Quote:
Originally Posted by AGDee
|
Sorry, but I don't see how any of those articles dispute what KSigRC is saying (and, the Oregon Live blog entry is written by the President of an employee benefits administrator, so you have to take that for what it's worth). I think you're misreading his posts - he's not saying that the unemployment and its effects will be limited to Michigan.
The problem with even discussing this (and a reason why I've tried to stay out of the thread) is that it's SO personal to people in Michigan and those with families in the auto industry, which is completely understandable, but that tends to cloud the arguments. The general direction I've seen in this thread is "You're not from Michigan, so you don't understand."
AGDee made a comment earlier about punishing a whole industry because of the actions of CEOs. I don't think that's what anyone on the board is saying, or what most of the anti-bailout people are saying. There's a real concern that these companies didn't have a longterm view of things, and a concern that the bailout will just put off the inevitable. If a bailout happens, should the leadership be replaced at the Big Three? If not, beyond the Car Czar and government oversight, will there be any real change in how the company leadership acts? Or, will they pay lip service to the present concerns, while continuing with the status quo? Will the unions play ball and give concessions on top of those they've already made in previous contracts and agreements?
I don't know the answers to these questions. I'm not a big bailout guy, so admittedly that is clouding my own arguments. I would feel better if I didn't think this would just be a managerial band-aid, and that we'd be right back to square one in a few years. I feel for the people in the auto industry and all of the subsidiary industries, just like I feel for people in all lines of work who are losing their jobs or are in danger of losing their jobs in the near future. I just don't think it's such an easy issue.
Threaded Mode
