SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: LindyBill who wrote (281204)11/18/2008 5:35:00 PM
From: unclewest5 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793964
 
The automobile business and the bailout.

While researching some stocks today I took a look at GM, Ford and Daimler-Chrysler.
Their combined total reported employees is over 1,000,000.

Other reports indicate the average US automaker employee's salary plus benefits is almost $75 per hour.
$75 X 40 hours X 52 weeks = $156,000 per employee.

$156,000 X 1,000,000 employees = an annual payroll of $156,000,000,000.00.
That is $156 Billion.

The previously reported and approved $25 Billion loan package, coupled with today's request for an additional $25 Billion will enable the three companies to meet payroll for almost another 4 months.

That should enable them to avoid filing for bankruptcy until April Fool's Day.

This time the government wants protection in the form of some assets. I wonder how much antiquated automobile factories located in Detroit will be worth?
uw



To: LindyBill who wrote (281204)11/18/2008 5:48:49 PM
From: TimF  Respond to of 793964
 
This change (including, but not limited to, manufacturing) is what "globalization" really means for America, and it is not pretty.

The change itself might not be pretty, economic change and dislocation is hard. But stagnation is even less pretty. And the net long term effects of the change are positive.

It is the root of growing income inequality and middle-class wage stagnation.

To the extent that middle class wages have stagnated (and they really haven't at most they aren't growing as fast), its largely because spending on benefits (particularly health insurance) have taken up more of the total compensation package.



To: LindyBill who wrote (281204)11/18/2008 6:04:40 PM
From: goldworldnet  Respond to of 793964
 
I worked one summer in a cotton mill when I was a kid, this article reflects on that bygone era.

In U.S. South, Textile Mills Gone but Not Forgotten
Willie Drye
for National Geographic News

October 19, 2004

For more than a century after the U.S. Civil War ended in 1865, the working day began across the South with the shriek of whistles at textile mills.

The whistles have nearly stopped blowing, however. The jobs that once underpinned the economy of hundreds of small towns from Virginia to Mississippi are now in Mexico, India, and China. The handsome old redbrick buildings where people once earned the money to raise families are empty, and many are falling into disrepair.

Today some people question whether younger generations understand how hard their parents and grandparents worked to make ends meet and build their communities.

Now a determined group of former mill workers, professional and amateur historians, and volunteers has launched a grassroots effort to preserve at least some of what remains of a vanishing era.

"We're trying to create a big, giant vacuum cleaner to capture those memories, or the stories will be gone," said Lynn Rumley, the great-granddaughter of a Virginia textile worker. Rumley lives in the former mill town of Cooleemee, North Carolina—about 26 miles (42 kilometers) southwest of Winston-Salem—and is leading the Southwide Textile Heritage Initiative.

Rumley wants to raise money and recruit members to compile oral histories of textile workers, to persuade school systems to teach students about their textile heritage, and to lure tourists to the old mill villages.

"We really do believe that this is a story people want to hear about," Rumley said. "It's a way of life that's gone, by and large."

It was a compact lifestyle so nearly identical throughout the South that, if you asked mill hands in the rolling hills of northern Georgia or the coastal plain of North Carolina where they lived, they'd probably say, with a mixture of pride and self-effacement, "I live on the mill hill."

In small towns such as Haw River, North Carolina, and Valley, Alabama, and larger cities such as Macon, Georgia, and Columbia, South Carolina, hundreds of thousands of men and women went into the mills every morning. They ran the spindles and looms, loaded and unloaded the trucks, kept the books, and signed the paychecks.

At the end of their shifts they went home to mill-owned housing that they rented for a few dollars a month. When they went shopping they bought groceries and supplies in mill-owned stores. They watched movies in theaters built by the mill, and they played baseball for mill-sponsored teams.

They also developed deep personal bonds. They looked after their neighbors' children when parents had to work. And when there was a death or illness, they cleaned their neighbors' houses, cooked their meals, and comforted the bereaved families.

"It instilled a sense of togetherness, fellowship, whatever you want to call it," said Joel Jackson, who grew up in Bemis, Tennessee, a mill town about 80 miles (130 kilometers) east of Memphis. "It was a tight-knit community. I knew 90 percent of the people in town as a kid, and my dad knew everybody. If anybody got in trouble, or there was a death, everybody was there to help until they were not needed."

The mill life also had its idyllic aspects. "We were on the low end of the economic ladder, but we didn't lack for anything," Jackson said. "It was a simple life, but it was satisfying."

The simplicity didn't do away with ambition among textile families, however. Many sons and daughters inherited their parents' strict work ethic and went on to brighter futures far from the mill hills. Senator John Edwards, the son of a textile worker in Robbins, North Carolina, is now the Democrats' candidate for Vice President of the United States.

"The mill workers shared dreams of better lives, and they shared hard, physical labor under difficult conditions," Edwards said in a statement. "Their families shared the schools, churches, and recreation centers created by their employers."

But there was a darker side to the South's textiles industry.

The region's dependence on textiles began after the Civil War, when many towns desperate for industry scraped together their own capital to start cotton mills. Impoverished mountaineers and farmers left their land to work in those mills. Textile barons in New England, eager to take advantage of a large pool of cheap labor, also started moving their operations south.

North Carolina journalist Gerald W. Johnson said profit "never became the dominant motif" for many of these early mills. "Always it was the prospect of civic and social salvation that was stressed," Johnson said.

But with people willing to work for very low wages, most of the mills made money anyway. Profits started booming in 1914, when World War I began and Southern textile mills landed huge military contracts.

But things changed when the war ended and windfall profits stopped. Many mills were now in the hands of owners who weren't motivated by "social salvation." By the late 1920s their greed and mismanagement had brought hard times to the textile towns. Many mill hands lost their jobs, and those who continued to work faced ever increasing production demands.

Flaring tempers and violence took a deadly turn in March 1929, when textile workers fed up with pay cuts and ceaseless demands for more production went on strike in Gastonia, North Carolina. A sheriff and several mill workers were shot dead.

Mill owners often used brutal tactics to break textile strikes, and organized labor was never able to gain much of a foothold in the South.

By the end of World War II in 1945, the industry had stabilized again, and textile towns flourished for about 25 years. No one knows exactly how many people worked in the southern mills when they were at their peak employment. But in 1960 there were 505,000 textile workers in North Carolina alone.

The textile industry has never lost its appetite for cheap labor, and the jobs that once filled the southern mills started to be shipped outside the United States.

Norris Dearmon, who spent 43 years in the office of Cannon Mills in Kannapolis, North Carolina, recalls the days when 18,000 people worked in the giant plant there. But after changing owners and shedding jobs for more than a decade, that mill closed in July 2003. "All the equipment's been stripped out and sent to China, India, Mexico, wherever," Dearmon said. "They really cleaned it out."

Now Dearmon is helping with the textile heritage preservation effort. Among other things, he's collecting reed hooks that weavers used in the mills. When a thread broke on their looms, weavers used reed hooks to snag the strands so the threads could be tied back together. The hooks often became very personal tools, because many weavers made their own.

Tom Hanchett, historian at the Levine Museum of the New South in Charlotte, said he hopes the work of Rumley, Dearmon, Jackson, and others will spur other people to restore the unused mill buildings. He'd like to see them used for other purposes and suggests that a textile heritage trail across the South be created to recount the times when the lives of generations of Southerners revolved around the old mill villages.

"It's always important to know where we came from," Hanchett said. "It's important to celebrate the hard work and vision that created the world we're in now, to realize that it didn't just happen [on its own]."

news.nationalgeographic.com

* * *



To: LindyBill who wrote (281204)11/18/2008 7:27:49 PM
From: KLP1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793964
 
CSpan has videos of todays hearings. Big 3 carmakers beg for $25B, warn of catastrophe

[KLP Note: Barney Frank was nearly insufferable this AM to Paulson...Frank and Dodd and Congress are a good part of the problem, and of course, they won't acknowledge that at all...Paulson tried to answer his questions, but Frank wants to do the political thing....give the 'suffering homeowners' some funds....made me want to slap Frank upside the head...add Maxine Waters to that as well...geeze, one would think someplace there are responsible Democrats who know some economics...even basic economics.....but then again, maybe there aren't any. As far as the automakers are concerned, Congress should investigate the Unions as well as well as themselves to find the culprits. ON TOP of that, how many of the Dem Reps and Senators realize that if they don't have a Company, they won't have any company to make green cars? The Dems are refusing to use the already granted $25 Billion ==They want $50 Billion....]

Nov 18, 6:56 PM EST

hosted.ap.org

By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Detroit's Big Three automakers pleaded with a reluctant Congress Tuesday for a $25 billion lifeline to save the once-proud titans of U.S. industry, pointedly warning of a national economic catastrophe should they collapse. Millions of layoffs would follow their demise, they said, as damaging effects rippled across an already-faltering economy.
But the new rescue plan appeared stalled on Capitol Hill, opposed by the Bush administration and Republicans in Congress who don't want to dip into the Treasury Department's $700 billion financial bailout program to come up with the $25 billion in loans.

"Our industry ... needs a bridge to span the financial chasm that has opened up before us," General Motors Corp. CEO Rick Wagoner told the Senate Banking Committee. He blamed the industry's predicament not on management failures but on the deepening global financial crisis.

And Robert Nardelli, CEO of Chrysler LLC, told the panel the bailout would be "the least costly alternative" when compared with damage from bankruptcy.

Sympathy for the industry was sparse, with bailout fatigue dominating Capitol Hill. Lawmakers bristled with pent-up criticism of the auto industry, and questioned whether a stopgap loan would really cure what ails the companies.

Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., told the leaders of GM, Chrysler and Ford Motor Co. that the industry was "seeking treatments for wounds that I believe to a large extent were self-inflicted."

Still, he said, "At a time like this, when our economic future is so tenuous, we must do all we can to ensure stability."

Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., complained that the larger financial crisis "is not the only reason why the domestic auto industry is in trouble."

He cited "inefficient production" and "costly labor agreements" that put the U.S. automakers at a disadvantage to foreign companies.

Ford CEO Alan Mulally told senators the auto industry was "a pillar of our economy. We look forward to working with you to be part of the solution" to the financial crisis.

GM's Wagoner said that despite some public perceptions that his company was not keeping pace with the times and technological changes, "we've moved aggressively in recent years to position GM for long-term success. And we were well on the road to turning our North American business around."

"What exposes us to failure now is the global financial crisis, which has severely restricted credit availability and reduced industry sales to the lowest per-capita level since World War II."

Failure of the auto industry "would be catastrophic," he said, resulting in three million jobs lost within the first year and "economic devastation (that) would far exceed the government support that our industry needs to weather the current crisis."

Chrysler's Nardelli sought to respond to critics who suggest the automakers seek Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, as have some airlines that later emerged restructured and leaner.
"We just cannot be confident that we will be able to successfully emerge from bankruptcy," Nardelli said.

Chrysler was bailed out by the federal government once before, in 1979, with $1.2 billion in loan guarantees. The company repaid the loan, plus interest, ahead of schedule.

The three said a $25 billion government infusion could get them through 2009, with Chrysler and Ford each getting about $7 billion and GM needing $10 billion to $12 billion to pull through.

Joining the Big Three CEOs, Ron Gettelfinger, president of the United Auto Workers union, said the emergency loans were important for the survival of the industry and union jobs. He said the UAW recognized that "in order for these companies to be competitive, we had to make tough calls" in labor concessions.

Congressional leaders worked behind the scenes trying to hammer out a compromise that could speed some aid to the automakers before year's end. But the outlook seemed poor.
"My sense is that nothing's going to happen this week," Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said at the opening of the hearing.
Democratic Sen. Max Baucus of Montana said he also smelled a flameout. "I sense that nothing is going to be passed," the Finance Committee chairman said.

Earlier, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said Congress might have to return in December - rather than adjourning for the year this week, as expected - to consider an auto bailout.
"Dealing with the automobile crisis is a pressing need. We are talking about a lot of people ... and a great consequence to our economy," said Hoyer, D-Md.

The financial situation for the automakers grows more precarious by the day. Cash-strapped GM said it will delay reimbursing its dealers for rebates and other sales incentives and could run out of cash by year's end without government aid.
In the Senate, Democrats discussed but rejected the option favored by the White House and GOP lawmakers to let the auto industry use a $25 billion loan program created by Congress in September - designed to help the companies develop more fuel-efficient vehicles - to tide them over financially until President-elect Barack Obama takes office.

"There is a way to do this," said Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the minority leader.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and other senior Democrats, who count environmental groups among their strongest supporters, have vehemently opposed that approach because it would divert federal money that was supposed to go toward the development of vehicles that use less gasoline.
"I don't think that's going very far in our caucus," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Instead, they want to draw the $25 billion directly from the $700 billion Wall Street bailout - bringing the government's total aid to the car companies to $50 billion.

A Senate vote on that plan, which would also extend jobless benefits, could come as early as Thursday, but it currently lacks the support to advance. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson renewed the administration's opposition on Tuesday.
Even the car companies' strongest supporters conceded Tuesday that changing the terms of the fuel-efficiency loan program might be the only way to secure funding for them with Congress set to depart for the year and the firms in tough financial shape.

"While I believe we have to have retooling going into next year, if in the short run the only way we have to be able to get some immediate help is to take a portion of that, I would very reluctantly do that - but only because I believe President-elect Obama is going to be focused on retooling and on a manufacturing strategy next year," said Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich.

The White House said the government shouldn't send any more money to the struggling auto industry on top of the already-approved loans.

"We don't think that taxpayers should be asked to throw money at a company that can't prove that it has a long-term path for success," said White House Press Secretary Dana Perino.
---
Associated Press Writers Ken Thomas and Tom Raum contributed to this story.