Quote:
Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM
I'm not even sure why the government did step in.
|
Because labor analysts agree that with in 3-4 degrees of separation, 1 in 4 jobs in the US was tied to GM (along with Chrysler) and it's supply chain. You think a measly 9% unemployment is bad? Try 25-30%. That's why they stepped in.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Center for Automotive Research
Kristin Dziczek, who led the study, said that more than 1.4 million jobs, most of them at suppliers, service companies and other vendors, would have been lost had the two companies been liquidated.
Because each job at an automaker helps generate about 10 jobs through the rest of the economy, compared with two for retailers or six for electrical-equipment makers, saving GM and Chrysler had a broader and quicker job-saving ripple effect, said Deb Menk of the research center in Ann Arbor, Mich.
|
1.4 million x 10=14 million. add to that the knock on effects of losing 14 million people spending money at grocery stores, restaurants, etc. Then compound that with the even worse recession which might have taken debt heavy Ford with it in a year or two.....and you start to think it was maybe not such a bad idea. I'm not a fan of the idea either, but I temper my political ideology with reality. The economic crisis could have been exponentially worse and much, much longer. Besides, compare this to the amount of money that was spent on 2 wars that you will see zero benefit from, and never get a dime back from.