GM is going to support Michigan like it or not

[tallboy66]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/15/bu...to.html?src=mv

[Johnlodge]

I'm a little confused as to the relationship between the content of the story and the title of the thread.

[Hermod]

I'm a little confused as to the relationship between the content of the story and the title of the thread.

Maybe the connection is that the "bones of GM" are providing "jobs" for scrappers?

[Johnlodge]

Maybe the connection is that the "bones of GM" are providing "jobs" for scrappers?

Now I get it.

[Cincinnati_Kid]

Yeah, that's the gist of it. GM has done more to destroy communities than to help them.

[JBMcB]

Yeah, that's the gist of it. GM has done more to destroy communities than to help them.

GM exists to build and sell cars, not to foster community growth.

[Hermod]

GM exists to build and sell cars, not to foster community growth.

No, GM [[and any other business) exists to make money.

GM chooses to build and sell cars as their method of making money. If they thought they could make more money more easily building airplanes or railroad locomotives and railcars or by running a string of cathouses, they would switch their business model right away.

[mwilbert]

No, GM [[and any other business) exists to make money.

True enough, but that doesn't mean society can't impose constraints upon how they make that money, and of course it does. Cathouses are illegal in almost all states! Some of those constraints might include obligations to host communities.

If they thought they could make more money more easily building airplanes or railroad locomotives and railcars or by running a string of cathouses, they would switch their business model right away.

Perhaps in some theoretical context, but I'm pretty sure you know this doesn't happen in the real world. Sometimes companies do change their business lines completely, but even they don't do it "right away". It is both too hard and too risky, even for a company with a culture flexible enough to handle such a change, which GM manifestly is not.

[Cincinnati_Kid]

GM exists to build and sell cars, not to foster community growth.

What a cop-out. If they build plants within a community, then leave, what does that do to the local cleaners, party store, and bars that lose business when GM closes shop and depended on those plants for their livelihood? Like I said, they've destroyed Flint, Pontiac, Lansing, Dayton and anywhere else they abandon their facilities and leave them to rot.

[Hypestyles]

What a cop-out. If they build plants within a community, then leave, what does that do to the local cleaners, party store, and bars that lose business when GM closes shop and depended on those plants for their livelihood? Like I said, they've destroyed Flint, Pontiac, Lansing, Dayton and anywhere else they abandon their facilities and leave them to rot.

I've sent many letters to public officials and others, offering the idea that since the Big Two got lots of taxpayer money in the government bailout, that GM and Chrysler should be forced to get behind mass transit development/manufacturing, but 'no one' seems to go for it.. I got to ask Virg Bernero the question during a teleconference, and he downplayed the idea...

[Hermod]

I've sent many letters to public officials and others, offering the idea that since the Big Two got lots of taxpayer money in the government bailout, that GM and Chrysler should be forced to get behind mass transit development/manufacturing, but 'no one' seems to go for it.. I got to ask Virg Bernero the question during a teleconference, and he downplayed the idea...

GM once manufactured local transit buses, diesel rail locomotives, and heavy construction equipment. Over the years, they disposed of these businesses for one of three reasons:

a. Government threatening them with antitrust action.
b. Business not sufficiently profitable.
c. To concentrate on their core business.

EDIT TO ADD: GM exited the rail business in 2005.

[JBMcB]

What a cop-out. If they build plants within a community, then leave, what does that do to the local cleaners, party store, and bars that lose business when GM closes shop and depended on those plants for their livelihood?

This is basically the buggy whip argument. Economies change constantly, you have to adapt.

[cman710]

This is basically the buggy whip argument. Economies change constantly, you have to adapt.

My question would be the following: While we can all acknowledge the harmful effects of dumping old factories, what is the alternative? If we made GM support all the neighborhoods its old factories were in, the company would have no chance, would go bankrupt, and then the communities would not be supported anyway.

Perhaps there are some ways to mitigate the harm to communities when big companies leave, I am not sure how to do so in a way that would not cripple business.

[Cincinnati_Kid]

This is basically the buggy whip argument. Economies change constantly, you have to adapt.

You can call it what you want. These companies need to be held accountable for devestating the communities they leave. So I guess you're all for them setting up shop overseas?

[tallboy66]

GM exists to build and sell cars, not to foster community growth.

True but seeing as they WERE the largest company in the world, the Big 3 USED TO own over 80% of the auto market and it's now down to 50% or so and while competiton does play a big part would you want to get a job with them knowing their history and treatment of employees?

They also are required to clean up the sites to EPA standards in order to put them up for sale and are using, once again, taxpayer loans to fund it at the same time the scrappers are taking everything they can out of the building making it another empty shell that will stand vacant, have squatters and rats in it, instead of jobs.

[JBMcB]

True but seeing as they WERE the largest company in the world, the Big 3 USED TO own over 80% of the auto market and it's now down to 50% or so and while competiton does play a big part would you want to get a job with them knowing their history and treatment of employees?

If *any* company starts bleeding money, they are going to lay off employees. It's basic economics. If you can't afford to pay everyone, you are going to get rid of some people. If you hired someone to mow your lawn and you got laid off, would you continue employing that person just to keep him employed or would you mow your lawn yourself to save money?

They also are required to clean up the sites to EPA standards in order to put them up for sale and are using, once again, taxpayer loans to fund it at the same time

You're absolutely right, companies should pay to clean up their mess.

[Relayer76]

[quote=JBMcB;182249]If *any* company starts bleeding money, they are going to lay off employees. It's basic economics. If you can't afford to pay everyone, you are going to get rid of some people. If you hired someone to mow your lawn and you got laid off, would you continue employing that person just to keep him employed or would you mow your lawn yourself to save money?


True, but a bit simplistic. You can also reduce costs in other areas - like execs making $500,000 a year plus bonuses. Globalization also accounts for a large part of the problem. You can't export jobs and expect people in your own country to be able to afford the goods that you produce. Unless of course you then lend them money at low interest rates so that they can buy the goods that you produced oversees for pennies and resell to Americans at a huge profit on credit. It doesn't take a genius to see where this is headed.

[DetroitDad]

GM exists to build and sell cars, not to foster community growth.

Yes, but if I have the choice between two otherwise equal companies, putting out quality products, and the only difference is that one fosters community growth, while the other prevents it, or shows indifference, I will choose the former.

Let us not forget that corporations are made up of citizens, no different than you or me. Your obligation to be a decent human being and to make positive contributions to society always trumps making money and serving shareholders.

[JBMcB]

Yes, but if I have the choice between two otherwise equal companies, putting out quality products, and the only difference is that one fosters community growth, while the other prevents it, or shows indifference, I will choose the former.

Good luck making that value comparison. Which is worse: laying off a thousand workers and devastating a town, or dumping toxic sludge into the lakes? All companies screw up - as they are comprised of people, as you state.

Your obligation to be a decent human being and to make positive contributions to society always trumps making money and serving shareholders.

If you are a publicly traded company, by law, serving the shareholders trumps all else. I guess you should only patronize privately held companies, then.

[Bearinabox]

Good luck making that value comparison. Which is worse: laying off a thousand workers and devastating a town, or dumping toxic sludge into the lakes? All companies screw up - as they are comprised of people, as you state.

Most "screw-ups" are easily avoided--the problem is, it's often cheaper for companies to risk an occasional screw-up than to keep it from happening. After all, it isn't the corporation that will suffer as a result of the lake being full of toxic sludge, it's us.

The trick to preventing these sorts of "screw-ups" is to get a system of oversight and enforcement in place that gives companies a serious incentive to put effort into avoiding them. It's the sort of thing that would work a lot better if the upper echelons of government weren't largely populated by former and future high-level executives in the industries they're supposed to be regulating.

If you are a publicly traded company, by law, serving the shareholders trumps all else.

Which is why we, as a society, need to make sure that what's good for the shareholders isn't catastrophic for us. It's stupid to expect corporations to act in the public interest out of the goodness of their hearts. If we want them to stop destroying things, we need to take the profit out of it.

[Jimaz]

Taking Care of Business -- Citizenship and the Charter of Incorporation

Neither the claims of ownership nor those of control can stand against the paramount interests of the community. It remains only for the claims of the community to be put forward with clarity and force.
--A. A. Berle & Gardner C. Means,
The Modern Corporation and Private Property, 1933