Yes, yes, and yes. By the way, yes.
Moreover - YES!
Posted by Sharkbabe at November 11, 2008 06:08 AMBecasue the management of the US Auto Industry has proven time and time again to be incapable of, well, managing this vital part of our economy, strings must be attached for three reasons:
-For the sake of our environment and national security we must move to efficiency, not just short term profits.
-Not moving to these efficient cars would inevitabley leave them right where they are now, unable to compete with Japan who will produce them.
-Facing the new economic realities of the country, quite frankly we need smaller more efficient cars b/c that's all people will be able to afford. We don't need to cater only to the few who can afford high margin luzury SUVs. Cars are a necessity and we need the tradition of the Model T or VW to continue.
So as we bail them out with tax money, they need to deliver for us with efficient, affordable cars and a sustainable long-term business model.
Posted by midwestdem at November 11, 2008 06:13 AMNot surprised.
I'm sure that the auto companies have decided to strike while the prior administration is in place, thereby increasing the chances that bailout money -under their terms- is more likely to flow.
Posted by idiosynchronic at November 11, 2008 07:07 AMSpokesman "experts" were on The Diane Rehm Show a few weeks ago. They claimed there WERE problems in the American auto industry's cars but now there aren't. In fact, it's just our imagination that they are making poor cars now. They make great cars and it's unionization that's preventing them from bringing their European produced high-mileage cars over here.
I'm not buying it. First, I bet the UAW would love to make those cars here. You can't tell me auto workers don't want to make cars America will buy so even if they don't want cars made by non-union workers, make them here and problem solved!
Second, the production lines can't be switched over to make those European cars. Really? I remember when that production line argument was used in reverse. They claimed way back when that more automation (and thus less workers) would help them change fabrication quickly to make any car. Well, if that's so either you were wrong then or you're wrong now. I'm betting you just don't want to spend money to do it. Besides, everyone knows you've been looking out for short term gain for years and that's resulted in long term loss. Spend some money now and get production going on those high mileage cars selling like hotcakes in Europe.
But here's the most important point: your cars still don't work well. Even if all my arguments fail above here go get a copy of Consumer Reports year end issue and open up the auto section. Look at how "American" car companies' cars last. Go ahead... I'll wait... There, see those black marks after the first or maybe (if you've got a "good" American car) second year? Those mean you have significantly higher than average repair rates for those parts of the car. Look at the American brands. There are lots of black marks. In fact some pages are filled with MOSTLY black marks. Now, turn to a page of Honda or Toyota. Not so many black marks, right? Lots of red though that mean FEWER than average repairs. That means those manufacturers are making BETTER CARS THAN THE AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS.
The only advantage is that some American cars cost less than foreign. But with that higher than average repair rate, you end up paying for it in the long run - again something American manufacturers haven't been good at looking at. And that doesn't even go into fuel mileage.
One thing these "experts" also implied was that the Japanese companies have an unfair advantage by sharing technology with each other with the help of the government. In other words, they cheat because they are a trust with government help, something that is Unamerican, you know. Well, last time I checked, the government doesn't put together cars and doesn't make your parts and especially doesn't outsource part making to other countries for the lowest price. Look, the end result is simple, if you don't have good parts, things break more often. If you don't put them together well, things break more often. And this isn't something that's wrong with the workers necessarily either. And if it is, you can fix that by insisting on better work. If it isn't but rather something in your manufacturing process, copy what the other guys are doing that's better or figure out how to make it better yourself. These things aren't that hard to figure out, Ford! Execution of what to do isn't easy though because you need time and money. So, yeah, since if you fail utterly and lay off 90% of your work force it will mean terrible times for a big swath of the U.S. we should help but we must insist of strings.
Take a look at what I've written and attach strings that insist on fixes that work. Make better parts, make better cars with them, innovate and produce rather than innovate and shelve, and PROVE you deserve the cash. Or else the cash should be taken away and assets confiscated and sold. Why, because it's better NOT to have a company that refuses to make good quality product and think long term than one keep one around that constantly needs help and drains government funds and my tax money.
*By way of explanation we have two vans in my family: a Honda minivan with 120+k miles on it and an 80K Ford van. We bought the Honda used for $9000 and were given the Ford for a dollar from a relative when it had not quite 70K miles on it. I'm only going to give you one guess as to which one is more ergonomic and usable and which one gets better mileage, runs smoother, has better suspension and less problems with anything breaking. Hint: it begins with and "H."
Posted by gmknobl at November 11, 2008 08:14 AMLeave Traitor Joe in his chairmanship. Cave on the Colombian "free trade" deal so we can reward another failed industry with tax dollars.
Yeah, Obama really is delivering up on this change stuff.
Uh, Robert, Obama's not prez yet, in case you haven't noticed. Kinda makes it hard for him to change anything. He also said nothing about Lieberman's committee assignments, only that he's not going to referee the Senate's squabbles. That's what his position is supposed to be.
Or were you just looking for something to whine about 'cos you're bored since puma folded?
Posted by iamcoyote at November 11, 2008 08:47 AMBesides having the full ability to trigger a 21st century depression if the industry is allowed to go under
Well, hold on a bit.
What if GM, Ford and Chrysler *did* fail?
First, let's consider that they are not the only companies assembling autos in the U.S. Toyota, Honda, Subaru, BMW, Nissan, Mazda, and probably some others I'm not aware of run plants here and have suitable management infrastructure in place. Some of these assembly plants are joint ventures with the big three. If suddenly the big three stopped making cars and trucks there would for sure be turmoil in the market, but there would also be an increased demand for the output of the others. Toyota would probably have to take over idle assembly plants to step up production of their large pickups. Mazda or Nissan or both would probably take over production of the Ford line of trucks.
The transition would be very painful, but in the the end the US would be assembling about the same number of cars and trucks as it does now, but under competent management that is based primarily out of Japan. This would be a good thing in the long run.
Posted by Anonny at November 11, 2008 08:57 AMHeh. I saw a ford truck commercial this week touting 21 MPG! Hurrah! I had to wonder whether a substitute weenie was worth the price tag. Judging by the roads out here, and my junk mail box, I would guess the penis (or lack thereof) still holds sway over the wallet.
Posted by iamcoyote at November 11, 2008 10:01 AMThe "big 3" are toast. The Volt is about as good vs Japan as the rest of the US autos and the Japanese are what five years ahead of us in development. And Ford Cerebus are not even there.
I don't know if I am being cynical or naive but I think that the bailout is for the UAW and its contracted benefits. Bankruptcy would nullify all of the union contracts. So perhaps what Obama wants is to float the companies til he can get the UAW pension plans government funded.
Now we all know that these pension plans are well above what most of the rest of us have.
So can somebody talk me down from the idea that bailing out the UAW pensions by all the rest of us who have much worse pensions is no different then bailing out megabuck CEO parachutes.
Robert Chaviano,
Um, doesn't look like anyone's caving on Columbia.
Don't count on it.
Obama is going to be the bigger man when it comes to Joe. He's a pragmatist so he doesn't feel like wasting political capital over a pissing contest. He's taking the high road and with it a 70% approval rating he'll use to get things done that matter.
Oh and yes, the re-industrialization of America matters. Letting the automakers die would be a step in the wrong direction.
Posted by midwestdem at November 11, 2008 05:50 PMplschwartz,
OMG bailing out an industry that >Gasp
Oh NOES!
The problem with the US auto companies is the union deals (wages, pensions, benefits). For each car produced:
GM spends $1500 on health care benefits.
Toyota spends $110 on health care benefits.
That's "per car." Ouch. GM can't compete with that. The management put GM in this position by making that deal with the UAW. It's not the fault of the workers.
Yet Obama needs the union voters, so there will be a bailout. Even though the business model of GM is flawed and they will continue to lose money compared to Toyota. When the bailout money runs out, GM will once again be near bankruptcy.
GM would like to declare bankruptcy, offload the pensions and health care costs to the PBGC, and end the union contracts. That's the best road for GM to restructure and become competitive again. Not likely with the Democrats in power, though.
Posted by Len at November 11, 2008 06:11 PMNot sure what happened.
That should read, "OMG bailing out an industry that >Gasp
Posted by midwestdem at November 11, 2008 06:12 PMLen,
The real solution is for Government to play a bigger role in providing health care.
That is where Japan and Germany have the upper hand.
This is also desirable b/c we don't just want UAW members getting good benefits but everyone.
Before everyone trashes the UAW, they should be aware that they have negotiated much more modest (still fair) wages for new hires a few years back and I read that new employees are now under a defined contribution retirement.
This is a sustainable relationship.
Not to mention Japan and Germany have subsidized their auto industry to strengthen them and give them the breathing room to think long term. They also have trade protectionist trade vis-a-vis us, which has allowed their home grown industries to flourish at home and abroad.
Let's get with the program.
Posted by midwestdem at November 11, 2008 06:19 PMOMG bailing out an industry that >Gasp
Just figured it out... the last half was read as hypertext
Anyway, I was trying to say they actually MAKE something!
Posted by midwestdem at November 11, 2008 06:20 PMIf they give them a bailout then also give the company to the workers as a co-operative. The management obviously does not have a clue, so maybe those whose jobs are on the line can run their workplaces better. They can hardly do any worse...
Posted by Anarcho at November 12, 2008 06:21 AM