General Moters to cut 9% of its workers and close plants

from JoeUser Forums
Some more great news about the economy as it impacts American Workers. GM is in trouble and today said it will cut 30,000 jobs or about 9% of its total work force. They will close a number of plants. Last week the problems of the Pension Guarantee Corp was all over the paper. It is more then $22 Billion in the red because so many companies have gone bankrupt and are dumping their pension obligations. If the GOOD NEWS continues about this great economy we will all be in soup lines. We can see if the Bush base can help serve the soup!
politics
6,441 views 19 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
America is rapidly losing ground to the Europeans, Chinese and Indians.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
I am sorry to say that seems to be the case. We can not continue to lose good jobs at this rate very long. We will ALL be working at WalMart for $8 per hour but unable to buy even low cost good sold by WalMart.
Elemental: Reforged
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Surely if we just raised the minimum wage this would solve the problem right?
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
GM is wasting valuable resources building things nobody wants to buy. So they stop consuming those resources. And somehow this is a bad thing?

Like creating more overpriced, underperforming automobiles, in a world that wants such things less and less, would somehow be a better use of 30,000 people? That it would somehow be a better use of those plants, that real estate, the raw materials?

Tell me how GM continuing to employ people, paying them with money it does not have, would be better for the economy of America today, tomorrow, or at any time. Tell me how GM continuing to run itself into the ground is good for America, or China, or India, or ANYBODY at all.

Besides, the economy has been steadilly improving for the last five years or so, and the leading economic indicators for the next six months were just published. Newsflash to Gene: the next six months are looking pretty good, too.

Bloated, underperforming big auto companies aren't good for the economy. The sooner GM stops being one, the better off we'll all be. Complacent GM employees who didn't see the writing on the wall and bust their ass to get off that ride when they could, out of some union-bred sense of entitlement to a job for life no matter what changes the world made? Welcome to the real world.

It's like Draginol was saying just the other day: grow and stay current in your career choices, or you will lose out no matter how good the economy is.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
The improving economy is only in certain areas. The number of living wage jobs is not responding. Loss of health and retirement is not improving. The poverty index has increased for the past four years. Average weekly wages net of inflation is a problem. What has been improving is corporate profits overall. A lot of that is due to moving production to lower cost countries which has a negative impact on American Workers. In the long run, if the majority of American Families can not afford to support their families and turn more and more to higher debt, that is not healthy for the economy long term. The low savings rate and the all time high personnel debt in this country are not signs of a strong economy. The issue is which elements are doing well? The senior corporate world. The people that own the companies that are making greater profits. Case in point are the oil companies. The profits they are making are off the scale. Unless you are one of those top oil company officials or have a large position in these oil company stock, you are smarting from the higher oil prices that are prducing the profits. Thus, the vast majority are being harmed so a relatively small number can get rich. An example of what the conservatives hold as good. The question is GOOD for Whom?
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ah yes.. so the State should obviously step in and what...? take control on these businesses? Raise the "living wage" to 15$ an hour? Lower car prices through legislation and higher taxes?

What should they do Gene? Got any solutions or are you simply bitching without anything sensible as an alternative as usual here?
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
A lot of that is due to moving production to lower cost countries which has a negative impact on American Workers.



Ah yes so we should embargo developing nations then Gene?


The senior corporate world.


Shall we go the German and French route where we take vast quantities of profitsa away from corporations that do their business inside our borders? That would surely keep them here right?
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

I would be tempted to say that the next thing you know you'll be blaming the weather on the President except that you guys already do.

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Shall we go the German and French route where we take vast quantities of profitsa away from corporations that do their business inside our borders? That would surely keep them here right?


Only if you want 10% (France) or 12% (Germany) unemployment rates also.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Totally. Our unemployment is hovering around 5.5%, which is pretty awsome. Especially considering Katrina and all. The leading economic indicators for the next period are positive, and predict a continuation of the ongoing positive trend. Quite frankly, a struggling company laying off 30k workers is barely a blip in the unemployment figures. And if it means the company stops struggling so much, it's a net win for the economy.

I also like what somebody else pointed out: Gene wants to preserve the American economy at the expense of people in developing nations who can afford to be unemployed even less than Americans can. Gene should be among the most vocal in praise of Americans sacrificing their prosperity and future prospects in order to give poor third-world factory workers a chance to move up.

And "living wage" is liberal code for "employing workers at a loss becaus this somehow creates more wealth in fairyland". It doesn't impress me at all, except in the sense of being an impressive grasping-at-straws excuse to not admit the obvious: that the economy has been steadily improving ever since Bush took office.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
First, the unemployment rate does not consider what the jobs are paying. Just having a job that does not pay a living wage and does not have health and retirement benefits is not an answer and is not reflected in the rate. In addition, the rate in 2001 was 3.9% and there were more living wage jobs.

So long as we have trade policies that allow unfair competition and tax laws that reward companied for taking jobs out of the country our policy is wrong. Yes this is a Bush issue for it is his trade policy and his tax policy that is NOT solving the problem. Please do not tell me it was Clinton that started Free trade. That is correct but after it failed for him Bush should have been smart enough to see that the free trade policy was not working. However, Bush expands a policy that failed for Clinton. THAT IS JUST DUMB! We need to provide a level playing field for American Companies and provide incentives to encourage American companies to become more competative. What Bush does is open our markets while not demanding that foreign markets are open to American goods. The currency policy of China is a good example. They set their currency value low so their goods are even cheeper and our products are even more expensive. We sit by and do nothing.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Please do not tell me it was Clinton that started Free trade. That is correct but after it failed for him Bush should have been smart enough to see that the free trade policy was not working. However, Bush expands a policy that failed for Clinton. THAT IS JUST DUMB!


Your kidding me right? You are an incredible man, do you know that? You actually found a way a blame Clinton's mistake on Bush. What a genius. Grow up Col gene, for once you finally admit that someone other than Bush has done something stupid and you had to go and screw it up with you Bush hating fanaticism and blame it on Bush. Just when I thought there was still hope for you.

What Bush does is open our markets while not demanding that foreign markets are open to American goods. The currency policy of China is a good example. They set their currency value low so their goods are even cheeper and our products are even more expensive. We sit by and do nothing.


Is there anything, at all, that you think Bush has done right? If he does something about a situation he does it wrong and if he doesn't take action he's wrong as well. You passion for you hatred towards Bush shines more that the sun everyday. And claim not to hate Bush?
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bush does go on vacation very well. Beyond that not much. A person with any intellect does not continue with something that DOES NOT WORK. NOT Bush. he expands a policy that has shown it does not work. If Bush were a doctor treating a patient with cancer with two asprin that got worse , Bush would give his patient 4 asprin and then 6 etc until his patient died. Then he would say I have solved that patients problem.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bush goes on vacation very well?

Give me a break. Bush meets with his own staff constantly, no matter where in the world he is. He meets with other world leaders all the time, in Washington, at Camp David, at Crawford.

Quite frankly, if the leader of the only hyperpower of the Information Age can't get the job done from a ranch in Texas as easily as he can from the Oval Office, then somebody isn't realizing the full potential of the Future. But I've heard nothing that would suggest that this is the case. In fact, Bush seems to get just as much done as any president, regardless of where he is when he does it.

I mean, the invasion of Iraq was managed from a command center in Florida. And you expect me to believe that only the Oval Office holds the magical tools of presidential power? Sure, if this were 1973. Next you'll be telling us that we only need eight mainframes and 640k RAM to handle all the world's computing requirements.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bush is the one that forced the troop levels from 500,000 to 300,000 to the 150,000 that were used to invade Iraq. Bush is responsible for the mess today first by invading Iraq and then by not allowing the troop levels the Generals said were required to do the job.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
This is GREAT NEWS! With fewer cars being built, our emissions will decrease and we won't have to worry about the polar ice caps melting!

I hope Ralph Nader sends GM a Christmas card!
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Stute,

Thanks for pointing it out before I did. It's good to see some consistency, at least, in your position...that's frankly rare from many libs.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bush is the one that forced the troop levels from 500,000 to 300,000 to the 150,000 that were used to invade Iraq. Bush is responsible for the mess today first by invading Iraq and then by not allowing the troop levels the Generals said were required to do the job.


Oh, man, you're right, Col Gene. If we would draft enough soldiers to send half a million to Iraq, then we could reduce unemployment even further...I know of 30,000 folks that we could add to their ranks as of the first of the year (sheer brilliance!)

Only one question, though....how is it NOT an occupation if there are 500,0000 troops in the country, when it IS an occupation with 150,000? Maybe I'm just slow here.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
The issue is control. The lower number of troops did not allow our forces to stop foreign forces comming across the borders. We were not able to control hundreds of ammo dumps the terrorists used to make the IED's. We did not control the hot beds were the former Saddam forces planned their attacks and we did not protect the infrastrusture . We did not establish control and prevent the inserrection that has killed our troops and thousands of Iraqis. That is why the Generals told Bush they needed a far larger force to control Iraq after Saddam last control. We are occupaying Iraq but we have NEVER controlled the terrorists. We clear out a city and after we leave they return and we are forced to fight them again. We should have remained in the hot beds after clearing them but we did not have the force leves required to do the job properly. We had 500,000 in the first Gulf War and we not trying to control a unfriendly population. Almost ALL the retired military 4 stars have admitted we did not have the force levels to control Iraq. The active Generals are afraid to buck Bush. The saw whar happened when the Army CoS told Bush what was required. The resut is far more American dead and the mess we have today. GREAT work George!