KingCondanomation
New member
Most would just get jobs in one of the competitors plants or offices and they pay roughly the same (found a study for that, that I posted for Watermark).
More Fiscally Responsible Republicans Opposing Auto Bailout
- Thread starter KingCondanomation
- Start date
Most would just get jobs in one of the competitors plants or offices and they pay roughly the same (found a study for that, that I posted for Watermark).
uscitizen
Villified User
MOST would NOT get jobs in competitors plants since they are laying off as well.
Toyota in KY has laid off all of it's temp workers, some had been there 10 years....
Now they will be looking at permanent workers.
eventually as the econmy picks up SOME will get jobs in competitors plants.
Last edited:
My thoughts as well. Of those companies who make vehicles, who isn't laying off workers.
"Most would just get jobs in one of the competitors plants or offices and they pay roughly the same"
You just keep digging your hole deeper. Everything you say is just further indication of how little understanding you have regarding this entire situation.
Your ignorance is often staggering to me.
You just keep digging your hole deeper. Everything you say is just further indication of how little understanding you have regarding this entire situation.
Your ignorance is often staggering to me.
KingCondanomation
New member
Well said, but that is the current climate. If GM failed then I'm sure Toyota would get a boost and they would have a good chance at hiring more. It's tough to predict.
Though you know, Americans have it pretty good when it comes to cars, not many nations have a large amount of the population that owns 2 or 3 cars.
Is it really so bad that we can't sustain that? We're still doing fairly well with car sales in comparison to the rest of the world (and correspondingly with car manufacturing) and I just object to Onceler's and Democrats constant hyping of it being a "crisis".
We have it pretty good.
uscitizen
Villified User
We had it pretty good. The future does not look as bright.
KingCondanomation
New member
I would argue that ignorance is more based on those who lack any ability to argue with facts, personal experience or can show HOW they understand an issue.
I have done all 3, you have done nothing but act incredulous about anyone who dares to believe you could be wrong.
You know I think remember you saying when I asked you about the bank bailout, if you would support further bailouts and your answer was 'No', do you remember? And now look at you arguing in favor of the latest corp welfare bailout, what about the next time?
Here's your problem: You are just too conditioned to always choose what anyone scares you into believing is the safer route.
The consequences of the loss of one or more of the big 3 is not a "scare tactic." It's a reality that you can't comprehend, deal with or address.
$14 billion is cheap - extremely cheap. How many jobs have been lost with each 1,000 pt. drop in the market? You say you argue facts, but you have nothing to back up your insanely wild assertion that 'most' of those laid off if GM fails will just go to work for competitors at the same rates. This assertion represents a way of thinking that is so beyond out of touch with reality; I really believe that you do not understand at all the consequences of GM failing.
And you're not alone. I just saw Mitch McConnell on TV, arguing against the bailout & asking 'where is the bailout for the average American worker?', as though millions of those workers aren't chewing their nails off while they watch Republicans pontificate theoretically on why it "makes sense" not to bail out the big 3...
$14 billion is cheap - extremely cheap. How many jobs have been lost with each 1,000 pt. drop in the market? You say you argue facts, but you have nothing to back up your insanely wild assertion that 'most' of those laid off if GM fails will just go to work for competitors at the same rates. This assertion represents a way of thinking that is so beyond out of touch with reality; I really believe that you do not understand at all the consequences of GM failing.
And you're not alone. I just saw Mitch McConnell on TV, arguing against the bailout & asking 'where is the bailout for the average American worker?', as though millions of those workers aren't chewing their nails off while they watch Republicans pontificate theoretically on why it "makes sense" not to bail out the big 3...
KingCondanomation
New member
The big 3's market share has been going down for years, even prior to now. So at some point, one of them WILL fail, why throw away billions on extending life support for a bit more time?
It's just a plain waste of money.
I did back up my assertion that workers work at the same wage rate for GM as Toyota, I posted a study for Watermark. Toyota came in at roughly $30 per hour in wages while GM was nearly identical with $29.78 per hour
And I base saying most will find work at competitors because that is what people do, I saw and went through layoffs in high tech and everyone I know found related jobs later on. I think there were like 2 people I had heard of (heard not, not known) who had to work lower jobs. And that was in a time when there was a steep decline in demand for high-tech production (ie: dot-com busts). With the auto sector, demand is comparitively healthy to high-tech's decline and certainly more constant.
Mitch McConnell being from Kentucky where Toyota does manufacturing, knows full well this is not auto industry bailout but a gift to unionized Michigan auto companies.
KingCondanomation
New member
I add anecdotal evidence to SUPPORT my facts. The wages are the same, the supply chain is different, you ignore those because you just look through an argument for the weakest point or strawman you can extract and delude yourself into believing that is all I said.
Most people are against the corp welfare auto bailout including a handful of Dems like Tester and Schumer. Stop trying to make it sound like anyone who disagrees with it is of supreme ignorance.
What facts? How can you even compare the tech sector, which is still strong even in an environment like this, to the auto industry? I don't even know how to respond to a line of reasoning like that; it's a waste of time to try. I mean, who does that? Well, lookie here...people who were laid off in the tech industry when the economy was strong were able to end up finding other jobs in the strong tech industry, so it makes PERFECT sense that people who are laid off in the weak auto industry during a time of deep recession will find new jobs in their still weakening industry even as it collapses.
And it is supreme ignorance. Anyone who thinks the current economy can withstand the failure of GM is living on another planet. Like I said, $14 billion is cheap by comparison; it will look like nothing.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I would say that if GM went down, Chrysler would follow. Ford is in the best shape of the three and would likely survive the other two going down.
But right now the best thing to do is provide this $14-15 billion to the industry as a bridge loan as they are doing. The economy cannot take this hit right now. The market will tank hard if this thing does not pass the Senate. This is nothing more than pandering by the Republicans in the Senate.
Dano... $15 billion is nothing compared to the costs to the economy of letting any of the Big three go under ... right now. If we need to let one go under later next year, so be it. But psychologically, it is far better to let the average investor catch their breath before hitting them with another shot to the nuts.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Yep that's only a few hundred thousand jobs gone, a massive hole in our supply chain, and a vast increase in market share for foreign automakers.
We'd lose more just in plain tax revenue than we'd gain by not going ahead with the bailout. And that's just the impact on the government, although I know you conservatards don't like to take business's impact on the individual into account.
And anyway, in no way is a less competitive auto market good for America. Three automakers is too little, two is near monopoly.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Do you think your capitalist dreamland's like Singapore would even hesitate in subsidizing their important industries?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
If the economy as a whole was in good shape, your above scenario would work. But all of the auto workers are stuggling right now. Car sales across the board are almost non-existant. Those workers from GM would not be finding new jobs in the industry any time soon. More than likely Chrysler would follow them into bankruptcy as well.
uscitizen
Villified User
right car sales are almost non existant. And are not likely to pick up in the near future either. So why "Bailout " an industry with no market for it's products ?
Yeah it sucks but reality is often that way. Help out the displaced workers, not the corp with no market for it's products.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
K, we'll get right on it handing out unemployment to the million or so workers. That's not going to cost as much as giving out a loan until the market re-emerges.
Retard.
It's looking more & more like the Senate Repubilcans are going to kill this bailout.
If I didn't care at all about the millions of workers affected by this, and I was only thinking politically, I'd be loving this, because it will be a real turning point in the economy if they do defeat it, and there would never be a more clear cut case of exactly who would be responsible.
Too bad I care about the workers, and about the economy.
If I didn't care at all about the millions of workers affected by this, and I was only thinking politically, I'd be loving this, because it will be a real turning point in the economy if they do defeat it, and there would never be a more clear cut case of exactly who would be responsible.
Too bad I care about the workers, and about the economy.