5 ms·

haha. Well, I think its mean-spirited to celebrate the demise of an industry that employs 3 million people, with no mention of the human toll involved in these

haha. Well, I think its mean-spirited to celebrate the demise of an industry that employs 3 million people, with no mention of the human toll involved in these transitions. And I think its disingenuous to claim that I said others are "happy" about job losses, when I said no such thing. My two points were 1) this is bad for the economy short term, potentially leading to further trickle down effects, and 2) the response of "meh, its just optimization" to the human suffering is not indicative of a society I am proud to live in.

jamiequint 18y ago
You can't artificially prevent "human suffering" through economic ignorance. I appreciate the point, but don't see the bailout and human suffering as the only two choices. One other possible option is for the government to spend a fraction of this money to help people suffering by the collapse of the US auto industry as a buffer until (likely foreign) competition moves in and takes its place. If you see this as simply the acceleration of the inevitable (as I do) the argument you are making for a bailout is akin to saying we should support any industry that is no longer economically viable just to keep the people from having to suffer job loss. This is not a sustainable long term strategy. At some point people must move on. If this means acquisition of new skills in order to most efficiently re-integrate into the economy than society should help people who unfortunately lost their jobs in attaining these skills, but it is the wrong decision to prop up failing companies in order to help their employees, because at some point this ceases to work. There are more efficient uses for capital that help more people in the long term.
- jimbokun 18y ago
  "One other possible option is for the government to spend a fraction of this money to help people suffering by the collapse of the US auto industry as a buffer until (likely foreign) competition moves in and takes its place." I think this is the relevant question. Is government money more efficiently spent propping up the auto companies a little bit longer, or giving it directly to all of the people laid off after the auto companies go under? As others have described in this discussion there is a real possibility of damage quickly spreading to other parts of the economy in a downward spiral if the automakers go down. So there might be a lot of people in need of that "fraction" of the money needed to keep the auto companies going a little bit longer. The decision rests on how we weigh the specific costs and risks involved for each option.
mattmaroon 18y ago
Most are not celebrating the demise of the industry, except maybe Toyota shareholders. They're celebrating the non-passage of a bill that wouldn't do anything but slightly delay the demise of the industry, while costing a lot of money. They're not dancing on the grave of an industry, they're dancing on the grave of a bill. It's two very different things. I guess maybe you're not mean-spirited and are just not understanding the difference.
- programnature 18y ago
  I don't know why you are speaking for other people. The OP I was responding to was clearly talking about the industry, and presumably those upvoting agree with the sentiment. The sentiment was "thank god the industry is finally allowed to die", not "thank god we are not wasting money", which suggests more of an emotional dislike of the auto industry rather than a dislike of this piece of legislation.
  - mattmaroon 18y ago
    The OP said he was glad the bill failed because he feels the market can work out a better solution. You brought up the whole dancing on the grave of people's jobs thing. He wasn't saying he was happy about the loss of jobs. The loss of jobs is coming one way or another (or so the economists I've read seem to think). Chapter 11 gives them a chance to at least end up viable in the end, creating more jobs in the long term. He is happy that we aren't throwing money down a well. Or that's how I read it.
- jimbokun 18y ago
  "except maybe Toyota shareholders" I think even they are worried about the possibility of their suppliers going under, and the damage that could be done to the economy in general by the Big 3 disappearing.
baltoo 18y ago
Then perhaps the bailout money would be better spent in reskilling the people that will get layed off?

jamiequint 18y ago

You can't artificially prevent "human suffering" through economic ignorance. I appreciate the point, but don't see the bailout and human suffering as the only two choices. One other possible option is for the government to spend a fraction of this money to help people suffering by the collapse of the US auto industry as a buffer until (likely foreign) competition moves in and takes its place. If you see this as simply the acceleration of the inevitable (as I do) the argument you are making for a bailout is akin to saying we should support any industry that is no longer economically viable just to keep the people from having to suffer job loss. This is not a sustainable long term strategy. At some point people must move on. If this means acquisition of new skills in order to most efficiently re-integrate into the economy than society should help people who unfortunately lost their jobs in attaining these skills, but it is the wrong decision to prop up failing companies in order to help their employees, because at some point this ceases to work. There are more efficient uses for capital that help more people in the long term.

jimbokun 18y ago
"One other possible option is for the government to spend a fraction of this money to help people suffering by the collapse of the US auto industry as a buffer until (likely foreign) competition moves in and takes its place." I think this is the relevant question. Is government money more efficiently spent propping up the auto companies a little bit longer, or giving it directly to all of the people laid off after the auto companies go under? As others have described in this discussion there is a real possibility of damage quickly spreading to other parts of the economy in a downward spiral if the automakers go down. So there might be a lot of people in need of that "fraction" of the money needed to keep the auto companies going a little bit longer. The decision rests on how we weigh the specific costs and risks involved for each option.

mattmaroon 18y ago

Most are not celebrating the demise of the industry, except maybe Toyota shareholders. They're celebrating the non-passage of a bill that wouldn't do anything but slightly delay the demise of the industry, while costing a lot of money. They're not dancing on the grave of an industry, they're dancing on the grave of a bill. It's two very different things. I guess maybe you're not mean-spirited and are just not understanding the difference.

programnature 18y ago
I don't know why you are speaking for other people. The OP I was responding to was clearly talking about the industry, and presumably those upvoting agree with the sentiment. The sentiment was "thank god the industry is finally allowed to die", not "thank god we are not wasting money", which suggests more of an emotional dislike of the auto industry rather than a dislike of this piece of legislation.
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  The OP said he was glad the bill failed because he feels the market can work out a better solution. You brought up the whole dancing on the grave of people's jobs thing. He wasn't saying he was happy about the loss of jobs. The loss of jobs is coming one way or another (or so the economists I've read seem to think). Chapter 11 gives them a chance to at least end up viable in the end, creating more jobs in the long term. He is happy that we aren't throwing money down a well. Or that's how I read it.
jimbokun 18y ago
"except maybe Toyota shareholders" I think even they are worried about the possibility of their suppliers going under, and the damage that could be done to the economy in general by the Big 3 disappearing.

baltoo 18y ago

Then perhaps the bailout money would be better spent in reskilling the people that will get layed off?