Marginal Economist Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 From http://www.barackoba.../auto-recovery/ In 2009, the President decided to extend emergency loans to GM and Chrysler—preventing the collapse of a major American industry: The Rescue More than 1.1 million jobs saved in 2009, more than 310,000 jobs saved in 2010, and nearly $97 billion in personal income losses prevented More than 230,000 jobs added since June 2009—the most growth in a decade Industry expects to add 167,000 jobs by 2015 Do GM and Chrysler have 1.4+ million employees? How does he come up with these numbers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cal50 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Biden made the statement " they" saved over 1 million autoworkers jobs. The problem is the entire industry is around 700 thousand people. Joe don't need no math.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 (edited) From http://www.barackoba.../auto-recovery/ In 2009, the President decided to extend emergency loans to GM and Chrysler—preventing the collapse of a major American industry: The Rescue More than 1.1 million jobs saved in 2009, more than 310,000 jobs saved in 2010, and nearly $97 billion in personal income losses prevented More than 230,000 jobs added since June 2009—the most growth in a decade Industry expects to add 167,000 jobs by 2015 Do GM and Chrysler have 1.4+ million employees? How does he come up with these numbers? The numbers do not just include General Motors and Chrysler. They include parts suppliers, job losses in communities surrounding plants and major auto areas and i'm not sure if they include the possibility of Ford Motor Co. also which was expected to declare bankruptcy if GM and Chrysler could not pay off suppliers, because the resulting turmoil of shops closing and sourcing new material was to be a major issue for Ford Motor. I've read some that include the possibility of bankruptcy for Ford and some that don't. Make no mistake about it, many of the tier II suppliers rely on all three and without two of them paying bills would not be in business. All the stuff I read suggested shutdowns of 3 or 4 months before Ford could get sourcing worked out for both tier I and II. If you want to read about the economic impact of just Ford it's included in the Hardwick II case. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-mied-2_07-cv-14845/pdf/USCOURTS-mied-2_07-cv-14845-4.pdf Edited September 21, 2012 by Langston Hughes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 (edited) The numbers do not just include General Motors and Chrysler. They include parts suppliers, job losses in communities surrounding plants and major auto areas and i'm not sure if they include the possibility of Ford Motor Co. also which was expected to declare bankruptcy if GM and Chrysler could not pay off suppliers, because the resulting turmoil of shops closing and sourcing new material was to be a major issue for Ford Motor. I've read some that include the possibility of bankruptcy for Ford and some that don't. Make no mistake about it, many of the tier II suppliers rely on all three and without two of them paying bills would not be in business. All the stuff I read suggested shutdowns of 3 or 4 months before Ford could get sourcing worked out for both tier I and II. You have to remember we have a VEBA at Ford due to plans to declare bankruptcy. If Ford could not get retiree healthcare off it's books it told the UAW it was declaring bankruptcy. It's all outlined in two court cases, one intial and one an appeal. The fear mongering you read? Do you really believe the "shops" would of just closed the doors and we would of had to wait 3 to 4 months for new companies to be built from the ground up? Edited September 21, 2012 by fmccap 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 The fear mongering you read? Do you really believe the "shops" would of just closed the doors and we would of had to wait 3 to 4 months for new companies to be built from the ground up? No, I do not believe that we would wait for "New" companies to be built. I do believe that we would have been down while the parts suppliers tried to get loans or that had capital managed to get their factories ready. I know many people in the parts supplier business and they were scrambling to find funding and to make sure that their suppliers were staying in business and lining up possible alternatives. Acting like it was baseless fear does not make it untrue, nor does it show that i'm wrong. Why do you think Allan Mullaly pushed for the loans? If keeping GM and Chrysler alive did not benefit Ford why did he and why does he still say the bailout was the right thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marginal Economist Posted September 21, 2012 Author Share Posted September 21, 2012 (edited) The numbers do not just include General Motors and Chrysler. They include parts suppliers, job losses in communities surrounding plants and major auto areas and i'm not sure if they include the possibility of Ford Motor Co. also which was expected to declare bankruptcy if GM and Chrysler could not pay off suppliers, because the resulting turmoil of shops closing and sourcing new material was to be a major issue for Ford Motor. I've read some that include the possibility of bankruptcy for Ford and some that don't. Make no mistake about it, many of the tier II suppliers rely on all three and without two of them paying bills would not be in business. All the stuff I read suggested shutdowns of 3 or 4 months before Ford could get sourcing worked out for both tier I and II. If you want to read about the economic impact of just Ford it's included in the Hardwick II case. http://www.gpo.gov/f...-cv-14845-4.pdf Is Obama taking credit now for "trickle-down" jobs? I thought trickle down didn't work and it was a republican myth? Edited September 21, 2012 by Marginal Economist 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Is Obama taking credit now for "trickle-down" jobs? I thought trickle down didn't work and it was a republican myth? I think what Obama believes in is more Keynesian, that keeping the aggregate demand through the consumption function would stabilize local economies in auto manufacturing areas. Now I say that because the auto bailout was designed to save both employees wages and retirees pensions which would have gone to the Pension gurantee corp. and devastated many retirement communites and local economies, especially down south. It's one thing to just save the autonomous consumption of the workers and retirees as that would not stabilize employment and you saw that in Michigan's unemployment numbers through 2009, but the bailout helped increase the marginal propensity to consume as overtime, hiring and new investments increased. You can see this also in Michigan's unemployment numbers. December 2009 14.5% July 2012 9.0% The funniest part is that Rick Snyder, the republican governor will likely benefit from this the most as conservatives will squack about how he turned the state around while not one single policy action during his first two years could have had this effect on the unemployment rate, nor the increase in personal consumption or investment that we are experiencing. (his cutting of the movie making subsidies led to a disastrous drop in production as many companies were looking to make permanent moves to Michigan. they did not complete those moves.) If you want to call that trickle down, well I don't agree but your welcome too. Did I answer your initial question the one about the numbers? We can skip this deflection and go back to it, if you want. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 I think what Obama believes in is more Keynesian, that keeping the aggregate demand through the consumption function would stabilize local economies in auto manufacturing areas. Now I say that because the auto bailout was designed to save both employees wages and retirees pensions which would have gone to the Pension gurantee corp. and devastated many retirement communites and local economies, especially down south. It's one thing to just save the autonomous consumption of the workers and retirees as that would not stabilize employment and you saw that in Michigan's unemployment numbers through 2009, but the bailout helped increase the marginal propensity to consume as overtime, hiring and new investments increased. You can see this also in Michigan's unemployment numbers. December 2009 14.5% July 2012 9.0% The funniest part is that Rick Snyder, the republican governor will likely benefit from this the most as conservatives will squack about how he turned the state around while not one single policy action during his first two years could have had this effect on the unemployment rate, nor the increase in personal consumption or investment that we are experiencing. (his cutting of the movie making subsidies led to a disastrous drop in production as many companies were looking to make permanent moves to Michigan. they did not complete those moves.) If you want to call that trickle down, well I don't agree but your welcome too. Did I answer your initial question the one about the numbers? We can skip this deflection and go back to it, if you want. I think the Conservative crowd is still too dizzy from all their spinning to answer you very quickly. You are correct about Snyder. Granholm is still hung in effigy while Snyder gets all the credit for creating all those auto jobs. Such is politics. And no tax Repubs have increased taxes signifcantly on retiree pensions and homestead deductions. But hey, it's really not a tax increase because Repubs think retirees are just moochers anyway and deserve up to $4,000 in new state taxes. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xr7g428 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 You guys do realize that GM and Chrysler did both go bankrupt and the suppliers did get screwed as well as the secured creditors, ask the GM employees how it worked out for them. Strictly speaking, Obama nationalized the two companies, buy them for more than any one else would have. The companies would have sold and the new owners would have operated them. The jobs that got saved were the management people that ran the thing into the ground to begin with, and the UAW that some how ended up owning a chunk of the company their members work for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 You guys do realize that GM and Chrysler did both go bankrupt and the suppliers did get screwed as well as the secured creditors, ask the GM employees how it worked out for them. Strictly speaking, Obama nationalized the two companies, buy them for more than any one else would have. The companies would have sold and the new owners would have operated them. The jobs that got saved were the management people that ran the thing into the ground to begin with, and the UAW that some how ended up owning a chunk of the company their members work for. The suppliers did better under this bankruptcy than they would have otherwise. And you want me to ask my GM hourly and retiree neighbors about the bailout. Happy to still have a pension and to still be working and under a better contract than they would have gotten. You do know that under this bankruptcy the GM retiree's did not have their pension go to the guarantee corp which would have slashed their retirement by god knows what. And the UAW does not OWN any of GM as i know of it. The VEBA was given a large percentage of GM stock in lieu of cash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 And the UAW does not OWN any of GM as i know of it. The VEBA was given a large percentage of GM stock in lieu of cash. Given that the UAW runs the VEBA, this is a distinction without a difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 No, I do not believe that we would wait for "New" companies to be built. I do believe that we would have been down while the parts suppliers tried to get loans or that had capital managed to get their factories ready. I know many people in the parts supplier business and they were scrambling to find funding and to make sure that their suppliers were staying in business and lining up possible alternatives. Acting like it was baseless fear does not make it untrue, nor does it show that i'm wrong. Why do you think Allan Mullaly pushed for the loans? If keeping GM and Chrysler alive did not benefit Ford why did he and why does he still say the bailout was the right thing? Get them ready for what? To do what they used to do? This just sounds silly to me. Monday: Piston automotive makes radiators for the big 3 and some other foreign companies. Tuesday: GM and Chrysler go bankrupt. Wednesday: Piston tells Ford they have to wait 3 to 4 months for radiators (that they just made yesterday for Ford) because they have to get there factory ready. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Given that the UAW runs the VEBA, this is a distinction without a difference. Given that the VEBA is entirely different entity run by a complete and separate board it is a distinction worth noting. The UAW has a say in the benefits granted but no say in the investment nor planning of such. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Get them ready for what? To do what they used to do? This just sounds silly to me. Monday: Piston automotive makes radiators for the big 3 and some other foreign companies. Tuesday: GM and Chrysler go bankrupt. Wednesday: Piston tells Ford they have to wait 3 to 4 months for radiators (that they just made yesterday for Ford) because they have to get there factory ready. I get your oversimplification. You have to do it so your conservative cohorts can understand what your saying, but your being a dick. What happens is Piston automotive losses 2/3 of it's business along with much of the unpaid bills related to that work. It's unable to find financing in 2008-2009 which was common and can't pay it's creditors, cover wages and acquire raw materials to continue producing parts after it's current inventory is depleted. It attempts to work a deal with it's suppliers but they also supply other parts makers who can't pay or want to extend their credit so they can not work out a deal. So given that they have less than 20 days inventory for Ford and are struggling to find a means to continue, Ford has to either reduce volume to extend the inventory or find another supplier that is capable of ramping up in time. That was unlikely given that most tier I and II suppliers where invested heavily in GM and Chrysler. It's a problem of being too interconnected but most auto suppliers aren't going to diversify out into business they don't know. Even the management of Toyota was worried about supply chain issues and having to idle plants while restructuring it. You could read all these in non-partisan automotive news and analysis websites and magazines all over the world at that time, how did you miss it? I know, i'm not looking for an answer because you didn't miss it, it didn't gel with your politics so you dismissed it. Much as your doing right now while trying, badly, to make it seem as if it wasn't true. The reality was that losing GM and Chrysler to the same type of bankruptcy that the steel industry went through would have brought down thousands more companies in many states and destroyed many communities throughout the Midwest. No workers buying donuts, no donut shop. no lunch time orders from local restaurants no more local restaurants. This was as much about small business as it was large business. All those little places that spring up around factories, including bars, are more than jobs they are the people you conservatives talk about being the heart and soul of our country and right now your suggesting they don't matter or that it was overblown. Your a Ford worker, the same as Cal50 and Marginal Economist, you know the money these plants bring in to towns and cities through their wages. Not just hourly but salary too. How many jobs go away when we do? I'm not going to ask you to watch Michael Moores Roger and Me, that would be silly, but i want you to think about how GM cutting back destroyed that town. I want you to think about the steel town of PA in the 80's. Bankruptcy and company's failing is hard on economies but it is hardest of all on people. I'm not asking you to change your politics, or to change the way you feel about business but understand that throughout our lives many of them went the way you think it should and it was the workers and retirees who took the biggest hits. This time it wasn't. It was the investment banks, the hedge funds, the people who normally do the best. The worker made out as did the local business around the plants. Isn't there some part of you that enjoys that? Can't there be an occasional time when things kinda reverse the normal outcome and it be good for all . Can you just be happy that a lot of small business people and all the hard work and money they put into their business were saved? Can we get to that piece of common ground? You dn't have to like that the union got a chunk of stock for the VEBA, maybe you can temper your dislike knowing that many conservatives both in the plants and outside are doing okay because of it? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 I get your oversimplification. You have to do it so your conservative cohorts can understand what your saying, but your being a dick. What happens is Piston automotive losses 2/3 of it's business along with much of the unpaid bills related to that work. It's unable to find financing in 2008-2009 which was common and can't pay it's creditors, cover wages and acquire raw materials to continue producing parts after it's current inventory is depleted. It attempts to work a deal with it's suppliers but they also supply other parts makers who can't pay or want to extend their credit so they can not work out a deal. So given that they have less than 20 days inventory for Ford and are struggling to find a means to continue, Ford has to either reduce volume to extend the inventory or find another supplier that is capable of ramping up in time. That was unlikely given that most tier I and II suppliers where invested heavily in GM and Chrysler. It's a problem of being too interconnected but most auto suppliers aren't going to diversify out into business they don't know. Even the management of Toyota was worried about supply chain issues and having to idle plants while restructuring it. You could read all these in non-partisan automotive news and analysis websites and magazines all over the world at that time, how did you miss it? I know, i'm not looking for an answer because you didn't miss it, it didn't gel with your politics so you dismissed it. Much as your doing right now while trying, badly, to make it seem as if it wasn't true. The reality was that losing GM and Chrysler to the same type of bankruptcy that the steel industry went through would have brought down thousands more companies in many states and destroyed many communities throughout the Midwest. No workers buying donuts, no donut shop. no lunch time orders from local restaurants no more local restaurants. This was as much about small business as it was large business. All those little places that spring up around factories, including bars, are more than jobs they are the people you conservatives talk about being the heart and soul of our country and right now your suggesting they don't matter or that it was overblown. Your a Ford worker, the same as Cal50 and Marginal Economist, you know the money these plants bring in to towns and cities through their wages. Not just hourly but salary too. How many jobs go away when we do? I'm not going to ask you to watch Michael Moores Roger and Me, that would be silly, but i want you to think about how GM cutting back destroyed that town. I want you to think about the steel town of PA in the 80's. Bankruptcy and company's failing is hard on economies but it is hardest of all on people. I'm not asking you to change your politics, or to change the way you feel about business but understand that throughout our lives many of them went the way you think it should and it was the workers and retirees who took the biggest hits. This time it wasn't. It was the investment banks, the hedge funds, the people who normally do the best. The worker made out as did the local business around the plants. Isn't there some part of you that enjoys that? Can't there be an occasional time when things kinda reverse the normal outcome and it be good for all . Can you just be happy that a lot of small business people and all the hard work and money they put into their business were saved? Can we get to that piece of common ground? You dn't have to like that the union got a chunk of stock for the VEBA, maybe you can temper your dislike knowing that many conservatives both in the plants and outside are doing okay because of it? First I don't think they account for 2/3 of the business, the auto industry is much larger now. How much longer are they going to be doing OK? I wouldn't even consider it doing OK, it is basically just being propped up which will end. GM is not in great financial shape and many are saying they are headed towards bankruptcy again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Given that the VEBA is entirely different entity run by a complete and separate board it is a distinction worth noting. The UAW has a say in the benefits granted but no say in the investment nor planning of such. The UAW directly appoints 5 of the VEBA's 11 board members. A minority for sure, however if you're suggesting that the remainder of the board operates completely free of influence, you're asking me to ignore reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xr7g428 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 What really occur ed was that Obama bailed out the UAW in front of the secured creditors and all other creditors in the same class. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rn4 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 The UAW directly appoints 5 of the VEBA's 11 board members. A minority for sure, however if you're suggesting that the remainder of the board operates completely free of influence, you're asking me to ignore reason. That stock that the Veba received instead of the cash that was owed it is a big risk for the Veba. The UAW doesn't have any seats on GM or Chrysler's board. The Veba stock has no voting rights. The money the Veba gets when the stock is sold can only be used for the purpose of buying health insurance for the retiree's. So how is this giving the UAW any influence over GM or Chrysler. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 The UAW doesn't have any seats on GM or Chrysler's board. UAW Gets Seat on Chrysler Board UAW sends Girsky to GM's board Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rn4 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 UAW Gets Seat on Chrysler Board UAW sends Girsky to GM's board The Voluntary Employees’ Beneficiary Association, responsible to the UAW for retiree health care, already has representatives on boards of both the restructured GM and Chrysler. The directors appointed by the VEBA are independent of the UAW. http://www.thedetroitbureau.com/2011/05/uaw-will-seek-seat-on-gm-ford-chrysler-boards/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 (edited) The UAW directly appoints 5 of the VEBA's 11 board members. A minority for sure, however if you're suggesting that the remainder of the board operates completely free of influence, you're asking me to ignore reason. The UAW doesn't have any seats on GM or Chrysler's board. UAW Gets Seat on Chrysler Board UAW sends Girsky to GM's board The Voluntary Employees’ Beneficiary Association, responsible to the UAW for retiree health care, already has representatives on boards of both the restructured GM and Chrysler. The directors appointed by the VEBA are independent of the UAW. So it's your position that the people who appointed them do not expect them to act on their behalf. I may have been born at night, but it wasn't last night. Edited September 21, 2012 by RangerM 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rn4 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 So it's your position that the people who appointed them do not expect them to act on their behalf. I may have been born at night, but it wasn't last night. They are there on behalf of the VEBA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 They are there on behalf of the VEBA. And the VEBA has close ties to (including board members appointed by) the UAW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versa-Tech Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Biden made the statement " they" saved over 1 million autoworkers jobs. The problem is the entire industry is around 700 thousand people. Joe don't need no math.... "They gunna put yall back in chains!" :D Is there any proof that Vice President Biden actually knows math. I think we're going to need to see his elementary school transcipts... :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 "They gunna put yall back in chains!" :D Is there any proof that Vice President Biden actually knows math. I think we're going to need to see his elementary school transcipts... :P We might need your elementary school transcripts to see if you ever got good marks for staying on topic. :chairshot: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.