The Asshat this week is given to the Big Three automakers (GM, Ford, Chrysler), not for begging for money, which is actually taking place this week, but for something they said last week, which needs to be corrected. They argued that "1 in 10 jobs in America is connected to the auto industry." That may be the case, but that doesn't mean those jobs are reliant on the Big Three. Prime example, they sight the number of auto dealerships that currently sell their cars. Well that is all good and true, that doesn't mean that those dealerships couldn't opt to sell other cars should the Big Three collapse, and given the crap that is currently being made in Detroit, relying on just selling cars made there may put auto dealers out of work anyway. Likewise, just how many of those jobs that rely on the auto industry actually rely solely on Detroit for their survival? Gas stations? It's not like cars will quit running on gas anytime soon, whether those cars come from Kentucky or Korea. Mechanics? Chances are as long as their are cars, there will be people needed to fix them. Auto parts makers? So they will have to make parts for foreign cars as opposed to domestic, the actual number of cars on the road isn't going to change, just the manufacturers of them. In truth, many of the jobs that the Big Three say are connected to the auto industry are definitely connected, just not entirely to Detroit.
The Big Three need to just be honest about what they are, which is beggars looking to sup at the public trough, and while I can't offer them any money so to speak I can offer them the Asshat of the Week, as it is richly deserved.
Their claim that 1 in 10 jobs would be affected is pretty out there, sure some jobs would be lost but not on the scale they claim.
ReplyDeleteAm I selectively deaf because I'm not hearing those top executives anywhere saying "Gee we fucked up, we will reimburse those ludicrously high salaries we have been collecting for mismanaging these companies...."
Don't know whether you have seen this : http://tinyurl.com/5rz56e
ReplyDeleteI had heard about it, I actually watched some of the hearings the other day while at work. If ever you are in need of good comedy television, government hearings are always fun, especially with both sides trying to out grandstand the other. That being said, symbolic gesture or no, it isn't as though even if the executives were willing to work for $1 that the automobile industry wouldn't still be fundamentally flawed in how it currently operates. I would much rather had one of the executives sat there and said, "You know Mr. Chairman, everyone here sitting on this committee is an elected representative that has sat in while the country has racked up several trillion dollars in debt. Are you willing to go back to your constituents and tell them that until the federal government shows some financial solvency you are prepared to work for $1 a year?" At that point, we would have seen the end to that stupid line of questioning.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that the Big Three have shown no plan for what they are going to do or how they are going to pay back the loans if they are granted. I am not above saying that government can't bail out companies, if there is a way laid out for that debt to be repaid. Chysler did it under Lee Iacocca, and the government actually made a couple of dollars in the deal. But these guys just want to continue doing business the same way they have always been doing business, and that just isn't working anymore. It isn't that there isn't a market for cars, the waiting list top get a Smart car is three years. Why couldn't that idea or a similar one come out of Detroit? Instead they continue to offer cars that no one wants and if that is there plan, more of the same old, same old, then maybe we are better off without them.