suffered, low-fare competitors such as Southwest and JetBlue picked up the slack, often offering superior service in addition to cheaper prices.

8. Bailing out the auto industry would only encourage other sectors to beg for government handouts. Remember that the $750 Billion Troubled Assets Relief Program was designed only to assist banks, but now insurance companies and even credit card giant American Express are trying to get in on the action. Homebuilders, who arguably are as strapped as the automakers, could lobby for some of the action.

9. Stockholders deserve no mercy. Some argue that they should be compensated for the fact that GM and Ford’s share prices have hit their lowest levels in decades. But in a free market, stock prices go down as well as up. The automakers’ problems have been clear for years, so investors had plenty of time to get out. As for Chrysler, it’s owned by private equity firm Cerberus, no innocent victim itself.

10. Bailouts have been tried in the auto industry, and they don’t work. In the 1970s, Britain’s Leyland hit the skids, hurt by slipping quality in its vehicles and imports from Germany and Japan. Sound familiar? Leyland, which made MGs, Jaguars and mass-market cars, accounted for 36 percent of the UK market. So the government sunk in $16.5 billion to keep it afloat. The result? Unless you’re a car buff, you’ve probably never heard of Leyland, because it no longer exists.

23 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On November 22, 2008 at 1:48 PM, outoffocus (22.86) wrote:

So why cant Congress and the American people figure that out...

Report this comment
#2) On November 22, 2008 at 2:10 PM, rookie02 (52.04) wrote:

i would agree with everything you say with the exception of a few things to think about.

1) not bailing out the big three doesnt leave them with the only option of bankruptcy. it also leaves them with an option to sell, and there have been several bids made on the american auto industry.

 2) unemployment is on the rise considerably without the auto industry tanking. to force them to sell or shave jobs or whatever only increases the climb up the unemployment rate ladder.

no one i know would like more than to see this bailout money go back to the american people. if we give the big three the money, and it keeps hundreds of thousands of people employed, if even for only a few months, in a sense we are puttingthat money back into the bottom where it belongs and fewer people aer missing mortgage payments. i think te bailout to begin with was a horrible idead compounded by bait and switch politics and cloak and dagger propaganda to the american people. but we are in it and whatever sends the money back to the people has my back, whether i like it or not.

Report this comment
#3) On November 22, 2008 at 4:04 PM, devoish (65.60) wrote:

4. Taxpayer money won’t change the fact that many foreign cars are made better than their U.S. counterparts.

 It also will not change the fact that many foreign cars are not made better. It was nice for me, as a mechanic, to see agreement with what I had already been seeing in my little corner of the world. I chose a Focus for my MIL over everything else that was comparable out there. It was also nice to see that the cash burn at GM is given as a less inaccurate 2bil/month from the 5bil/month I had seen in this list in some other post. At the senate hearings, GM CEO Rick Wagoner, gave the figure as 3bil/quarter, or 1bil/month.

This is for those who cannot wait for perception to catch reality. Ford and GM have matched foreign quality, although Xler still has not.

Buick ties Lexus for No. 1 in car reliability.

 Survey finds Detroit brands making headway against Japanese competitors.August 9 2007: 9:57 AM EDT

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- For the first time in 12 years, Toyota's Lexus luxury brand has to share its top rank in J.D. Power and Associates' annual Vehicle Dependability Study.

And it has to share it with an American car.

General Motors' Buick brand tied Lexus in the study, which measures the number of problems owners experience with their cars after three years of ownership.

Following Lexus and Buick in the rankings were GM's Cadillac luxury brand, Ford's Mercury brand and Honda's Honda brand.

Toyota's mass-market Toyota brand ranked sixth.

"Consumers don't necessarily need to pay premium prices to obtain high quality and dependability," said Neal Oddes, director of product research and analysis for J.D. Power and Associates.

"With three non-premium nameplates - Buick, Honda and Mercury - ranking within the top five," he said, "and particularly with Buick tying with Lexus for the top rank, consumers seeking a vehicle with strong dependability have good choices at various price levels."

J.D. Power Vehicle Dependability Study is based on responses from more than 53,000 original owners of 2004 model year vehicles.

Owners of the top-ranked Lexus and Buick vehicles experienced 145 problems per 100 vehicles. Owners of second-ranked Cadillac vehicles experienced 162 problems per 100 vehicles.

The lowest-ranking brand was Land Rover, Ford's European luxury SUV brand. Land Rover owners experienced 398 problems per 100 vehicles, according to the survey.

Report this comment
#4) On November 22, 2008 at 4:11 PM, beyondgreen (< 20) wrote:

  WE must make more of an effort in this nation to become energy independent. Not enough credit is being given to the high gas prices this past year and it's serious damage on our economy and society. That one factor alone has caused serious stress in both individuals and businesses. A record number of homes and jobs have been lost as a direct result. And, while we are doing the happy dance around the lower prices at the pumps OPEC is announcing cuts to manipulate the prices upward again. We must get on with becoming energy independent.We can't take another year like this past. There is a wonderful new book out about the energy crisis and what it would take for America to become energy independent. It covers every aspect of oil, what it's uses are besides gasoline, our reserves, our depletion of it. Every type of alternative energy is covered and it's potential to replace oil. He even has proposed legislative agenda's that would be necessary to implement these changes along with time frames. This book is profoundly informative and our country needs to become more informed and move forward with becoming energy independent. Electric cars cost the equivalent of 60 cents per gallon to drive and can conceivably be charged using electricity generated from solar or wind. Green technology would not only provide clean cheap energy it would create millions of badly needed new jobs. The Book is called The Manhattan Project of 2009 Energy Independence NOW by Jeff Wilson. Our politicians all need to read this book.

Report this comment
#5) On November 22, 2008 at 4:14 PM, MetlFabr (< 20) wrote:

Unfortunately, the precedent has already been set with the bank bailouts. Now is not the time to show mercy to irresponsible millionaires. The demise of the big three is not a surprise. Forking out more money would not send a positive message to future entrepenures. The message for the future should be:

"Operate your businees responsibly, be humble and own up to your mistakes"

Nothing lasts forever. Be prepared!

 

The country will bounce back from a spike in unemployment. Foreign carmakers will need to hire people to make cars to fill the ever-shrinking void left by domestic carmakers.

 

Close the door opened by the first round of bailouts. Close it and board it up for good.

Report this comment
#6) On November 22, 2008 at 4:24 PM, MetlFabr (< 20) wrote:

When domestic auto makers figure out that not everyone can afford a $37,000.00 electric car with onboard navigation, bluetooth, ten speaker sound system, power windows, power locks, and only has a range of under 200 miles then maybe just maybe there will be a viable source for alternative energy vehicles.

All I want and need is an inexpensive, reliable mode of transportation that seats 4 and has heat!!!

Report this comment
#7) On November 22, 2008 at 4:31 PM, kdakota630 (28.81) wrote:

Maybe it's time for GM to start making the Chevette again.

Report this comment
#8) On November 22, 2008 at 5:40 PM, arness (< 20) wrote:

10 Reasons Why This Article Is Completely Crazy

 

1.   It is nonsense to think that carmakers would emerge from bankruptcy leaner and meaner. Who is going to buy a new car from a bankrupt company? If they go bankrupt, they will be gone forever. And hanging on to a handful of jobs at plants of foreign carmakers won't make up the difference.

2.   The Center for Automotive Research estimates the cost of the big three going under at $300 billion. And that doesn't count the cost of the ripple effect on the rest of the economy, nor the cost to Canada and Mexico. It's a slam-dunk the real cost will reach the trillions, compared to which 45 billion is a detail.

3.   Critics love to slam North American carmakers for poor products and flawed business practices. Fact is, their products have come from way behind to equal the leaders. See above, Buick ties Lexus -- if you take price into consideration, it's miles ahead. And what flawed business practices are you talking about? You don't name them because you don't know what they are.

4.   And are we going to write off every big US company that isn't globally competitive? The few that are, are heavily subsidized by the US government. Consider defense, pharmaceuticals, capital-intensive farming, and large engineering firms like Halliburton -- all heavily subsidized one way or another. The only non-subsidized, globally competitive US industries that I can think of are movies, music and porn.

5.   Other countries nurture their core industries until they are competitive, and punish greed and shortsightedness. The US opens the doors to imports from countries like Japan that won't buy anything from America. This is truly the root problem.

6.   Furthermore, automakers are shackled by a legacy of union contracts. These were put in place when there was no foreign competition to speak of. The UAW would target one of the big three at a time, and none of them could afford to be shut down for the length of time it would take to win that battle. Since each was facing only two competitors who would be burdened with the same cost structure, it made no rational sense to put up a fight. This was a national problem that the US nation didn't bother to recognize or address. Americans believe the good times will go on forever no matter what.

7.   If labor costs have to be fixed, then make it a condition of the bailout and legislate it. It is nonsense to think that withholding the bailout will somehow miraculously empower the carmakers to fix this on their own, or egg them on to cut costs that they wouldn't cut otherwise.

8.   Much has been made of the automobile CEOs flying in private jets. But what about President Bush? Doesn't he have a private jet or two?  Has he performed well enough to deserve it? The bloating of salaries and perks is systemic and nationwide -- it needs to be addressed, but it won't happen overnight. CEOs do what other CEOs do, and they all need to clean up their act.

9.   Automakers point to tremendous progress in product quality despite huge cost disadvantages that were imposed on them and which they had no means to combat. They claim also to have made great progress in cost cutting, again despite a legacy of cost problems from the past. Do any of those who criticize them have the facts to refute their claims? Obviously, the right thing to do is to demand the plans and impose the stipulations that that do as much to improve the chances of success as can be done. It would be foolish to believe that success can be guaranteed, but to do otherwise would set up a cascade of catastrophes that will make the dirty thirties look like a day at the beach.

10.        And it is fair to say that the shareholders shouldn't get a windfall. But why not demand that the automakers issue new shares to the US government? Old shareholders would pay for their sins through dilution. The government could then mandate and support the development of oil independent cars, and when US cars become the most foreign-oil-free cars in the world, sell the shares and return the proceeds to the American taxpayer.

Report this comment
#9) On November 22, 2008 at 6:53 PM, LouieJunior (26.02) wrote:

Here is what the Auto Industry Leaders should propose to congress in two weeks...

1.) Ditch the labor Agreements. Continuing to overpay rank & file workers and paying hoards of people for not working will make any turn-around impossible.

2.) Ditch the CAFE Standards. Government has saddled the automakers with cripling regulations and mandates. Waxman will make these even worse. They need to shed themselves from these idiotic government controls.

The companies can compete and thrive without these two factors -- in fact, they are thriving in markets outside the USA.

Report this comment
#10) On November 22, 2008 at 7:05 PM, cvega47 (< 20) wrote:

The reason that the Big three should get the bailout has several points. first many of the workers that work for the Big three pay a good portion of the middle class tax base. Next we all need to remember that wealthy executives like the ones at AIG have loop holes for them to get out of paying taxes. Another reason the Big 3 need to get bailed out is that the recent studies by economist at several major universities have stated that it is a fact that we will be pushed into a depression if we allow the Big three to go under. But we should demand that the AIG executives that took 500 million in bonuses from the 150 billion that was paid to AIG from tax payers should give it back. Also AIG did not give any kind of business plan to congress before the treasury gave AIG the first payment of a 150 billion. Another point why we should bailout the big 3 is the point that economically they can bring us all down to poverty if they go out of business. This is a fact not an opinion

Report this comment
#11) On November 22, 2008 at 7:39 PM, MarketBottom (28.48) wrote:

Why, exactly does the auto industry and autoworkers think that they deserve any sort or special treatment? They make a sorry product, and sell it at an inflated price. They sell payments not products. The workers work for the union. Why aren't pension plans put into something that might be deemed SAFE? That's the problem, everyone talks horrible risks and when it does not work, turns into a beggar.

Enough, they have done little to nothing to foster their future or to help the consumer. Let the auto industry and those that bought houses without the benefit of income to support their purchases do the honorable thing, and stop asking for a handout.

Report this comment
#12) On November 23, 2008 at 1:22 AM, cvega47 (< 20) wrote:

The auto workers deserve the help from tax payers because they pay the majority of the taxes in this county. In fact the Big 3 created the middle class in this county. Most counties help out many companies on a regular bases except the US.

Report this comment
#13) On November 23, 2008 at 6:30 PM, Option1307 (30.65) wrote:

 arness

And what flawed business practices are you talking about? You don't name them because you don't know what they are

How about this little number...The fact that the incompetent management did not see the eventual demand for fuel efficient, small, compact cars. Is this not an example of their horrible management and poor palnning/oversight. Ya it is. How can people even begin to justify these comapnies actions?

 

cvega47

The auto workers deserve the help from tax payers because they pay the majority of the taxes in this county.

You're kidding right? Honestly, this is a joke right? The majority of taxes in this coutry are paid by the top 10%, hell the top 1% pay the majority of taxes in the US. And I don't think the top 1% of Americans work at the big 3, so your statement is completely flawed. If you are going to justify a bailout or are going to stick up for this industry, check your facts.

Another point why we should bailout the big 3 is the point that economically they can bring us all down to poverty if they go out of business.

Well if you're going to take this "too big to fail" argument, then shouldn't you apply it to AIG,FRE,FNM,etc as well. Since you don't,why can you claim this is the reason we need to save the big 3 then?

Report this comment
#14) On November 23, 2008 at 6:44 PM, bruce9432 (< 20) wrote:

It is a slippery slope, what is to stop the Reid/Pelosi congress from crafting a bill that requires us to buy a Ford, Chrysler or GM product. Keep in mind the same people that are managing the Social Security debacle want to approve the automakers "business plan". Does it get anymore absurd, "like a blind man riding on the back of a deaf person" . Oh well, just like Rome we'll get bread and circuses until the barbarians enter the city.

Report this comment
#15) On November 23, 2008 at 10:09 PM, arness (< 20) wrote:

Option1307

You don't understand business. Every busness protects the bottom line. Only a business with very deep pockets can bring products to market for which there is little demand and wait until demand changes. Until recently, Detroit's only profitable products have been hummers, SUVs, and trucks.

The free market system is the best system ever invented for responding, but the worst ever invented for anticipating.

Report this comment
#16) On November 23, 2008 at 11:14 PM, Option1307 (30.65) wrote:

You don't understand business.

 arness

You're right, I don't understand business... I was actually hoping to run over to Detroit and get some really good lessons from the "pros", you think you could arrange that for me? I'm not trying to step on your toes or tell you what to think, I respect your opinion and all. However, I have to disagree.

I wasn't implying that the big 3 should have brought these fuel efficient cars to the market, but shouldn't they have at least spent possibly 5 minutes reviewing/discussing potential directions the company might have to take. Gas prices have been rising for a while, before this summer. Yet, they act as if they were shocked people wanted good mpg even though Asia has been making these types of cars for yrs. So how did Detroit not see this coming? How did they not take the time to realize that, one day, they would have to change their methodology? Oh thats right, their management is incompetent.

Do you honestly think these companies were well run? Do you honestly think they have beenmanaged well the last 30 yrs.+, after the last big 3 "bailout" in the 1970's? I sure don't. I understand businesses need to protect their bottom line, obviously. However, they biggest key to good management, is just that, managing your company and averting/avoiding bankrupcy. Instead the big 3 directed their respective comapnies dirtly into a money sucking black hole. Unfortunately the big 3 are retards and could not avoid bankruptcy, thus, they were poorly managed, pure and simple.

Report this comment
#17) On November 23, 2008 at 11:51 PM, arness (< 20) wrote:

Option1307

 

You are quite right. No, I don't think he's companies were well managed for the past 30 years. Particularly before the Japanese onslaught, they were slothful and greedy.

 

However, I think that is true of American business in general.

 

I also think that the Big Three have been above average in turning things around (and that is not saying much). And that they have been victims of circumstance and government policies that were beyond their control.

 

If things turn out well, I think there will be a time to take auto company CEOs and the like to the woodshed.

 

But what is now making me sick with worry is the feeling that we are on the brink of punishing the auto companies in a way that will lead to an economic catastrophe that is beyond imagining. I fear that America is on the verge of becoming a third world country. Helping out a few undeserving SOBs to prevent this is, I think, a price worth paying.

Report this comment
#18) On November 24, 2008 at 12:01 AM, Option1307 (30.65) wrote:

 arness

we are on the brink of punishing the auto companies

This is something that has bothered me as well. Why did we bailout the financial industry and now are against the auto companies? I am not for a bailout; however, I'm not so sure we should be randomoly deciding who is "fit" to be bailed out, and who is not. Especially when its the awesome duo of Ben and Hank...Good convo

Report this comment
#19) On November 25, 2008 at 12:47 PM, leanbeliever (< 20) wrote:

Regardless of whether a bailout is given, a lasting solution for the automakers can only come in conjunction with restructuring their businesses to become more dynamically stable — making them better able to adjust to meet today’s new reality of uncertainty, global competition, and periodic crises.  Fortunately, there are proven methods to support this —developed by companies that grew while facing a compelling need for dealing with severe, uncertain conditions, making them well suited to operating in today’s challenging environment.   

Let’s hope that whatever decision that is made includes arrangements for a real transformation that promotes a viable U.S. automotive industry for the long term—hopefully at least considering the principles of lean dynamics proven by their competitors.

Report this comment
#20) On December 04, 2008 at 11:01 AM, cvega47 (< 20) wrote:

Will the US Grow as a Nation?

A Cross Cultural Comparison of a Congressional Decision

 

Recently we have been faced with the question as whether as a nation do we stand and support each other as a nation or do we remain an immature country. The reason for stating this point is whether to help the big three auto companies with a bridge loan. Within all the western countries that have a domestic auto industry like Germany, Spain and Great Britain, all of them give financial support to their auto industry on regular bases. There are many important reasons why they do this.

One reason is that those countries know that their country can not survive financially if they allow themselves to believe in a pure form of Darwinian capitalism. This thinking is related to the fact that social human behavior in a corporate setting behaves in a racial mature manner not in a Darwinian style. For example the European countries have matured and have learned through experience that pure capitalism does not mix well in a true market. This is because it actually becomes destructive force to the health of their nations. The answer is that they have changed their ideology to a more social democracy form of governments. This does not mean that they have become completely socialistic it means that there democracy has matured and is more supportive as a nation.

The next viewpoint to look at is whether a decision to support the auto industry is morally right. A tool to use to answer this question is the study that was done by               (Kohlberg 1971) in which he lays out his six stage model of moral development. The fifth and sixth stages are a blueprint that emphasizes the need for moral decision making to be well-though out and ethical. This means that a decision should have a positive means to an end. In other words the voting decision that congress decides on should have a positive affect rather than a negative outcome. In other words if congress votes correctly they will support the auto workers because this will in the end be a positive outcome for the American public. But if they decided not to support the auto workers this would be considered under (Kohlberg 1971) an immoral decision by congress. This is because too many Americans will be hurt by the no vote.  

            The next point then is whether the US congress decides to remain a selfish nation and only help the rich or do we understand that greed limits our ability to think objectively and support our auto industry. I hope that congress will choose to think in a mature manner and vote to approve a bridge loan to the US auto industry.

                                                                                             Charles Vega

Masters in Organizational Management

BA in Sociology & Criminal Justice

                                                                                                 

Report this comment
#21) On December 04, 2008 at 12:15 PM, truthisntstupid (78.32) wrote:

   YOU all support them.  Personally, I hope any bailout falls flat on its face.  Haven't you ever driven by one of their damned picket lines at a time when there were probably a thousand people a week driving by those same picket lines that would have given anything to take their damn job for half the money they were already making even without the benefits they already had?

   And what about the fact they feel ENTITLED to as much compensation in pay and benefits as many doctors, engineers, teachers, nurses... people who sat in boring classes, racked their brains, lost sleep studying for tests.   You know, people who EARNED the right to expect higher pay.  Oh, don't you even think about misclassifying me.  I didn't get to finish college, having to drop out for personal reasons.  I'm just a restaurant cook.   I make $9 an hour, have held a variety of jobs, am 50 years old, have worked hard all my life and no one's handing me ANYTHING.   If they think they deserve to make that kind of money because they "work hard"  it's an insult to everyone else that works hard in this country that doesn't have it a fourth as good as they do.

    I'll never buy anything they make as long as they think they deserve to have it so much better than everyone else of equal skills and training.   The country will NOT collapse if the companies they've been killing for decades now are finally allowed to clean house and hire people they can pay a level of income they are actually worth. 

    I don't believe for a minute that I am one of a very few.   A large part of this country is fed up with them and their sense of entitlement.   Rail at us, call us names..... we still won't put a penny towards the paycheck of an $80- $100,000 a year forklift driver when most of us make $10- $12 an hour.  LET 'EM FAIL.

   

Report this comment
#22) On December 04, 2008 at 12:17 PM, truthisntstupid (78.32) wrote:

   YOU all support them.  Personally, I hope any bailout falls flat on its face.  Haven't you ever driven by one of their damned picket lines at a time when there were probably a thousand people a week driving by those same picket lines that would have given anything to take their damn job for half the money they were already making even without the benefits they already had?

   And what about the fact they feel ENTITLED to as much compensation in pay and benefits as many doctors, engineers, teachers, nurses... people who sat in boring classes, racked their brains, lost sleep studying for tests.   You know, people who EARNED the right to expect higher pay.  Oh, don't you even think about misclassifying me.  I didn't get to finish college, having to drop out for personal reasons.  I'm just a restaurant cook.   I make $9 an hour, have held a variety of jobs, am 50 years old, have worked hard all my life and no one's handing me ANYTHING.   If they think they deserve to make that kind of money because they "work hard"  it's an insult to everyone else that works hard in this country that doesn't have it a fourth as good as they do.

    I'll never buy anything they make as long as they think they deserve to have it so much better than everyone else of equal skills and training.   The country will NOT collapse if the companies they've been killing for decades now are finally allowed to clean house and hire people they can pay a level of income they are actually worth. 

    I don't believe for a minute that I am one of a very few.   A large part of this country is fed up with them and their sense of entitlement.   Rail at us, call us names..... we still won't put a penny towards the paycheck of an $80- $100,000 a year forklift driver when most of us make $10- $12 an hour.  LET 'EM FAIL.

   

Report this comment
#23) On May 21, 2010 at 3:38 AM, BrandonPaulChevy (< 20) wrote:

Well, auto bail out is indeed a bad idea because there is no direction with it. I guess auto makers should focus on innovating their car parts like the Oil Pan or any other part that may attract customers..

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement