GM Stock Sale: Taxpayers and investors not as fortunate as UAW

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM

Um, I think the question is who loses, not how much. Now that the government bailed out GM, every taxpayer loses and we didn't have anything to do with GM.

I'd like to know how much going broke cost GM workers and management. My guess is not much.

In the end, the cost of saving GM will cost each American no more than about $50, assuming each person pays equally (which obviously isn't true). Thats if the rest of the stock gets sold off for roughly where it is now, but the price is expected to trend upwards over the next year.

Now, contrast that against the cost of one or two million jobs. Or 10 million. Or even worse, a depression. What about the cost of losing a bunch of military suppliers? Most of the little guys pull double duty, supplying parts for the auto industry one day and defence the next. They can't survive without the auto contracts, and the lions share of the contracts came from GM and Chrysler. Its impossible to place a value on that, but you can guarantee that its going to be a lot worse than $50 a person.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by Zabo

Nah don't let it man. If anything, the people who act like they understand what's going on and post this crap should be the only depressing thing going on in here..

Naw, it's not that lol. It's mostly just the terrible attempts at economics that's going on in here.

[hot_rod]

Originally Posted by a_Username

Naw, it's not that lol. It's mostly just the terrible attempts at economics that's going on in here.

Well put!

[mickss]

Originally Posted by Zabo

Nah don't let it man. If anything, the people who act like they understand what's going on and post this crap should be the only depressing thing going on in here..

Most probably can`t even do their own taxes much less explain or even understand basic economics unless some talking head on cable news gives them the "facts" or they use some talking points to make themselves sound informed and more intelligent than they really are.

If they really want to be impressive they should try using their own words and not rely on the words of others to express their views or feelings on a given subject.

Polly want a cracker?

[Mr. Wyndham]

So...let me recap for a second...see if I understand.

GM went into bankruptcy partly because of the crushing legacy costs; retirement, healthcare, etc. I think the price was something like 10 employees' benefits for every 1 actively working employee? I've got the exact number wrong...but it was very high.

GM was in the process of paying their share to the VEBA fund which would take the burden of retirement and benefits off of the company when they went into bankruptcy. (read: "the fund was going to get this payment anyways...")

And so the union invested in GM to help them through the bankruptcy...they're making money off of it and putting it into the VEBA fund....

Which will release GM of the aforementioned responsibilities (and costs).

And this is a bad thing because one publication wrote an opinion piece on the subject?

[2010-1SS-IBM]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

In the end, the cost of saving GM will cost each American no more than about $50, assuming each person pays equally (which obviously isn't true). Thats if the rest of the stock gets sold off for roughly where it is now, but the price is expected to trend upwards over the next year.

Now, contrast that against the cost of one or two million jobs. Or 10 million. Or even worse, a depression. What about the cost of losing a bunch of military suppliers? Most of the little guys pull double duty, supplying parts for the auto industry one day and defence the next. They can't survive without the auto contracts, and the lions share of the contracts came from GM and Chrysler. Its impossible to place a value on that, but you can guarantee that its going to be a lot worse than $50 a person.

Ok, I'll ask again. What did GM employees or management lose when they drove their company into the ground.

You're real big on explaining how the cost was minimal to the tax payer. It makes me wonder why GM employees and management didn't shoulder more of the burden themselves.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM

Ok, I'll ask again. What did GM employees or management lose when they drove their company into the ground.

I'll answer with another question. Or several...

GM made mistakes over a long period of time. Many managers, many employees...Who would you like to crucify?

There were many reasons GM entered bankruptcy. Placing the blame completely on them is a little short sighted, so why do it?

And then I'll answer:

Tens of thousands of employees, from the very top to the very bottom have lost their jobs...how sad that needed to be said. :(

[2010-1SS-IBM]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

I'll answer with another question. Or several...

GM made mistakes over a long period of time. Many managers, many employees...Who would you like to crucify?

There were many reasons GM entered bankruptcy. Placing the blame completely on them is a little short sighted, so why do it?

Because they are the people responsible for the company's performance. Let's put it another way; it's certainly not the taxpayers or the government who are responsible for cleaning up the mess GM made.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM

Because they are the people responsible for the company's performance. Let's put it another way; it's certainly not the taxpayers or the government who are responsible for cleaning up the mess GM made.

No? My friend, could I go on.....

Simply, the assumption that GM was solely responsible for their falter, and that the US consumer/government is innocent is very....very wrong.

[mickss]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

So...let me recap for a second...see if I understand.

GM went into bankruptcy partly because of the crushing legacy costs; retirement, healthcare, etc. I think the price was something like 10 employees' benefits for every 1 actively working employee? I've got the exact number wrong...but it was very high.

GM was in the process of paying their share to the VEBA fund which would take the burden of retirement and benefits off of the company when they went into bankruptcy. (read: "the fund was going to get this payment anyways...")

And so the union invested in GM to help them through the bankruptcy...they're making money off of it and putting it into the VEBA fund....

Which will release GM of the aforementioned responsibilities (and costs).

And this is a bad thing because one publication wrote an opinion piece on the subject?

I don`t have a problem with an opinion article provided that it was sourced from a neutral and unbiased publication, but the Washington Times is to right what the New York Times is to the left. That whole article was nothing but an anti-administration and anti-union hit job.

How do you think people would react to either an opinion piece from Move On.org or The Drudge Report?

[2010-1SS-IBM]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

No? My friend, could I go on.....

Simply, the assumption that GM was solely responsible for their falter, and that the US consumer/government is innocent is very....very wrong.

What's "very... very wrong" is feeling entitled to tax payer money. It's even worse if the employees and management didn't sacrifice anything of their own.

How many people are GM took a pay cut? How many were laid off? How many had to pay more into their benefits program? Were any of those things done, or did the taxpayers foot the entire bill?

Sorry, but saying the entire country would go in the crapper if GM failed, but not seeing any sacrifice from GM folks to keep their own jobs is just BS. Their actions don't match your rhetoric.

[chevydude26]

Originally Posted by mickss

Most probably can`t even do their own taxes much less explain or even understand basic economics unless some talking head on cable news gives them the "facts" or they use some talking points to make themselves sound informed and more intelligent than they really are.

If they really want to be impressive they should try using their own words and not rely on the words of others to express their views or feelings on a given subject.

Polly want a cracker?

Be a man name some names buddy

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by mickss

I don`t have a problem with an opinion article provided that it was sourced from a neutral and unbiased publication

Well, then it wouldn't be an opinion piece, would it?

Originally Posted by mickss

How do you think people would react to either an opinion piece from Move On.org or The Drudge Report?

Oh, I don't think any of it's okay.

Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM

What's "very... very wrong" is feeling entitled to tax payer money. It's even worse if the employees and management didn't sacrifice anything of their own.

Nobody felt entitled...and plenty people sacrificed.

Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM

How many people are GM took a pay cut? How many were laid off? How many had to pay more into their benefits program? Were any of those things done, or did the taxpayers foot the entire bill?

Many employees had pay frozen, some had pay cut, all were worried about their future employment with the company. As I said before, TENS of thousands of employees were let go, many had benefits like healthcare cancelled after the age of 65, and all of this led to a smaller, more cost-effective company.

But at the cost of the livelihood of thousands. Does that make you feel better to know people lost their jobs?

Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM

Sorry, but saying the entire country would go in the crapper if GM failed, but not seeing any sacrifice from GM folks to keep their own jobs is just BS. Their actions don't match your rhetoric.

They do. You just seem to need to open your eyes a little wider, I'm afraid.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM

Ok, I'll ask again. What did GM employees or management lose when they drove their company into the ground.

You're real big on explaining how the cost was minimal to the tax payer. It makes me wonder why GM employees and management didn't shoulder more of the burden themselves.

The management responsible for causing GM's problems has been gone for a while. A lot of the problems were started decades ago, but in the ~5 years leading up to the bankruptcy, they were working to correct a number of those errors by working with the UAW to cut costs, streamlining operations, and refocusing on product. In all likelihood, the mess wouldn't have happened were it not for the credit crunch in late 2008, and they wouldn't have had to go to the government to secure cash. They could have either gotten more traditional loans, or they might not have needed them in the first place. So if you want to accuse those at the helm in 2009 for the bankruptcy, you're sadly mistaken. If anything, they were the best group GM had had in years. But even the best captain & crew can't save a sinking ship facing a tidal wave.

That aside, GM's laid off tens of thousands of workers ... both at factories and offices, and cut pay and benefits to most of those remaining. I don't know what all it was, but I'm sure some of our friends on the site who do work for GM can tell you more.