Michael Moore: Profits Are Way Up at General Motors ... So Why Aren't They Hiring?

[Donnachaidh]

http://www.alternet.org/economy/147886/michael_moore%3A_profits_are_way_up_at_general_motors_..._so_why_aren%27t_they_hiring/

"If we want a life worth living for ourselves and our kids, we have to go get it ourselves. We can’t keep waiting for the cavalry to come. That’s because we’re the cavalry."

So General Motors is back to making billions in profit. And if the past is any guide, we know what that means: time for some layoffs!

Or maybe not. Back in the '80s and '90s, when GM was consistently posting giant profits, they were simultaneously firing tens of thousands of workers in my hometown of Flint and across Michigan. Right now it looks like the only person being canned is CEO Edward Whitacre. (Only last week Whitacre was saying he wasn't planning to leave anytime soon—kind of ironic that the former president of the Boy Scouts of America failed to Be Prepared.)

But if they're not laying people off yet, they're also not hiring.

During the first half of 2010, GM made $2.2 billion in profit, yet according to The Wall Street Journal, they've only added 2,000 jobs in all of North America, taking their workforce from 113,000 to 115,000.

And what's true for GM is true for the country. The government stepped in with trillions of dollars in cash and guarantees to keep Corporate America from collapsing due to its own stupidity, short-sightedness and greed. And it worked—for Corporate America. You may not have noticed as you were being foreclosed on, but the profitability of the Fortune 500 is almost back to normal. It jumped to $391 billion in 2009, up 335 percent from 2008. And the 500 biggest non-financial corporations are now sitting on $1.8 trillion in cash, more than at any time in the past 50 years. (That's what the business press always says—that they're "sitting" on it—although as far as I know this is not literally true.)

More at the link ---

[Statistical]

1. Companies hire because they have to.

If companies can make record profits without hiring then ..... they will make record profits without hiring.

That applies to GM or Microsoft or a small mom & pop. It applies today, 100 years ago, and a 100 years in the future. It applies to American companies, Chinese companies, and European companies.

So why isn't GM hiring?

Current production is able to meet current demand. Until that changes they won't hire.


If current demand exceeds current production capabilities they will hire.
If current demand falls well below current production capabilities they will lay off workers.

Expecting anything else is like getting mad that water is still wet or fire still burns.

[doc03]

4. +1 Companies have one purpose it is to make money for

the shareholders. I worked in the steel industry and as you all know we lost 100s of thousands of jobs. It costs x amount to make steel and you have to sell it for y, if you can't sell it for more than what it cost to produce you have to cut costs or go out of business. Back in the days of the USSR their steel industry was so bloated people just came out and played cards or slept all day.

[Raine1967]

5. In my world of rainbows and cotton candy...

I would love to see workers strike for more jobs.

I know its a pie in the sky dream, but the idea that companies can make profits like this makes me a little sick.

It would be wonderful to have a labor day strike. Think about that movie, "A Day Without a Mexican" how about "A Day Without an American work force"? Companies need to start hiring people, instead of feeding the top CEO's.

[socialist_n_TN]

6. EXACTLY. This is why the "Tax cuts for the rich............

creates jobs" RW meme is such bullshit. What creates jobs in a capitalist system is DEMAND. If capitalist rope makers see a demand for hanging quality rope, they'll hire. If there's no demand for said rope, they won't.

In this capitalist system, if we want jobs, we have to give people the ability to create demand.

[blindpig]

9. That being the matter...

why does our society rely upon capitalism to provide the work necessary for human sustenance?

I sure wouldn't count on the 'next one hundred years', either we correct this situation or we are toast as a civilization.

[Statistical]

10. Correct what situation.

The same system is used all over the world including countries with strong social safety nets, very progressive taxation, universal health care, and low unemployment. An example would be Finland.

[blindpig]

13. Capitalism...

it must be replaced with something that works for all of us.

[Statistical]

14. ROFL.

:rofl:

[blindpig]

15. Glad to amuse you..

enjoy the delusion and hopelessness.

[JNelson6563]

12. There it is.

The fact of the matter. Been the fact of the matter since they came up with the concept of money.

Julie

[Skink]

2. They also got major wage concessions from the unions.

[napi21]

3. I just heard YESTERDAY on one of the cable news channels that

they WERE hiring. I'm pretty sure it was CNN & likely their show Your $$$. I remember it was GM because when I heard it I clapped and said how great that was. They even added the comment that Michgan was no longer the highest unemployed stae.

[Barack2theFuture]

7. Is this a rhetorical question?

[w4rma]

8. Because the DLC believes that shipping off American jobs is a *good* thing. (nt)

[kentuck]

11. Even when we bailed them out, they were making record profits overseas..

They were not going bankrupt. It was a scam.

[Greyhound]

16. And it worked.

The few that kept their jobs were perfectly happy to throw those that didn't, overboard. The union has absolutely no power and is run by its own "executive class" who's only concern is to keep their own gravy train running.

[KamaAina]

17. But they are hiring

in Mexico. With our bailout money. :eyes:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9000286&mesg_id=9000286

[donheld]

18. If I'm not mistaken they're also opening a new factory in China