I do b/c that's how it works. You 5-6 million number is if all of the US automakers blew up. WOULD NEVER HAPPEN.... UNDERSTAND THAT!
your memory is poor. your judgement is also clouded if you don't understand the impact that losing even two out of the three auto makers.
Pride, I provided an article for you that verified the numbers I presented. You have offered only that GM employs about 210,000 people, which no one ever disputed. I have made it very clear that my 3.5-5 million number included all related jobs that would undoubtedly be affected by the down fall of GM and/or Chrysler.
I provided a post from fact check about how wrong that number really is. It includes the assumption failures of the other companies (Ford, Dodge, etc...)
"Getting to 3 million requires us to assume that all of the Big Three fail, that all their suppliers fail as well, and a lot else besides – including an assumption that Toyota, Honda and other foreign manufacturers also shut down all their U.S. production. Some independent economists say these extreme assumptions are improbable." "The 3 million figure appeared first in a study by the Center for Automotive Research, an industry-supported group, which estimated on Nov. 4 that 2,951,344 jobs would be lost in 2009 if all three U.S. automakers shut down production entirely. CAR based this on an assumption that all of the Big Three’s suppliers would be forced to shut down production, and that this in turn would force Toyota and all other foreign suppliers to shut down their own U.S. production lines." "EPI is a liberal think tank that bills itself as the nation’s leading research group "to focus on the economic condition of low- and middle-income Americans and their families." Its board of directorsincludes nine labor union executives including Ron Gettelfinger, president of the United Auto Workers, a strong advocate of federal aid for the industry. We of course take no position on whether taxpayers should aid the Big Three, and we have no ability to predict the future. We can say as a matter of fact, however, that the assumptions behind the 3 million figure are dubious at best" Fluff is well Fluff... http://www.factcheck.org/2008/12/loss-of-automaker-jobs/
I repeat, the sated above are assumptions and would NEVER HAPPEN... There is no data on this earth that will support a failure of ALL us automakers and ALSO a STOPPAGE of FOREIGN auto PRODUCTION in the US. You would literally have to nuke every auto plant here in the us to have this kind of failure.
What if the world's largest retailer went bankrupt? Or one of the most recognizable and innovative companies in American history? That would cause a catastrophe unprecedented in world economic history! Except, it happened, and many people barely noticed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Atlantic_&_Pacific_Tea_Company http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_Kodak This is capitalism, and the concept in play here is called "creative destruction." A company will cease to be profitable, be forced to sell assets to pay creditors, folks will lose their jobs *at that company* (most if not all will find other jobs), and another company will step in to fill the role of supplying demand in that industry. No company has the right to exist forever regardless of whether it is creating or destroying value. Anybody sorely missing Circuit City? Palm Pilot? Blackberry (soon enough)? Letting a company die, and its competitors bid on its best assets may sound heartless, but it's right. It's the market doing its job. The government using taxpayer money to save its favorite firms is not only drastically outreaching its intended purpose, but it distorts the market and signals to big firms, "If we're big enough, we can count on a bailout if we fuck up."
My memory is fine and at that time there were a few throwing those numbers around. They were as Pride said only valid if the whole industry was "nuked". The most likely senario was that GM would have gone into reorganization and come out in a similar form as it is now. If Chrysler had gone into liquidation no one would have noticied any difference from what happened. Fiat bought the assets of Chrysler for a song and the bond holders got screwed. The purpose of bankruptcy is to have an orderly solution to a company's problems that is equitable for the icontinued operation of the company where possible and orderly liquidation when not. One that protects the assest, workers and debt holders when possible. The bankruptcy system has worked for companies as large and critical as GM (Delta, American Airlines various steel companies) over the years. There was no reason to circumvent the established process OTHER than POLITICAL. One excuse used that no one would buy a car from a company in bankruptcy. Well who flys on American? Their business is good and BTW Boeing and Airbus are still selling them aircraft. This was a political grab for power and all the nightmare scenarios were used to herd the people like cattle. They subverted a process with a track record of success for political benefit. GM and Chrysler could have gone through the process and we likely (based on history) would have come out better in every way.
