The Big Three - General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC - are on the verge of bankruptcy.
It's hard to have sympathy for the Big Three executives. They have grossly mismanaged the companies they were entrusted to run, investing in highly profitable SUVs and light trucks. They ignored the emerging market for fuel-efficient, green vehicles and fought increased fuel efficiency standards and health care reform while earning huge salaries and bonuses.
But as President-elect Barack Obama recently said, the auto industry is the backbone of American manufacturing and the cornerstone of the blue collar middle class. Its manufacturing and research and development capacity are critical to the nation's national defense.
The American automobile industry is simply too important to the welfare of the country, its people and their communities to be allowed to fail.
Congress should immediately provide the car companies with a $25 billion bridge loan to protect family supporting jobs and our nation's future competitiveness.
If we don't save the Big Three, America will lose 3 million family-supporting jobs, and almost a million retirees would lose their health care coverage. Thousands of small and medium-sized business that support the auto industry would vanish. Hundreds of communities across the country would be devastated and the current nasty recession might become a full blown depression.
All one needs to do is examine the impact of GM's closing on Janesville, which has the highest unemployment in Wisconsin and is among the nation's leaders in job loss. About 1,200 GM employees have already lost their jobs. Another 1,400 will be laid off when the plant finally closes. Supplier firms like Allied Automotive Group (117 jobs) LSI (159 jobs) and Lear (371 jobs) are also closing. The GM shutdown will ultimately cost Rock County 9,000 total jobs and nearly half a billion dollars of labor income.
Wisconsin is the home of hundreds of automotive supplier firms, such as Johnson Controls Inc., Dana Holding Company, Charter Wire Inc. and Strattec Security Corp., as well as hundreds of dealerships. We have seen what deindustrialization has done to cities like Milwaukee, which has the seventh-highest poverty rate in the country, and Racine. We simply cannot afford to allow auto, which accounts for one out of ten private sector jobs, to go bankrupt.
The Big Three have been mismanaged. But the current crisis is not simply the result of poor management. In October auto sales fell to 10.8 million on an annualized basis compared with 17 million in recent years. All auto companies, including Toyota, the leader in fuel efficient vehicles, have experienced deep declines.
Consumers aren't buying cars, the second-largest purchase that families make, because credit is not available on reasonable terms and because American families are cutting back in response to the deteriorating economy.
Chapter 11 is not an option for the Big Three. Consumers will not buy cars from companies that are in bankruptcy. And debtor-in possession financing would not be available to the auto companies.
Calls for cuts in worker wages and benefits are also misguided. The auto companies have been successfully reducing labor and legacy costs. According to KDP Advisors, an independent research firm: "The Detroit automakers have, in essence, been pursuing an out-of-court restructuring over the last three years. These efforts have produced a competitive labor contract with the UAW, a viable solution to reduce retiree health-care expense, and a substantial downsizing of capacity and headcount. Incremental gains achieved through bankruptcy would be minimal in comparison and would likely result in even further deterioration of enterprise values as consumers would be far less likely to purchase an expensive vehicle from a bankrupt manufacturer, with or without government guarantees."
In both the 2003 and 2207 collective bargaining agreements, active and retired workers made huge concessions reducing wages for new employees by 50 percent and eliminating half the liabilities for retiree health benefits. UAW-represented plants are now every bit as productive as plant operated by Toyota and Nissan in this country.
When Washington bailed out Bear Stearns, AIG and other financial titans, the Treasury Department insisted on executive compensation restrictions, but not on pay and benefit cuts for rank and file workers. Why should auto industry employees be treated differently?
When Washington allowed Lehman Brothers to collapse, the economic crisis spiraled out of control. We shouldn't play Russian roulette with the jobs, incomes, health care and pensions of millions of Americans by allowing the Big Three to collapse.
President Obama has asked that Congress to provide the Big Three with a $25 billion loan so it can survive this nasty recession, the worst since the Great Depression.
Insist on executive salary and bonus limits, a transparent repayment schedule, a new generation of green, fuel-efficient vehicles and technology and support for affordable and accessible health care. But do not preside over the destruction of the America's manufacturing sector.
The federal government has a responsibility to help save the jobs of millions of American workers and the communities that depend on these jobs. Congress bailed out Wall Street. Main Street and the side streets are watching and waiting.
Michael Rosen, Ph.D., is a professor of economics at the Milwaukee Area Technical College.




6 Comments
I really have a tough time supporting the auto companies who balked higher fuel standards that would ultimately make them more competitive with more fuel efficient foreign cars. They have been content to make a "good enough" product for far too long, focusing on profit rather than quality and economy. They saw this coming and did nothing and now ask for money! It been evident for the past 10 years that oil prices will only keep rising, but all the auto companies want to do is make enormous SUVs. Cadilac is now bragging about there new 16 MPG Hybrid Escalade. Way to go Detroit!
Now they Lets also not forget these are the same companies that bough and closed several intercity passenger rail companies to force people to buy there products.
I do feel for the workers of those companies, but even for them this situation is temporary. If one of the big three closes, sales will increase for the other two. Additionally, more assembly plants will be built by foreign companies in America to respond to increased demand.
I don't think people understand the impact it would have if one of the big three went under. The distributors that they use will go under. They will be the same distributors used by all the manufactors. The costs of vehicles will sky rocket and each auto maker will crumble one by one in response.
The foreign distributors will probably jump in and build more assembly plants if they are able to weather the storm. Then we will be dependant on other countries to make our products and no longer self sufficent.
I agree that the big three should have put more money into research and development of more fuel efficent vehicles. Congress should never have allowed them to get away with the industry standard being set so low, but at what cost do we teach them a leason. At the cost of millions of middle class workers.
My two word reply to Michael Rosen: (1) Hog (2) Wash. Ford, GM, and Chrysler find themselves where they are because they pursued short-term profits in SUVs rather than investing in product development, and because their cost structures put them at a hopeless competitive disadvantage. The Big Three have an average vehicle production cost for a mid-size sedan that's $2000 higher than Toyota's. Do you wonder why American sedans at the Camry & Accord price point seem cheap and wear poorly? It's because there's $2000 wrapped up in wages and benefits that should instead be wrapped up in engineering and materials. American consumers are piggish and short-sighted, but they're not (as a group, at least) stupid.
No, the Big Three should pass through some form of restructuring at gunpoint. I'm sorry that folks will lose jobs that they've worked hard to keep, and that the executives who should bear the blame will feel the hurt last. Both results are unfair, but neither justifies a bailout that would merely perpetuate the current palsy in a strategically vital industry.
Michael,
You're not really an economist when you write something like "Insist on executive salary and bonus limits, a transparent repayment schedule, a new generation of green, fuel-efficient vehicles and technology and support for affordable and accessible health care." A real PHD in economics knows that the market will determine if green vehicles should be produced. I'm not sure how you managed to get affordable health care in to your essay.
I am actually surprised that MATC even has an economics department, given that as a trade school, there is very limited demand for economists to begin with.
Let's be clear: Chapter 11 is an option for the big three. It will relieve them of their debt, and other capitalists will pick up the pieces and start again. Parts suppliers for the big three will still be required to keep the cars on the road running, and Americans will still buy cars when they need them.
A $25,000,000,000 bridge loan will allow these companies to keep operating for a bit longer, but their failure is still very likely. Their legacy costs are out alignment with profitable operations.
Certainly as an economist, you know there is no free lunch. The $25,000,000,000 proposed bridge loan comes from productive businesses and people, who will have to pay for it in reduced spending and investment in their own lives. Becuase the government spends more than it takes in, the government is borrowing money from future taxes to pay for the bailout. So you are advocating borrowing money to loan to the automakers, who have proven to be a "risky" investment.
I say, stop the insanity.
I also say, why the hell does MATC have an economics department? It's a trade school, right? So stop that insanity as well.
Why the he!! is there an economics professor at MATC. No wonder Germantown wants their bloated, money sucking butts moved out. Possibly he is a professor of home economics. I'm pretty sure we need to get MATC back in the trades business and out of the University business. Soon they will be as bloated as the UW system...
I don't like the idea of putting the US automakers in a more difficult situation, but when do we say enough is enough. The major problem is the unions have such a stranglehold on the three companies. Just look at the GM Janesville situation, GM will pay out over a hundred million of dollars to the laid off employees when it is over. Does everyone realize how many cars GM will need to sell just to break even on that! GM is not getting anything for that money. How is the union providing anything positive to the situation? Break the unions and start over. Good luck with that and our new union friendly government!