Square-Enix in bid for Eidos.

[ainsoph9]

Do you have any proof for that statement? Frankly, I see the American auto industry only hurting the United States in the short term. In the long term, people will find jobs and have employment outside of GM, Ford, and the like. Jobs will be created. They do already exist outside of the auto industry. I do not believe that rewarding people for failure is an option at this point. If we feed further into the machine, how will we be able to get out in oh-so-many years?

[Muffinman]

You can debate those issues as long as you want, it does not change the fact that right now America needs the Big Three to stay afloat.

Not necessarily, as Ainsoph has said these things have happened before and the do level out by the old companies going bankrupt, allowing the new companies to rise and bring in new jobs. Also, how is giving more money to a company who has shown that they can not handle money help? It will just cause worse troubles for everyone in the long run

[Rectifier]

Three million jobs, and a loss of ~700 billion dollars in the process.

According to cnn's report on 2008 we lost 2.6 million jobs in total, why would you want to increase that number by 3 million?
http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/09/news/ec ... _december/

Read below the part about restructuring in the link, that is what I want to happen. I don't want another 3 million jobs lost and GDP to lower if they fail right now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive ... bankruptcy

Spoiler! :

Claims that failure would be harmful to economy

The auto industry is a key component of the U.S. economy. Economists used 2007-2008 data to build econometric estimates of what a shutdown would cost in summer 2008. Their goal was to set benchmarks to help policy makers understand the impact of bankruptcies. Their estimates were indeed being widely discussed among policy makers in late 2008.[61] Closing the Big Three would mean loss of 240,000 very highly-paid jobs at the Big Three,[62] a loss of 980,000 highly-paid jobs at the suppliers and local dealers, plus the loss of 1.7 million additional jobs throughout the economy—a total loss of 3 million jobs.

Estimates are that a Big Three shutdown would cause a decline in personal income of $151 billion the first year, and $398 billion over three years. The federal, state and local governments would lose tax revenue, and instead spend on welfare programs a total of $156 billion over three years.[63]

Economist David Wyss of S&P has argued that if GM and Chrysler disappear, there could also be an increase of about 1 million imported cars every year, which would remove about $25 billion from the U.S. economy. That would reduce GDP by 0.2 percentage points annually--excluding the impact of lost jobs and wages. In other words, U.S. demand for autos would be met by cars manufactured by foreign workers.[64]

I inherently understood that there are many more negatives to losing the Big Three than positives, which is why I didn't provide evidence.

[ainsoph9]

Unfortunately, we have yet to see the impact on "helping" the Big Three out here. Of course, if the government does bail them out, there must be some major stipulations and conditions put in so that this never occurs again. Frankly, I would fire half of the executives for mass incompetence, tell the unions to take a hike, have everyone's salaries and benefits re-examined, put them under the thumb of an officiating organization, etc. However, I have my sincere doubts that much of the changes that would be necessary to turn these companies around will actually happen. Why? The federal government is getting involved, which is just another bureaucratic machine full of mass incompetence. Now, I realize I must sound extremely sarcastic and cynically, but I think I have reason to be, given the records of both parties involved here.

I also realize the consequences of letting the Big Three go and die like any other business should. I just do not think that they are the end all and be all of the United States. I think that a compromise could possibly be reached between our two views here. It would probably something along the lines of them suffering the consequences of bankruptcy but being allowed to stay in business. In addition, the government would probably wind up going through all of their records to fish for what went wrong, why it went wrong, and what needs to be done to truly fix it. If not the government, then some other organization would be required to investigate.

Personally though, I do not believe that much investigation will be required because of the Big Three's reputations in terms of how they do business. Therefore, I would start by attacking the unions so that they would back off quite a bit. The unions are to blame for having a person who adjusts headlights earn $30/hr plus medical, dental, optical, life, vacation, accident, and coffee-break benefits just for starters. Next, I would reorganize management to fish out those who were hired due to nepotism or some miracle. Third, I would restructure the entire company so that it would be optimized for efficiency with competent workers who actually cared about their jobs when their jobs are not on the line. Finally, I would force everyone to be retrained to ensure a competitive desire within the company. I believe that these are the minimum requirements to start changing these companies from within.

Hopefully, the current administration and citizens of the United States will be able to correct this situation without further damage. Yet, my attitude toward this bailout package is like that of a parent scolding a small child with a hefty punishment. At this point, it is up to the child to learn and the parent not to back down and become hypocritical.

[Rectifier]

Unfortunately, we have yet to see the impact on "helping" the Big Three out here.

It hasn't happened yet, but I imagine it's better than letting them bleed to death.

I'm not going to be dragged into a value debate, because the blunt truth is that losing them is worse than having them survive, and also, I can get really carried away in value arguments.

[ainsoph9]

Meh. Either way, I have been in too many environments where debate is what you do for meals, in your side time, while you are working, and while you sleep. I know what you mean. I have been told that debating with me is like a "war of attrition." Getting back on topic, I wonder how long the people at Eidos are going to be sending out their resumes...

[Darklor]

Hmm... You wanna even work underpaid and under worse circumstances, while the mismanagers are highly overpaid? Huh? I think thats somehow strange...

[ainsoph9]

Darklor, who are you addressing here?

[Darklor]

Those who are against unions, but maybe the unions in the US are / work different than the Gewerkschaften (also unions) here... or its my delusion, that I think that unions work for the benefit of the workers...

[Ambi Valent]

I think unions have a very different history in Germany and the USA. In Germany, unions have traditionally been strong, which probably caused things I find positive: they could adopt a long-term strategy, enabling them to negotiate with the employers' organizations more effectively, and need not to resort to strikes every time. Also, in Germany employers generally pay non-unionized workers the same (obviously, to prevent the unions from becoming stronger if they represent more of the workforce).

In the USA, I think the situation is different (at least in most places), but since I don't know much about it, I'll be quiet on it.

[ainsoph9]

In the United States, there is a Simpsons quote that I think kind of sums up the situation for the most part quite well. This is taken from http://www.snpp.com.

Burns flashes back to simpler days. Springfield, 1909, back when
people smashed atoms by hand. Grandfather Burns catches one of his
employees trying to steal some atoms and has him taken away.

You can't treat the working man this way. One day, we'll form a union
and get the fair and equitable treatment we deserve! Then we'll go
too far, and get corrupt and shiftless, and the Japanese will eat us alive!
-- The beginning of the end, ``Last Exit to Springfield''

Modern-day Burns considers the missed lessons of the past.

If only we'd listened to that boy, instead of walling him up in the
abandoned coke oven.
-- Monty Burns, ``Last Exit to Springfield''

For those of you who are pro-union out there, this is not meant to be an insult or anything. Rather, I think it provides some interesting, if not insightful, comments on the unions here in the United States. Overall though, I would recommend anyone watching this episode. I consider it the best Simpsons episode to date. It is called "Last Exit to Springfield." It is a complete satire on union labor and big business.