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.

[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?

[Cincinnati_Kid]

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.

You have a valid point. SOMETHING needs to be done is all I'm saying.

[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.

[JBMcB]

You can call it what you want. These companies need to be held accountable for devestating the communities they leave.

They hire people and pay them a wage. If they don't need them anymore, they don't pay them a wage anymore. If the people don't want to work at the factory anymore, they are free to leave whenever they like. What, exactly, more does the company "owe" the community? You work for the company, you get a paycheck. That's it.

So I guess you're all for them setting up shop overseas?

I'm all for them setting up shop wherever they can to stay in business. Legacy labor costs are too high in the US to build cheap, low-margin cars in the US [[foreign automakers have various incentives to have cars assembled here, but the major components are almost always imported.) If GM can stay in business if they build cheap cars in Mexico so luxury and truck lines can stay open in the US, I'm all for it.

[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.

[tallboy66]

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?

They built new plants to get cheaper labor and abandoned old ones while still making the same product. Now have to use millions to clean up just so they can hopefully sell the land to another industry.

The tech center in Pontiac they were banned from selling and had to clean it up and redevelop.

[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

[cman710]

You have a valid point. SOMETHING needs to be done is all I'm saying.

Looking for a second at history, it has fallen to the government to deal with the after effects of corporate change. In fact, to some extent, that is what has been happening in Detroit for the past 40 years. Before Detroit, it happened in places like Lowell, MA, which was a textile industry town until shortly after WWII. A similar story has played out in many places throughout the country.

Unfortunately, government is not particularly suited to handle these problems. In fact, the local governments usually have financial problems themselves precisely because of the economic changes occurring. At least now federal law makes the companies engage in environmental remediation.

[lilpup]

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?

Same phenomenon happens around military bases, too - whatcha going to do about that?

[hybridy]

Same phenomenon happens around military bases, too - whatcha going to do about that?

heres a good case study for ya...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badger_...munition_Plant

Badger consists of 7,354 acres [[30 km2) of land. It manufactured nitrocellulose-based propellants during World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. It is currently the site of demolition and remediation projects being conducted in preparation for property transfer. This ammunition plant was the largest in the world when it was built during World War II.

Future
Badger will be split among six landowners:[2][3]

• United State Department of Agriculture [[USDA) Dairy Forage

The USDA Dairy Forage will continue grazing cattle and growing crops on the land it receives. The estimated area to be received is approximately 2,233 acres [[9 km2).

• Bureau of Indian Affairs [[BIA)/Ho-Chunk Nation

The BIA will manage land for the Ho-Chunk Nation to graze bison and hold ceremonies on the land it receives. The estimated area to be received is approximately 1,553 acres [[6 km2).

• National Park Service [[NPS)/Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources [[WDNR)

The NPS will transfer the land to the WDNR through the Federal Lands to Parks Program for park and recreation use. The land will be used to expand Devil's Lake State Park and possibly make a hiking corridor connecting the park with the Wisconsin River. The estimated area to be received is approximately 3,408 acres [[14 km2).

• Town of Sumpter, Wisconsin

The Town of Sumpter will receive the three historic cemeteries located at Badger. These cemeteries were acquired and maintained by the U.S. Army during the initial land acquisition in 1942. The three cemeteries are the Pioneer, Thoelke, and Miller cemeteries. The estimated area to be received is approximately 3.6 acres [[15,000 m2).

• Bluffview Sanitary District

The Bluffview Sanitary District will receive land relating to the sewage and water treatment system it currently shares with Badger. Bluffview, located across U.S. 12 from Badger, is former Badger employee housing which is now private residences. The estimated area to be received is approximately 165 acres [[0.7 km2).

• Wisconsin Department of Transportation [[DOT)

The WI DOT will receive land along the existing State Highway 78. The WI DOT plans to expand and straighten State Highway 78 in 2009. The estimated area to be received is approximately 58.3 acres [[236,000 m2).

[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.