OK time for some Automaker unemployment math:

[ddeclue]

There are 300 million Americans - of these roughly 200 million would be of working age, not retired, in prison, mental institution or permanently disabled.

If we lose 3 million jobs directly in the auto industry due to a major collapse of the Big Three that would translate into a 1.5% increase in unemployment already at about 6.5% not counting the long term unemployed who have already used up their benefits. Realistically unemployment is probably closer to 8.5% than 6.5% when these are counted. Just losing the auto worker jobs alone would push the % of unemployed up to 10%.

When the secondary repercussions are considered there are millions more jobs at dealerships, mechanics shops, insurance agencies etc. where jobs will be lost as well.

Additionally auto line worker and other similar manufacturing jobs in heavy industry are the highest "quality" jobs available to non college grads where the workers are paid far better than in the service industry. When these jobs are lost the lost income that would normally circulate around the local economy a few times through the stores and retail jobs is far worse than when a WalMart closes.

If the Big Three go down expect to see unemployment rise to 15% as a conservative estimate and watch the economy teeter on the edge of the precipice as it has not done since the Great Depression.

25 BILLION dollars sounds like a lot of money but compared to 10 BILLION a month in Iraq or 700 BILLION for Wall Street, it isn't a lot.

Doug D.

[yourout]

1. To me its a no brainer......not doing it WILL further push us into a deep depression.

You can bet there are very powerfull people that want the Big Three to restructure just so than can stick it too the Unions.

[BeatleBoot]

2. She's already Teetering

If one goes down, then it is full blown national depression.

[LiberalFighter]

3. It will effect local and state government entities with lost tax revenue.

[marketcrazy1]

5. most recent estimates i have seen

indicate the U.S. work force numbers about 65 million

[ddeclue]

7. If that is so multiply the "bad" by a factor of 3...

instead of 1.5% it is 4.5% etc.

I hope I'm right...

yikes...

[Hannah Bell]

38. The civilian labor force in nov 08, with 6.7% unemployment, is 144 million. You're off by 100%.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm

[zeemike]

4. Yes but what if we give that 25 billion only to those willing to

produce an affordable EV.
Whether that be GM Ford or Tesla motors.
That would have more of an impact on the economy than anything because it would drastically reduce or eliminate the use of Saudi oil and would save the consumer billions in the cost of operation.

[ddeclue]

8. I have no problems with making some demands since they are taking the taxpayer dollar.

I felt that MORE should have been asked of Wall Street as well.

Doug D.

[Critters2]

20. Americans are still buying SUVs and pick-ups.

The Ford f-150 was the best selling vehicle this year. They have to sell what people will buy. That Americans are morons is not the automakers' fault.

[zeemike]

37. You could look at the other way

That people can only buy what is being sold to them.
But it is all about marketing and making it easy for them to buy an overpriced truck.

[cosmicone]

6. I disagree

They won't completely go under because they are "going concerns" and do have some business and clientele.

They will be forced to file chapter 11, cut costs by getting rid of inefficiencies and cut some of the massive gravy that UAW has piled on. UAW workers have to be brought to reality and at par with all the other employees because the product they make cannot justify the wages and benefits that they earn. It is all quite simple. There is simply no need for auto workers who put a couple of screws or bolts in a car to make more than teachers, nurses and psychologists.

The same goes for airline pilots who work an average of 3.5 days a week and make $300K a year which is as much as many neurosurgeons make.

There is no need for a bailout.

[ddeclue]

10. OK...let's clear up some things...

Auto workers are paid well -perhaps some are paid better than teachers - but not nurses and psychologists who are very well paid these days. The problem is NOT that auto workers are over paid - it is that teachers are UNDER paid.

I am a degreed aerospace engineer and I could certainly teach math and science but not on what they pay teachers. I make 2 to 3 times a teachers salary.

Auto workers don't just "turn a few screws" - this is a highly technical occupation requiring that these people learn and know a lot. The cars being built today are orders of magnitude more complex than the cars of even the 1980's. These people have skills and deserve to be paid a decent wage.

Instead of begrudging these people a decent living, we need to make sure that ALL Americans can make a decent living - unions need to be STRONGER not weaker in this country if you want the economy to recover. We need to protect American jobs by REQUIRING FAIR not FREE trade with all these slave labor pollute the hell out of their environment countries that short circuit the middle class and the progressive gains we made to put an end to the robber barons of the 19th century.

As for neurosurgeons and airline pilots - I happen to also be a licensed private pilot and happen to know that you are vastly over estimating the amount of money ATP's make. Perhaps a few transatlantic routes pay their senior captains something like this but by and large pilots don't make that kind of money - only bond traders and stock brokers do (or did anyways)...

The truth is that unless you can fly the plane yourself you probably don't want some low time minimum wage guy up there flying a 150 million dollar 200 ton plane around with 350 people in it at 500 miles an hour eight miles in the sky for 15 dollars an hour. Like with neurosurgeons I want the best talent that money can buy.

Next, airline transport pilots, unless they were trained by the military have invested a huge fortune and many years into their education and training - just getting a private pilot's license costs upwards of $10,000 for most people these days at average training times. I have a little over 200 total time hours and am a little shy of a single engine instrument and single engine commercial tickets and have spent around $25,000 on learning to fly in my life. An ATP will likely spend upwards of $100,000 just to get to the point where airlines would want to hire them and will spend a lot of time building time teaching guys like me to fly and towing banners and skydivers etc. to build time towards the 1500 hours required.

Next, airline pilots don't work a 40 hour work week FOR YOUR SAFETY. We don't want tired sleepy pilots making mistakes which science has PROVEN that the do. Flying does not tolerate mistakes.

I personally think it is a travesty that doctors and lawyers are allowed to work the ungodly hours THEY do because they no doubt make many mistakes that put people's lives and futures at risk due to their own fatigue.

Finally, the airline business is very cyclical - when Wall street gets a sniffle, the airlines catch the flu. One of the first things people and businesses cut back on in tough times is travel and vacations.

The refusal to help the Big Three is really just an attempt to crush the UAW and destroy the unions as a political force in this country. As Democrats we ought to know better.

[terryg11]

12. refusal to help the big three is not to destroy unions

I saw plenty of democratic congresspeople who have ties to unions grilling the auto execs. We are correct to ask for some transparency as to what they are going to do with the money unless we want to see a repeat of the mismanagement of money by the banks getting handouts.

The workers are going to need some help until there is a demand for autos right now. If no one is buying cars then why keep pumping them out? Waste of resources.

[ddeclue]

We should certainly expect transparency, innovation, and accountability

but we shouldn't be killing the auto industry to kill off unions.

Doug D.

[terryg11]

21. i have a hard time saying we are killing the auto industry

when a big part of the reason for it's collapse is their own doing. All three put a big portion of their eggs in the suv basket when demand had already peaked and gas was rising. Not to mention steadily losing ground to "foreign" auto makers.

Hopefully the unions come out of this ok I'm not a UAW member but I have to figure they are doing right by their members otherwise they wouldn't be representing them anymore.

[Critters2]

23. The Ford f-150 was the best selling vehicle in this country this year.

So, why shouldn't they make what people are buying?

[terryg11]

25. they should

but were all the other large vehicles selling at high levels?
A truck like the F150 makes sense because it's a multipurpose vehicle that many people such as farmers and construction workers can get tax breaks on when they purchase them.

[Critters2]

27. Oh, yeah, the famous Iowa tax breaks on pickups. You still have that stupid law?

Most states don't, you know.

[terryg11]

30. didn't realize that was a state law

but we do and it makes sense. It's not as dumb as what? five/six years ago when hummers and other large suv's were given similar status and I'm pretty sure that wasn't just in Iowa.

[Critters2]

32. Um, you're mistaken. Pickups have always had a special status in Iowa.

It was pushed through by farm lobbies, but then everyone started buying them to get the breaks. SUVS never had that status. Just pickups. And only in Iowa.

[terryg11]

36. your right, Bush never signed a tax loophole in '04 or '05 for trucks and suvs

http://www.selfemployedweb.com/


I don't know, google tax breaks and suvs and take your pick and it looks like it was a federal loophole and not an iowa loophole, like it makes a difference

[Critters2]

22. I assume you raised these same concerns about the bank bailouts. nt

[terryg11]

26. of course

said as much right there in my post

[54anickel]

11. So contracts mean nothing? Prior concessions become meaningless? The upper management keep

their exorbitant pay and benefits while the rank and file take more cuts and loose more ground? Oh yeah, let's just continue that race to the bottom by weakening one of the last strong unions we have. They're not much more than trained monkeys in your eyes anyway. The UAW reiterated today that they were willing to return to the table and work with the big 3, but consessions have to come from both sides. Meanwhile your contrasting and "demeaning" their work because they aren't "teachers, nurses and psychologists" is just short of dispicable.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

13. I'm so sick of this kind of anti-labor b.s. on DU. nt

[terryg11]

14. its ok by me if an airline pilot makes that much

because if i'm on that plane the person flying it better know wht the hell they are doing and that's worth abaout as much as a neurosurgeon to all those passengers and their families.

[sandnsea]

35. They've conceded to $14.50 an hour

How low would you like them to go? Let me guess. You don't support "government run" health care either. Right?

[Median Democrat]

9. Where are you getting those numbers? The Big Two, Not Three

Ford employs 300,000 people. GM employs about 312,000 people. Chrysler LLC employs about 66,000 people. This adds up to less than 700,000. So, where are you getting that 3 million figure?

Also, I think we should only save Ford, because based on the testimony, only Ford has the best plan to achieve viability in the next couple of years, and repay the loan. GM's plan consists of severe downsizing, which will still result in massive layoffs. I don't see it as an all or nothing approach, and have yet to see a single serious news article explain why we can't just save 1 or 2 of the automakers that are actually viable like Ford, which is far ahead of GM when it comes to developing alternative fuel technologies. GM? Well, it junked its eletric car program.

As for Chrysler, it is only a fifth of the size of Ford or GM, so the costs of saving it shouldn't be too much compared to what it would cost to save GM.

GM's has not offered a plan. Just give the money directly to GM's employees for re-training, and cut-out GM's management. Also, extend loans to Ford, and possibly Chrysler. It should not be all or nothing.

[ContinentalOp]

15. And a lot of those "1 in 10 jobs" figures are misleading.

They include everything auto related - dealerships, mechanics, insurance, taxi drivers, etc., as though other companies wouldn't fill that void.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/how-many-jobs-depend-on-the-big-three/

[Critters2]

29. Large employer here makes windshields for Ford. That's all they make.

Ford goes, so will several hundred jobs here.

[ContinentalOp]

31. Of course. From what I've read though, that number is more like 3 million.

Not 1 in 10 jobs. The total workforce is something like 200 million. So the auto industry is responsible for 1.5% of jobs, not 10%.

[ContinentalOp]

33. My figures were wrong...

The labor force is about 154 million http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

The latest study from the Center for Automotive Research says that "a major contraction involving one or more of the Detroit Three automakers" would result in direct and indirect job losses of 3 million. http://www.cargroup.org/documents/FINALDetroitThreeContractionImpact_3__001.pdf

So that's 1.9% of the workforce. Hardly 1 in 10 jobs.

[blue_onyx]

16. You think we shouldn't save GM because...

their plan would result in massive layoffs. What do you think will happen when the company completely closes down?

[TahitiNut]

17. Consider how much in income taxes and Social Security taxes will be lost.

BILLIONS! When these middle class jobs are lost -- want fries with that? -- the avalanche will be all but unstoppable.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. It's like giving an aspirin to a corpse.

The illusion is that the Big 3 will get their injection of corporate welfare (at our expense) and miraculously recover.

The problem is that they will still be producing products that they can't sell because there won't be consumers for them.

In case nobody noticed, we're in for a long and deep recession and few people are going to to be buying cars for quite awhile.

[terryg11]

24. agreed

unless I'm missing something auto sales are going to be down for a while so i dont understand why people think continuing to crank them out will be any help. Once this recession ball gets rolling this fast it's hard as hell to stop until it hits the bottom of the hill (theoretically speaking)

[TWiley]

39. There is one possibility .... not so fast

Manufacturing, especially something like automobiles, depends heavily on cash flow because overhead costs are so high. When cars are not selling, and NOBODY'S cars are selling, it does not take long to run through the cash reserve when the revenue stream dries up. Businesses borrow money (historicaly and always) to get through these lean times. The problem is that the credit well has ALSO run dry .... something that is not their fault.

30 Billion is about 2 months expense in Iraq / Afghanastan. It is also about 3.5% of the Billion given to the banks to restore the loan pool. Why are banks NOT loaning this money when it was given to them for this purpose?

The Republican Bastards control who does, and does not, qualify for a loan. They could buy GM even cheaper if they force it into bankrupcy.

Google Dominionism or Theonomy to see what an Evangelical President might be up to.

[MasonJar]

19. Unlike the approach used by Paulson to the financial industry,, which

has been a total failure because it included no specific responsibilities (like using the taxpayers' money to give loans and bail out homeowners in unfair mortgage loans), the auto bailout must include certain requirements, such as fuel efficient vehicles and expansion of cars for future green driving. If they will not do retooling, etc. and refuse to give up their big executive perks, they will go under anyway and in the near future.

[leftofthedial]

28. the official unemployment rate is a little less than half the actual unemployment rate

and that still does not factor in underemployment.

[marketcrazy1]

34. even WITH a bailout

auto industry related jobs will be cut in HALF by the end of 2009, auto company executives know it and have said as mutch, thats over a million jobs lost regardless. they got their bailout but it will not change anything in the long run.