They didn't come well prepared to this meeting it would seem. I also disagree that predatory lending is the leading result of the auto industries problems. The foremost problem would be the UAW, us much as they would like to think they are entitled to more than the average worked, they aren't and they are strangling these companies from the inside out. I'm sorry but a guy turning bolts all day should in no way get $45 an hour plus benefits and a pension. The second problem is the slow speed at with the American automobile companies are adapting to the change in the public's opinion of larger less economical vehicles.

^ It's not $45 an hour plus benefits, it's $45/hour if you count paid vacation and benefits as salary.

Here's a graphic from the analysis the NYT did.

Note the actual wage difference is $3/hr. Also, note that in the full article, they estimate the difference in labor costs (using the all inclusive $73/hr and $59/hr figures), would amount to an $800 difference in the price of each vehicle.

Labor costs account for about 10% of the cost of each vehicle. Suppose the UAW decided to agree to become slave labor -- working the same hours for free. That amounts to a 10% discount on the sticker price of each car.

Now, go find an American-made car you like, give it a 10% discount, and go try to get a loan to buy it.

You can't? Wonder if it might have something to do with banks not making loans because predatory lending and BS derivatives sunk the credit market.

But hey, gotta be those lazy ass auto workers, or the stupid American car companies, right?

Never mind that such giants as Honda and Toyota are cutting back, too.

I'm not a fan of people getting something they didn't earn, but that's not what happened with the UAW. I'm not a fan of many of the decisions the big three made, but that's not why they're in this much trouble.

I am a fan of keeping these companies from going out of business and having to lay off millions of workers, when our economy is already in the toilet.

Democrats are demanding restructuring, and this whole "bailout" business is in the form of a loan that is expected to be paid back, with interest.

Sounds like a good investment of taxpayer money to me.

The $45 an hour is a number the worker himself tossed out in the video.

I also said that the Big 3 were to blame as well, and that I think is part of the reason they shouldn't be given a bailout. I was of course against the Bank bailout too, it's not our responsibility, every company is hurting, that's what happens in a recession. I just read an article about casinos laying off workers, should they get a bailout too?

^ That's a tremendously simplistic viewpoint. It supposes that in a recession, all businesses suffer. It supposes that there is no root cause, and therefore no root solution. It supposes that all companies are independent, and that the failure of one business has no negative effects on the other.

It supposes all failures, even in recession, are due to bad decisions made by the business. It assumes that people losing their jobs is generally not a big deal, or that they deserve what they get.

I personally don't understand how someone can presuppose all those falsehoods.

To answer your musing, I don't know if the casinos should be bailed out or not. I suspect they don't employ enough people, or have enough dependent industries to really classify for being important enough to the economy as a whole.

In the case of the banks, a huge amount of businesses depend on ready lines of credit. If I want to buy a car, or start a small business, I can't even if my credit rating is good, and I have what used to be sufficient collateral. Never mind if I'm working for a company that's been bought by a leveraged buyout firm that's now in big trouble, since they can't get credit anymore.

As for the auto companies, between the big three themselves, and their suppliers who depend on business from those big three, we're talking about not just 3 million jobs, but 30 million -- 10% of the US population. They wouldn't all lose their jobs in one big burst, but it'd probably unwind pretty quickly, maybe a couple years, and then there's the matter of the effect their being unemployed has on the economy...

Eventually it comes down to making a cost/benefit analysis of doing something vs. doing nothing. It's not easy, and there are certainly lobbyists and political loyalties pulling on you to make a decision that's not based on facts, but then, that's why we're supposed to vote for good people to have these roles in our government.

I think these workers made a good case, and the Shelbyites kept falling back to the "we're not sure it's a good idea", which is just a chickenshit response. If they're acting on principle, tell the unions that they're communist leeches to their face, and walk out. If they're truly uncertain of which way to go, identify what you want in the way of convincing to be shown that the loans will keep the company afloat (the Union guys wouldn't provide that, but the Big 3 would). If it's just political maneuvering, well, then it's a pretty thin cover story for that. Gosh, I'm just not sure if I want to help the employers of people who're my political adversaries. I'll have to think about it, ya know, forever.

But hey, it's not like it's an important decision or anything. We should just make the decision axiomatically, so we don't have to think about the consequences of our actions.

Culture of personal responsibility my ass.

I'm not entirely sure what you are deeming a simplistic viewpoint, or where you are gathering these 'supposes' from. Regardless, the bailout the banks have received I doubt has done little to ease the credit crunch, despite it's goal to do so, getting a loan is probably just as hard as it was before the bailout.

Now, I certainly don't think it's a good thing people will lose their jobs, that is never a good thing, but that doesn't mean the taxpayers should be responsible. I think you missed the point I was trying to make, and that is, where do we draw the line? Why are the jobs of auto workers more important than mine or yours? If the company I work for is going to fire me do to less profits, is the government obligated to step in, and why? I realize it's a large number of people in this case, but the companies aren't going to disappear, they will be forced to declare bankruptcy, and some people will most likely lose their jobs, not the 30 million you claim. Now you say they wouldn't lose their jobs all at once, in a few years you say, would a bailout prevent that, as no doubt the companies need to restructure regardless?

Look my point is, it's sad that people might lose there jobs, but it is not the governments responsibility nor should it ever be, to support companies who are under-performing whether their fault or no.

^ But it is the Government's duty to make sure that companies don't get so large that their failure will result in the ruination of the nation's economy.

And since they failed on that note, they might as well protect the interests of the country any way that they can.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'richaed shelby, uaw, union, auto bailout' to 'richard shelby, uaw, union, auto bailout' - edited by silvercord

I love how (around the 8:15 mark of the first video) the aide makes the crack about people who got credit and then didn't make their payments being the cause of the credit crunch, the stupid shit doesn't want to admit that they were making their payments until their interest rates got jacked sky high and their payments in some cases were quadrupled!

It's not a "bailout" it's a loan.

Meaning, the money has to be paid back, with interest. A loan should not be confused with a bailout. The big-3 are not asking for free cash, they're asking for help.

So, you let the auto industry collapse, with millions upon millions of people tossed out onto the streets, then the states can't pay for their unemployment any longer, then the states ask the federal government for money to pay their unemployment compensation, which will result in the fed spending 10x as much as what the big three are asking for.

So, do you want to loan them 15b now, or give them 150b later?

People seem to quickly miss all of this.

>> ^fujiJuice:
Now, I certainly don't think it's a good thing people will lose their jobs, that is never a good thing, but that doesn't mean the taxpayers should be responsible.

There, simple.

Government shouldn't be responsible. Not government should do X instead, or government should take Y precautions to prevent getting screwed, or demand Z in return for assistance.

Makes choices easy, doesn't it?

Bonus is that the same philosophy says you don't have to feel personally responsible for trying to tackle the issue in any way.