johnfajardohenry wrote:First, they kept focusing on a woman holding up a Ford sign. Obama saved exactly zero jobs at Ford because Ford did not take a nickle of taxpayer money. That all went to GM and Chrysler.
Maybe the camera operator also found it curious that someone was holding up a Ford sign. I'm pretty sure Jennifer Granholm wasn't controlling the cameras with foot pedals.
I didn't know who decided to show the Ford signs, I was fairly certain that it was not Granholm. I figured there would also be GM and Chrysler signs and that they were not shown. Seemed a bit odd.
Since I posted that, I found out the reason. Ford apparently passed out thousands of the signs before Granholm's speech. The govt companies didn't.
pjbogart wrote:Other than being argumentative, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Do you believe that the eventual failure of GM and Chrysler is unavoidable? And we're talking about jobs, not trademarks.
Not sure what you mean by the last bit there but I do think their failure is inevitable absent more propping up. Chrysler's been on the skids since the 70's. Carter should have let them go bankrupt back then. I've been saying for 30 years it was a horrible precedent.
Ditto GM and their long downhill slide.
The trademarks/brands may or may not survive. GM has killed several of theirs (Oldsmobile, Pontiac) so far. What brand is next? Cadillac? The average age of the Caddy buyer these days is over 60.
GM/Chrysler as employers may or may not go away too.
What is certain is that auto production will not. If GM were to close, someone would buy the parts that have any value and put them to work. US auto production would continue at a good clip. Just under new ownership/management.would continue to increase
pjbogart wrote: Perhaps when you think of industry you think about corporate logos and nifty products but I think most of us think of industry as something which creates employment for people.
Actually for the past 35 years I have spent 3-4 days or more of the typical week in manufacturing plants in a variety of industries. So to me, probably more than most, those industries are about things being made by people
I know what those jobs are and what those people do. Most of what you(?) and most people see as "good" jobs in manufacturing are pretty mind killing and often backbreaking and do not pay much better than McDonalds. Speaking of the unskilled jobs here, assemblers, operators and the like.
Those jobs are going away and have been for years. As Henry Ford said almost 100 years ago (In "My Life and Work") Never pay a man to do what a machine can do. He also talked about how one man with a machine can replace many men without them.
So to talk about those jobs ever coming back is BS. They won't and probably should not.
What about you? Ever worked in manufacturing? Ever visited one a manufacturing plant floor?
pjbogart wrote:We have biotech and insurance companies here in Madison, but I think most of us value them as sources of jobs
Yup. One of them is a client of mine.
You are looking at them in exactly the wrong way. They do not exist to provide jobs. They are not social welfare agencies. They exist because people want/need DNA testing. Manufacturers exist only
because people want the product that they make. As soon as that want goes away, or someone else can provide it better the company will disappear and the jobs with it.
And that is as it should be.
Note that better does not necessarily mean cheaper though that is one possibility.
pjbogart wrote:So when Democrats say, "we saved the industry" what they're really talking about is saving jobs.
Well, they did save those jobs. Some of them, for a while, anyway. But at what cost? The money the govt pulled out of the economy to save the jobs of the politically powerful cost jobs of the less politically powerful. Other jobs were lost that nobody wants to talk about.
pjbogart wrote:This is one of those times where you pretend you're confused by the language of the plebes even when the meaning is as plain as day. Toyota is not an American car company.
No, I am not. I realize that Toyota is headquartered in Japan and the others are headquartered in Germany, Korea etc.
I was referring to the plants that they have in the US building cars. Those plants pay US taxes, buy US raw materials and components and, just by way of no harm, hire American employees.
Most of those American
plants, that are part of the American
auto industry are doing pretty well.
pjbogart wrote:And that brand new Datsun you've been driving around in? It was built in 1986.
Actually I drive a Hyundai and I do not understand your joke. On the other hand, in 1985 I bought a new Subaru station wagon. I put over 100,000 miles on it and gave it to my nephew 3 years later. He drove it for a year or two before he moved to Nebraska. His father took it over and drove it about an hour each way to work every day. No idea how many miles it had on it. The speedometer broke at about 350,000 about 10 years before the car finally bit the dust 3-4 years ago.
My son drives a Nissan that I bought in 2001, has close to 200,000 miles on it. My wife drives a 2005 Mistubishi SUV with 110,000+ miles on it.
Other than normal wear items, none of those cars have spent any time in the shop. (Don't know about the Subaru after my nephew took it)
Try that with a govt motors car.