A carmaker bailout: How much do they need, and what does that mean for jobs?

Monday, November 10, 2008

"One job in Detroit will affect seven more in the economy." — Micheline Maynard, The New York Times


Alvin Hall and Micheline Maynard


Noel King

Comments [11]


I agree Kristen. I'm originally from Detroit, with family back there depending on the automotive industry. The region needs the bailout; without it, there will be enormous repercussions that will be felt all over the country. There is no sympathy for the working man in New York or Washington. It makes me ill.

Dec. 12 2008 09:41 AM

It makes me ill how this country wants to punish Detroit. Punish Wall Street? No way! Punish the working class? Yes! I live in Queens, but I have family in Detroit. One of my brother works in a shop that employs 800. He is the ONLY employee NOT from the Mideast there. You just know that they're sending money home-back to Syria or Yemen. So, in the Senate's desire to punish someone, just like after 9/11 we needed to punish someone, we got ourselves mired in Iraq, we can get ourselves into an even worse situation. Punishing Detroit will have far reaching consequences that we cannot anticipate.

Dec. 12 2008 09:38 AM
Nancy Brach

I just want to know how to spell (e)(u)(a)(i)Ygosi's name. Know this is silly but I enjoy the show and get stuck on this. Thanks.

Dec. 07 2008 08:26 AM
Andrew Solomonik

Excelent! Could not agree more.

Nov. 11 2008 04:43 PM
Michael Burchill

Not one cent for Detroit... Enough.

I feel for the automotive workers, but The Big Three should live or die by the quality of their products - same as the rest of us in the broader economy.

All my life (I'm 43 now) I've watched Detroit basically churn out mediocre, uninspiring cars. And at times they we even dangerous in their engineering and design. While in Europe, GM and Ford produced sportier, better products telling us "it's the woman of the household that makes the buying decision". Hogwash. They've been aware of their shortcomings for years - Haven't we all been shouting it at them since the late 70's?

They've simply failed to adapt to the needs of their customers, so sadly now they will simply have to face the consequences of their actions.

Nov. 11 2008 12:07 PM

Instead of handing over billions of dollars without conditions, as seemingly has occured with the banks, the Government must force auto maker mergers to reduce the numbers of makers The Government needs to payout the pensions and benefits to former employees that auto companies complain is the reason they cannot be competitive. Frankly, the US auto industry has refused to see the future and more money handed to them without very tight conditions will simply be lost. I have heard that Toyota spends $1M per hour or some such number on research and development to prepare for the future. Why should we bail out companies who have refused to do so? What we must do is look to the people who have worked and do work in the industry and pay them out and retrain current workers to work in green industies that will hopefully be a part of the new Presidents economic stimulus package.

Nov. 11 2008 11:13 AM
Elizabeth Knoll

Instead of bailing them out, spend money on country-wide rail system. Model it on the "eur-rail".

Nov. 11 2008 11:11 AM

I am from Detroit and want nothing more for Detroit and for the Michigan economy than for the big three auto companies to be resuscitated and to succeed to pull Detroit and Michigan out of the tremendous economic slump they find themselves in. However, the failure of the big three is LARGELY their fault; they are not accidental victims of a downturn in the economy. They have systemically ignored the needs of american consumers and have been almost criminal in the way they have disregarded the challenges facing the environment. I believe the government SHOULD provide assistance to the big three, but only conditionally--please let's not throw more money at bad management. They need help financially and structurally. Without some assurance that government money will be used in better ways than it has been used until now, the big three should not receive money. But if these companies go under, our american economic crisis will become even more dire than anyone could imagine.

Nov. 11 2008 10:59 AM
Kristen Wicklund

Having grown up in Detroit and moved to New York 10 years ago, I don't think that New Yorkers fully understand what the auto industry means to the region of Detroit. Other than parents who worked at local retail or medical businesses, I knew not a single adult employed by ANY industry other than the auto industry. Detroit is a company town - I'm not saying I love the auto industry, but people here need to be more sensitive about what it means to regular people in that area.

Nov. 11 2008 10:54 AM

No dough for the auto industry. It's been a money pit since the '80's. I worked on the AMC (remember them?) and Chrysler bailouts way back then. They haven't changes. They're as myopic as they've ever been. Let them die and fund the transition of workers to more gainful employment.

Nov. 11 2008 10:53 AM
David Gershater

Dear Mr. Hockenberry:

There are plenty of good cars built in the USA by Honda and Toyota. In liquidation the profitable GM, Ford and Chyrsler cars will coninue to be made in a restructured company.

Better to invest in an interstate rail system. The effort will employ people and make money in that we will inport less oil.

Oil inports has no MULTIPLIER EFFECT. That is, our money goes out and is gone forever. Spending money building a rail system means that the money will turn over many times because most of the expense will be domestic (except for the trains themselves which will be French or Japanese. Operating the trains will pay many salaries as it saves billions in gasoline and jet fuels.

The correct response to the World Trade Towers coming down was to build an excellent rail system so that air terrorists could not close down the USA as they did.

David Gershater

Nov. 10 2008 08:38 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.