I'm not sure why you say I'm off base when I say that "not just last century blue collar jobs will be lost". You go on to essentially support the point I was making only in much more detail.
However, I disagree about the suppliers problem. It's absurd to assume that the world's auto industry would basically cease to exist if GM was liquidated. At the end of the day the strongest manufacturers would survive, maybe by bailing out their own suppliers. Auto makers are not systemically important in the same way that banks are.
It's funny that you mention the 1979 bailout of Chrysler. Is that the success you're hoping for? Bailing out an auto maker only to bail them out again 30 years later? I think that's a very good example showing why no auto maker should ever be bailed out. It just keeps a rotten corporate culture alive.
I do _not_ think that the auto industry or manufacturing in general is obsolete, quite the contrary. There are huge technological challenges coming up, the most important one being energy/fuel efficiency. This is a high tech sector that nobody should want to see fail. There are many related services that are also at stake, which do not fall into the unskilled labour category either.
But bailing out rotten companies is no way to achieve anything. Don't forget that the troubles at GM and Chrysler were not caused by the current financial crisis. They have been ailing for a long time.
I agree that auto startups are unlikely. But a little more creative thinking on the part of the US government wouldn't hurt. Are wholesale bailouts of rotten behemoths really the only way to rebuild the US auto industry? I can't believe that.
Briefly, I disagree that the jobs I listed are "last century blue collar." Many of those people are knowledge workers that just happen to use their hands as well as their minds.
Secondly, in my younger years I worked as a software developer at a Tier 1 automotive supplier. I've got a lot of friends in the business.
I wasn't being an alarmist. Many of these companies are on the brink. On top of that, there aren't many "strong" auto companies to "bail out" the suppliers.
Right now the forecast is a pitiful 9MM autos sold this year. At this rate, we're going to have serious problems, even Toyota may face bankruptcy.
And about Chrysler... they were bailed out, invented the mini-van, and, by acquiring Jeep via AMC,ignited an SUV market.
That's a corporate success story. It's been 30 years, there's been titanic shifts in the global market.
However, I disagree about the suppliers problem. It's absurd to assume that the world's auto industry would basically cease to exist if GM was liquidated. At the end of the day the strongest manufacturers would survive, maybe by bailing out their own suppliers. Auto makers are not systemically important in the same way that banks are.
It's funny that you mention the 1979 bailout of Chrysler. Is that the success you're hoping for? Bailing out an auto maker only to bail them out again 30 years later? I think that's a very good example showing why no auto maker should ever be bailed out. It just keeps a rotten corporate culture alive.
I do _not_ think that the auto industry or manufacturing in general is obsolete, quite the contrary. There are huge technological challenges coming up, the most important one being energy/fuel efficiency. This is a high tech sector that nobody should want to see fail. There are many related services that are also at stake, which do not fall into the unskilled labour category either.
But bailing out rotten companies is no way to achieve anything. Don't forget that the troubles at GM and Chrysler were not caused by the current financial crisis. They have been ailing for a long time.
I agree that auto startups are unlikely. But a little more creative thinking on the part of the US government wouldn't hurt. Are wholesale bailouts of rotten behemoths really the only way to rebuild the US auto industry? I can't believe that.