[jakitula]

TMM: Do you sell to non-Detroit car companies as well? If so, wouldn't you say that the lack of business is due to general economic conditions and once the car industry rebounds (with or without the Detroit car companies), you will get more business?

[Erexecike]

I know some of our products go to Japan, France and China, so it's not entirely dependent, no. However, our largest customers are domestic. What strikes me is how far down the line we actually are. We supply other chemical companies that supply molding companies that supply parts companies that supply the automakers, and that's pretty much the shortest chain I can come up with.

[courlerwele]

Fun fact: While the American automakers flounder and cry, Toyota just opened up a new massive plant in Canada today...

[evammaUselp]

I hear you, and that is unfortunate, but the issue at hand is whether GM, Ford, and Chrysler going bankrupt would have any long term impact on you. If these companies decrease production, then other companies would replace that production. We all still drive cars, after all. (Well, I don't, but I am a very rare breed.)

[KitRittyTug]

TMM: Especially if you are a small company, the customer switch may be disruptive. However, probably you should be worried more about the general economic condition than the fortunes of any one (or 3) company.

[Vomephems]

No, they wouldn't disappear instantly. A complicating factor is that most of the car companies, the Japanese included, have lots of unsold cars and will be curtailing production in any event. There is lots of spare capacity out there. The US industry (Detroit and foreign) is built to produce 15+ million cars a year, but is selling only 11 million cars.

[soSldI4i]

Some Japanese automakers have unions in the US too. Honda is partly unionized. But Toyota isn't, and they have the highest pay and benefits besides Detroit.

[DghtRdc]

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles
For Asher, since he's under the impression the Japanese automakers don't have unions.

http://www.businessweek.com/autos/au...a_pays_up.html

In Japan, Toyota Motor Workers’ Union has 58,000 members. That's interesting because Toyota has zero unions in North America.

And I think you need to do a lot of research into the powers and utility of unions in Japanese business culture.

Toyota is one of the biggest employers in the province of Ontario, and has a few major auto plants here, none of which are unionized and all of which are highly profitable. They just opened a new one today.

Edit: And before you blame it all on more competent management, the plant they just opened here makes the Rav4 -- and SUV.

[Quigoxito]

What I think would be interesting to discuss, if we could find three or four people who aren't passionately anti-union or passionately anti-corporate, would be, what is a system under which both unions and corporations would flourish? More specifically, under what organizational structure could you posit a union that benefited its members, and while not benefiting the corporation directly (monetarily), was beneficial in creating a sustainable corporate model with happy, appropriately compensated employees working under appropriate conditions, without the tendency unions have to either become self-gratifying or destructive of the employer?

[lovespellszz]

Originally posted by Kontiki


That actually raises an interesting question - ignoring all the woe-is-us economic effects, what would likely happen if the Big Three ceased to exist? Those guys hold an impressive amount of global market share right now. Would there be a fairly uniform grab by all other manufacturers? Would Toyota become an even bigger behemoth? I knew this all sounded familiar...



Hokey, but prescient

Originally posted by Arrian
I've seen the claim made (by lefty types on the 'net) that if we had universal healthcare, GM/Ford/Chrysler would be fixable, because it's primarily the healthcare costs that are killing them.

The argument continues that Honda & Toyota have built-in advantages b/c their Japanese employees have socialized health care, which keeps the companies overall healthcare costs down. Stealth subsidy.

So... here you have Dems elected on a platform of health care reform. Setting aside the fact that we don't know for sure what form it will take (if indeed the Dems succeed in passing anything at all), could that be the bailout GM really needs?

-Arrian The companies can't get enough credit to last more than a few months, while true universal health care (whether single-payer or not) would take several years to fully implement, as would modification of union contracts to take it into account. Even if healthcare is the solution, there would have to be something now to keep them afloat in the meantime.

[MeatteCen]

The companies can't get enough credit to last more than a few months, while implementing true universal health care (whether single-payer or not) would take several years to fully implement, as would modification of union contracts to take it into account. Even if healthcare is the solution, there would have to be something now to keep them afloat in the meantime. I get that. However, if healthcare is a legit solution, then it is defensible to extend the loan whilst working out healthcare. My main worry with this whole thing is that they will get their loan, limp along for another year or two and then fail anyway.

-Arrian

[everlastinge]

Originally posted by DanS
1) We already have socialized medicine for those 65+. Medicare/Medicaid. Yeah?


2) It is debatable whether the car companies should be filling the health care gap between their retirement and 65. Indeed. Some are arguing that employers shouldn't be responsible for healthcare at all.

3) Foreign car companies operating in the US provide adequate health insurance and compete just fine. Detroit provides absolutely gold-plated coverage, unmatched by other businesses. Two things here:

1. The argument I've seen discusses the advantage of their Japanese operations not having healthcare costs (b/c Japan has socialized medicine). I know that that doesn't apply to US operations.

2. I know the big three have crazy healthcare costs. I'm not arguing about whether or not they're reasonable. My question was if those costs were removed from them because the government implemented socialized medicine, would that be enough to make them salvagable?

-Arrian

[Adimonnna]

Thanks for the edit, because the edited bit is what I'm really getting at.

You and I can disagree on whether or not full-blown socialized healthcare is a good idea. However, *if* we went the route of full coverage via the government - such that employers would simply cease to have a role in the healthcare system - that would go a long way toward making the US automakers competitive again*.

Since the Dems were elected in part to deal with healthcare, there's your bailout, folks. 2 birds, 1 stone.

-Arrian

* - unless, of course, that you believe socialized medicine will be so horrifically expensive that it will require big tax increases that will in turn supress demand for new cars. I don't think that has to be so - it seems to me we can actually save money by doing this right - but I can understand the view.

[Malinguenem]

I didn't say we will, Dan. I thought I was clear in my first post on this particular issue that this was a hypothetical dependant on: a) the ability of the Dems to actually DO something; and b) the details of what they do (if they do it).

-Arrian

[Agedprepdoock]

Originally posted by Arrian
I've seen the claim made (by lefty types on the 'net) that if we had universal healthcare, GM/Ford/Chrysler would be fixable, because it's primarily the healthcare costs that are killing them. Even if true, so what?

They should be thanking the Japanese for subsidizing their consumption of automobiles by paying the health costs of employees.

[snova]

It won't.

[Rqqneujr]

I have no confidence that $150 billion would cover GM only. Most of its assets are imaginary, its obligations on the books are $170 billion, and there are at least several tens of billions of dollars in obligations off the books.