Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
GM to lay off about 2,000 more factory workers (Marketwatch)
American automobile companies that are building an impressive array of class-leading vehicles in all segments, with more on the way with each passing quarter.
Now this is ridiculous, I'm laughing so hard blood came out my nostrils. Class leading vehicles??? Where??? Cutting edge fuel efficiency? What, Volt? Fuel efficient, maybe, but not wallet friendly in many other ways for sure.
OK I will bite a little. You asked where the domestics lead in for MPG. Below are the major segments volume wise and where GM is. GM is the leader (looking at volume brands) in 5 segments out of 7. And within nats of the other 2. And these vehicles are wallet friendly. Of course there is the Prius (with no competition from anyone til next year).
Chevy Aveo...34..........Cobalt...33.........Malibu...33
Honda Fit......33..........Civic.....34.........Accord...31
Toyota Yaris..36..........Corolla.35..........Camry...31
Impala...29....Traverse.....24....Silverado...20......Tahoe.......20
Honda Pilot.23
Avalon...28....Highlander..24....Tundra......19......Sequoia.....17
What matters is can GM make a profit? If they get a loan, can GM make enough profit to repay the loan? All else is superfluous.
I like WWII (and history in general): who made the best tank - Panther (German), who made the heaviest tank - TigerII (German), who had the 1st jets in combat (Germany), and strategic missiles - V1 (German). Who lost the war?
GM is in an economic war internally and externally; that is the war that matters. GM's product is not going to change significantly in the next few months to year, during which the war is won or lost. GM has to go with their current products, and what the market thinks of them and GM.
Honda Fit......33..........Civic.....34.........Accord...31
Toyota Yaris..36..........Corolla.35..........Camry...31
Impala...29....Traverse.....24....Silverado...20......Tahoe.......20
Honda Pilot.23
Avalon...28....Highlander..24....Tundra......19......Sequoia.....17
Where did you get these figures from, EPA? Aveo, Malibu, and Cobalt, I can believe. But Tahoe, Impala and Traverse? I disagree. I've tested them personally just recently and what I got was (city/hw): Traverse 14/17, Tahoe 12/18 (to be fair a friend received 15/20 in Tahoe hybrid), didnt test Impala, but given its size and weight a figure of 29mpg is impossible unless its a hybrid (heck even the avalon's figure is debateable imo).
EPA's numbers are almost always bloated. I prefer Edmunds and consumer guide ratings, which makes more sense.
I think Congress is playing super hardball and for good reason. U.S. Automotive needs to be blown up and rebuilt and never experience this travesty again.
Regards,
OW
Regards,
OW
The Impala is rated at 19/29 with the 3.5 V-6. The Silverado is rated at 15/20 with the 4.3 V-6 but, oddly, the 5.3 V-8 is still close at 14/20. The Tahoe, with standard 5.3 V-8, is 14/20, regardless of whether it's RWD or 4WD. The Traverse is rated at 17/24 in FWD, 16/23 in AWD form.
I can't vouch for the SUV's, but my uncle's '97 Silverado, which has a 4.3 V-6, gets around 15-16 mpg local and can break 20 on the highway. Heck, even my old '85 Silverado, with a 305-4bbl V-8 and 3-speed automatic (no overdrive gear) can get 18 on the highway if I don't push it, and would break 20 when it was newer.
My 2000 Intrepid was EPA-rated at 20/29 when it was new, and is 18/27 using the newer, down-rated methods. Yet I've been able to get 30-32 on the highway. And the Impala is more efficient than the Intrepid. The old 3.4 and 3.8 V-6es would barely loaf along at highway speeds, and the 3.5 is similar in that respect.
You of course can disagree. But the numbers I quoted did not come from my experience. They did not come from some magazine running around the countyrside with different drivers and different conditions at different times of the year. They did not come from my own analysis based on some criteria I know nothing about. They came from the EPA running engineered and scientifically run tests.
EPA numbers are not a measure of what you or what I would get. They are data points so you can make comparisons between models. The number itself is supposed to represent the driving conditions of what the EPA hopes is an average driver under certain conditions.
Now this is ridiculous, I'm laughing so hard blood came out my nostrils. Class leading vehicles??? Where??? Cutting edge fuel efficiency?
So back to the original issue above. Even if we allow that the EPA is screwed up or somehow "fudged" the numbers to the big 3 benefit I think we can say that GM has MPG numbers at least close or equal to the competition. Throw away the data that they do lead in 5 segments. They are still up there with the cutting edge efficiency segment leaders.
The German government is looking at various options for possible help for Germany's Opel unit of General Motors and is on track to take a decision on any action by Christmas, a government spokeswoman said on Friday.
"We are still working on this, there are various options and scenarios we are looking at ... and developments in the United States are of course important," a spokeswoman for the Economy Ministry told a regular government news conference.
Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel said last month the government was ready to guarantee funds for Opel and that a decision should be made by Christmas.
So GM leads in 6 out of 7 segments of major volume.
Chevy Aveo...34..........Cobalt...33.........Malibu...33
Honda Fit......33..........Civic.....34.........Accord...31
Toyota Yaris..36..........Corolla.35..........Camry...31
Impala...29....Traverse.....24....Silverado...20......Tahoe.......20
Honda Pilot.23
Avalon...28....Highlander..24....Tundra......19......Sequoia.....17
I knew about that, but I figured you were trying to compare the more common models, which would have the automatic transmission. The Cobalt XFE is the one that gets 37 mpg, with a stick shift, different gearing, lower-resistance tires, and God-knows what else they did to it.
I'm actually impressed that the Cobalt automatic is rated at 33 highway. A few years ago, that's about what it was rated using the older, more generous 1985-2007 methodology. FWIW, those older models are now rated at 29.
It's still a bit below the Civic and Corolla, but at least 33 doesn't sound too far off, compared to 34 and 35. It's not like a few years ago when the Cobalt automatic was rated at 24/32 while a Corolla was 30/38 and a Civic was 30/40.
I wonder what they did, in the past couple years, to boost the fuel economy of the regular Cobalts? Revised engine tuning, different gearing, smarter computers?
That's almost comical. Two long term GM vehicles Edmund's has tested lately that have had a severe problem or two.
That makes zero difference if no one wants to buy their vehicles.
Thanks,
nortsr
tstuckert, "What if GM Dumps Saturn?" #1, 4 Dec 2008 9:41 pm
But the original claim was "class leading " which is not the same as "at least close or equal to".
The data showed that GM did lead in 5 volume segments out of 7 with best fuel economy. Unfortunately opinion is the rule here and not data.
Oh I know someone will come back again and say OK the data shows GM has the best mpg but they still lose money and therefore they have a broken model. Fine, but we can keep repeating that and it is true but if someone makes an incorrect assertion we should all try and correct so that we have the right data to discuss.
Hey there is a Cobalt XFE ad right there (at least now)----------------------------->
I did add the auto/manual numbers for the compacts. Auto cobalt loses to auto Civic/Corolla and since the auto is by far the highest volume GM has, whoops, still 5 of the top MPG in seven segments. If buyers were truly looking for the best mpg they would get the manual and then GM would have 6 of the segments. Both Cobalt and Aveo need some improvements in the MPG to be best in segment. Wonder if GM has an auto Cobalt XFE in the works?
Chevy Aveo...34..........Cobalt...33/37.......Malibu...33
Honda Fit......33..........Civic.....36/34.......Accord...31
Toyota Yaris..36..........Corolla.35/35........Camry...31
Impala...29....Traverse.....24....Silverado...20......Tahoe.......20
Honda Pilot.23
Avalon...28....Highlander..24....Tundra......19......Sequoia.....17
Each unit produced and sold is an entity with sunk costs. It needs to compete in the market and win. That means all units must contribute to a successful organization. A 2 or 3 miles per gallon variance is a joke as you get into the 30 mpg range.
Other factors must be part of the individual value proposition each consumer chooses before buying. If the unit is "cutting edge" in all categories of the value proposition, 10 - 15% mileage deficiency will be forgotten...unless fuel is $15/gallon!
Regards,
OW
So the next items still boil down to reliability, interior quality, refinement, long term durability. Unfortunately even if GM is equal in those areas, their reputation loses it for them. And reputation will take a long time to rebuild.
The only other hope is a grand slam vehicle or two that are so clearly superior that much of the market will ignore past reputation to give them a try. Just not sure those vehicles are on the near horizon.
That tends to be true anywhere in a free market...the customer's opinion that is. That's the benchmark that GM has to hit...it has to be desirable to the customers at a price point where GM will make a profit. That's it, simple. If it's only desirable at cost-$1000, you go out of business. If it's not desirable enough to sell all of what you make, you go out of business. GM may well be starting to come equal in areas of quality, fuel efficiency, interior quality and the like. That part doesn't matter though: what matters is getting the CUSTOMER to realize that, and to want the car. Otherwise it's a moot point.
You know, that should be one of the bailout strings...not just how are you going to make it, but how are you going to SELL it?
I was hoping the 2008 Malibu would be a grand slam like that. When the concept was touring the auto show circuit, it looked really promising. Once it was out though, and I had a chance to sit in it, I wasn't so impressed. I mean, I was impressed enough that I'd consider buying one. But I was hoping it would be an improvement over the Saturn Aura, and it really wasn't.
The Malibu/Aura are a great car for the GM faithful. Or people like me who have always bought domestic and somehow lucked out and haven't been burned by one yet. But I don't think it's enough to get people out of their Accords, Camrys, and Altimas.
And that's what GM really needs...a home run that blows the competition away, rather than just equals it.
And while I do like the Malibu and Aura, I gotta confess, I also like the Accord and Altima. So when my 2000 Intrepid does finally bite the dust, it's not a guarantee that my next car would be another domestic.
While nobody has been looking, evidently, other manufacturers have been building plants in the U.S. And they add up to more than the "big 3" after they do their proposed cutbacks/closures next year.(this assumes no bankruptcy)
Honda and Toyota alone make a huge number of cars and employ many workers in the U.S. VW wants to build *three* new plants and would gladly buy an old GM plant instead of making one from scratch, I bet. BMW keeps toying with the idea of making a new plant in the U.S. to make Minis. Tata and a few other makers from India and China also want in on the game.
GM, Ford, and Chrysler may be dead soon, but trust me - there will still be millions of cars being made in the U.S. Just not by them any more. The U.S. auto industry isn't going to "die" - it's just going to change its players.
Thanks for the post in the other forum. Hope that ends that discussion.
gas at $4 is not that bad. It just happened too fast and it scared the hell out of everyone. Sure gas effects the cost of not only our personal transportation but out goods. But if it would have happened over 2-3 years it would not have had that much of a scare on us.
The basic problem is we overbought vs. what we earn. Used too much credit on everything from goods to homes. It probably could have gone on for more years and perhaps we could have somehow slowed it down and corrected it. But the increase in gas prices scared consumers and they started to stop buying. This caused job losses and then home foreclosures. The banks behind those foreclosed homes had also over reached and they went under.
One big spiral downward.
The only way out is to start buying again but hopefully what we need and can afford.
Amen to that. It's not good in the long run for industry when we create the artificial subprime and investment hocus-pocus bubbles. Unfortunately we are all paying for the mistakes of a relative few (perhaps 10%-20% of the population).
The only way out is to start buying again but hopefully what we need and can afford.
While true it is not feasible to return to our level of spending, even if there were no changes in employment. Our spending was funded by going deeper and deeper into debt. We were probably spending $1.05 for every $1.00 we made. That can't continue forever either personally or with our government. So if people have adjust to spending $1.00 or $0.99 for every $ they make now, that means a deep recession. And it means that the economy (of the world) must adjust accordingly.
We can't simply say okay the 6 months of spending $1.00 for every $1.00 we make is over, and we can go back to spending $1.05 again. We have not taken care of the prior debt, and the sudden change has created a big spiral downward.
I believe the feds see this big spiral, or these dominoes, and the $700B loan was to inject money so that we would still buy and slowly come down from $1.05 to $1.00, which wouldn't knock the dominos down.
So whether people want to acknowledge it or not, part of that $700B is aid to the auto manufacturers, helping the overall economy. If there had been a collapse of banks, consumers would be in absolute crisis and the auto market might now be 5M, instead of the current 10 or 11M!
So consider that the Big3 have already received promises for $25B to retool, and the fact that their business isn't worse then it already is.
If thats your choice. I believe more in reality than some "scientifically run" tests. The thing is scientific calculations will never bring out the actual real life results. This is exactly why EPA numbers are almost always off, sometimes slightly, sometimes by a mile. Which do you prefer to believe, real time mileage or scientific estimation numbers?
Like I said before: It doesnt matter if the product excels in numbers, just make sure customers want them.
Besides, do you ever consider that the savings you got from the extra 2-3mpg will wither away the moment you start needing maintenance, repairs, etc, AND resale value. Those add up to total ownership costs in which (like it or not) the domestics still lose to competition. Yes cars like corolla and camry suffer more minor annoyances than they ever did, but when a trouble hits a domestic like cobalt or malibu, from what I see its usually a big one (read: pricier to fix)
Ahh, thank you for your concerns, dave. However given my, err, financial situation I can still see myself being able to afford $5/gal gas just fine. :P
I see loads of opportunities, yes. But dont count on gas staying down. It doesnt matter when, but oil prices WILL rise again. Lets not for get that:
1) Many of the oil exporting countries rely solely on oil sales to make them prosper (what else do desert countries like Saudi and Kuwait have?).
2) Most of the oil we buy comes from countries that resent America.
3) If America (under whoever president) ever get stupid enough and decide to invade Iran someday, Iran will retaliate and cut all Hormuz oil supply. If that happens expect oil supply to shoot up like hell (possibly even higher than $150/barrell)
Rising oil prices is, and will always be, their major plan.
On an unrelated note:
"I like WWII (and history in general): who made the best tank - Panther (German), who made the heaviest tank - TigerII (German), who had the 1st jets in combat (Germany), and strategic missiles - V1 (German). Who lost the war? "
Err, who lost the war? Germany, against an alliance of dozens of countries. That they actually lasted that long against half the world was, and still is, remarkable. I'm no [non-permissible content removed] supporter (hell no), but in reality I doubt US wouldve won the war without the allies (and allies w/o US).
At Insistence of Testy Lawmakers, GM and Chrysler Reconsider a Merger
Germany actually had numerous allies - Austria, Hungary, Romania, Italy (of course), some French forces (opposed the U.S. North African landings), and many Russian prisoners.
The point is the possession of technology or certain products does not mean you will be successful in any war - military or financial. For GM to go to Washington and show-off the Volt, talk of their cars mpg, or put on some other marketing show, is irrelevant to whether GM will be able to repay the loan. That is what we want to know.
Can GM make sufficient cuts in the next 6 months to 1 year to become profitable, before they use up this money? What matters is are they going to cut their costs enough, and entice enough customers to buy cars at a decent price. GM can have the best JD Powers ratings, the highest mpg, and all the great designs for 2012 and that doesn't matter, unless people buy more of their vehicles than they did last year, and they can downsize and cut their costs in the next few months.
The challenge GM has is to get rid of the unsuccessful divisions, people, and plants in 2-3 months, get the UAW to renegotiate. GM needs to stop losing money very, very quickly. I don't see how they do it.
I saw a story earlier today where Pelosi and the White House are agreeing that the Big 3 may have $15B out of the previous $25B approved for retooling. How long does that give the 3 of them?
There are many of us that are angry and frustrated that people bought more than they could afford and are getting (or will be getting) "bailed out".
If you were misled by a mortgage broker, or didn't read the contracts"-IT'S YOUR FAULT".
If you ran up your credit cards and can"t afford the payments-"IT'S YOUR FAULT".
If you bought (or leased) an SUV instead of a Ford Focus and can't afford the Payments-IT'S YOUR FAULT!
And if you lost your job and didn't have a rainy day plan...guess what...IT'S YOUR FAULT!!!
I am very close to having my home paid off, have a FICO score over 800, and have always paid my bills on time!
And back on topic-Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler should be allowed to go "belly up". It has been years of bad decisions, making absolute garbage products in the 70s and 80s. Don't even get me started on the quality of car products during those two decades!
WHERE IS MY BAILOUT???????????????????
People blame the UAW for a lot of things The GM turn around won't happen as long as CEO Wagoner is at the helm. At the helm for 14 years and look where they are. His record speaks for itself.
GM will take over Chrysler. US will give Cerberus $3 billion for it.
GM will be allowed to dump all Chryslers products except minivans and Jeep nameplate. Large trucks will be sold to Nissan. GM will get $2 billion for taking apart Chrysler. US will take over Chrysler pension payments.
When you are in dire straits the best place to find who's to blame is in the mirror.....
Bottom line: if the D2.8 go belly-up, it’ll cost $554.5b to $368.8b in lost income, lost tax receipts and increase in “transfer payments.”
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/fastlane-is-car/
In watching the congress hearings all these experts from wherever congress gets them were asked after a lot of questioning if they felt the US had to keep the Big 3 in business or else very bad things would happen. They all raised their hands and said they could not be allowed to fail. Some felt we would go into a deep depression. In fact there was no "expert" or anyone who said that things would be OK or even not that bad.
So my question is, do the ones who think they should not be helped have data that supports that it would not be that bad, or do you just do not care and want the big 3 gone for whatever reason.
I am not trying to be funny, just trying to figure out where others got their info.
Give us another easy question.
In my case, I've seen way too many prognostications on a variety of topics, especially economic, which show that even the best "experts" are wrong about as often as a coin flip. I have a fundamental belief in capitalism that pain is required to maintain a strong economy. Call it tough love if you will. It's also not fair to those that compete successfully to have weak competitors artificially maintained in spite of low competitiveness - whether due to cost, product quality, not meeting market needs, etc.
California went through radical defense downsizing in the 1990's. It was painful, but we emerged stronger. The essence of competitiveness for the USA on a global playing field is that we eat our young (or old). We need to allow the weak companies to fail -- this makes us much stronger. Protectionism will accelerate our downfall as a country. It might very well be bad -- but IMHO the alternative is longer term stagnation of the entire country. Let's take the pain now, so we can become very competitive as a nation. The union and GM are almost like the old Eastern European socialism that was so mediocre.
I REALLY WANT a strong US-nameplate car industry. GM's leadership and Board are never going to get it right in their present form. I mentioned in another post about my friend with a brand new 1974 Vega - at that time I learned not to trust GM. For 24 years I waited to see a really big turnaround from GM and have been disappointed. I'd really like to be proud of an American car company with the quality and reputation of an Apple, a BMW, a Costco. If GM can be pruned to be very competitive, even if much smaller, that's a good thing. If Ford is the one who can become that great company, then they deserve to have their failing competitors expire, as that will accelerate Ford's success.
It's unfortunate for the workers, but the UAW has outlived its usefulness and is a huge burden on the Detroit 3. Note that we do make excellent cars in this country, with US workers. It's just that most of them are foreign nameplates. Why is that, and how can we change that? If I have to wait 24 more years then I may be dead. I'd rather not wait that long - it is ENOUGH.
62, thanks for asking. Your posts are always useful and illuminating.
I don't care what the so called experts said. The vast majority of "experts" never saw this melt down coming.
The problems of the car industry are deep rooted. The unions are a problem, lack of foresight, poor quality, and paying CEO's millions of dollars regardless if their companies make money or lose billions.
The ignorance was shown when they arrived in D.C. in their private jets.
Remember, going "belly up" doesn't mean going out of business, but a chance at a new beginning.
I think "tlongs" post is right on.
Gee, a car magazine, which depends on ad revenue from auto manufacturers, doesn't want auto manufacturers to go under. What a surprise.
Losing them would NOT be a big deal...losing their SUPPLIERS would, because that's where the major job loss would go, as well as the ability of other car manufacturers to stay in business...not to mention getting warranty parts for used vehicles, etc. That's why I favor bailing out the suppliers.
Truer words were never written!
Please tell that to the D3 and Congress....we are just about to see bad decision after bad and this time, everyone really knows it's completely wrong!
Regards,
OW
Gee, a car magazine, which depends on ad revenue from auto manufacturers, doesn't want auto manufacturers to go under. What a surprise.
You have me really wondering what you are talking about? CAR is not a magazine. It is a group of various professions who work in the academic world on auto issues.
From what I read from everyone who has commented there is no data that says we will not lose millions of jobs if the Big 3 go under. Just a general feeling of dog eat dog and the strongest survive. Nothing wrong with that and I agree. Just want to make sure that everyone agrees that there are no experts who have actually studied this that disagree.
thanks
Here is the bottom line. We are going to buy about 5 million less cars, SUVs and PU trucks this year than last. That is data that is easily verified. How many workers less does the industry need to build 5 million less vehicles? They should already be out looking for another job. I don't believe that GM and Chrysler together sold 5 million vehicles in the US last year. So that being the real data GM and Chrysler could have shut down in January and we would not have missed them. What has happened is GM has kept on paying a workforce to build 3.5 million vehicles and only sold about half of them. If GM were gone the ones left would benefit. We got more automaking capacity than we got buyers. So the weak ones you let die, and the strong ones get stronger. It is the NATURAL thing to do. We already have a lot of people out of work. Losing a 1000 dealerships this year put a bunch of folks on the street. Why should we keep feeding a dead dog and those still alive get nothing.
The auto industry needs to reduce their capacity; maybe in a year or 2 they can rehire these people and start those plants if we get back to selling 16M vehicles. So I don't see why you artificially keep the weakest manufacturer going and everyone cuts 30%, vs. letting say GM fail and letting their business support the remaining manufacturers, so that they don't have to layoff 30%.
Also, if you want to quote these supposed financial experts at Congress, I bet I have the same education as those guys, and I have more manufacturing experience. History is my "data"; the history of looking at how other major companies collapsing did not change the economic landscape.
The end of the Cold War in 1990 probably caused the loss of as many jobs in the Defense Industry as any failure of GM or Ford would. The people who worked in aerospace, and the areas with these industries all recovered. Locally our AF base now houses 30 smaller industries, and the 5,000 people laidoff from the submarine shipyard are working at other industries. These layoffs happened to millions of people across the country. People survived and prospered after some pain.
If McDonald's goes under tomorrow, doesn't mean people want orr eat less burgers. It means Burger King and Wendy's and Taco Bell get busier and thrive.
If Walmart goes under tomorrow, doesn't mean people change what they buy. It means Kmart and Target, and the Mom&Pop stores get more business.
If GM goes under tomorrow, Ford and Chrysler get more business, and are less likely to fail or need loans. The same number of parts are built, with more Ford and Chrysler, and no GM.
And you forgot to mention that the Director of CAR, has been employed by the Big3 before, and probably will benefit from them again if they stay in business.
Besides, do you ever consider that the savings you got from the extra 2-3mpg will wither away the moment you start needing maintenance, repairs, etc, AND resale value. Those add up to total ownership costs in which (like it or not) the domestics still lose to competition.
In case you've not been paying attention, Toyota now costs a significant amount more to repair for a comparable car than most of what GM makes. Honda as well. They've crept up to where Volvo used to be a decade ago. $3500-$4000 for a new transmission in a Camry is not "cheaper". Go price a new fender or speedometer cluster or similar on a Civic.
See, The problem is that the imports have had a good run, to be sure, but they also are living on their reputation and good will. The reality is that their cars aren't miracles and they aren't cheap any more. They might break down a bit less often, but then the bills come in and life gets a bit crazy.
The cheapest car I ever ran (aside from an old zero-tech Dodge Colt/Mitsubishi Mirage) was a Buick. It wasn't great to drive, but hardly ever broke down, and even at 18 years old when it finally died, it still could get 28-30mpg on the highway.
Note - there are a couple of exceptions. Mazda hasn't inflated their parts prices as much and, of course, anything with a manual transmission these days costs a lot less to fix.
If McDonald's goes under tomorrow, doesn't mean people want orr eat less burgers. It means Burger King and Wendy's and Taco Bell get busier and thrive.
Absolutely correct. Those workers and plants and suppliers will be selling their switches and spark plugs and windshields and so on to Toyota or VW or whomever takes over the old GM plants. People still want cars. They just don't want *GM* cars. Fair enough, I say. The marketplace has decided and it's time for new players.
As you said, if McDonalds went under, you'd find something replacing it in short order.
Agree that there are no experts and any opinions are speculation. Even economists were all wrong about the economy and the subprime mess. Autos will be no different. The actual outcomes could range widely and it is a risk that would be taken.
They said if the Big 3 go under millions of jobs will be gone and all the US plants of all the manufacturers would shut down due to the US suppliers going bankrupt.
Just want to make sure we know where we all stand.
By "go under" do you mean restructure in possible BK, or 100% shut down? I don't think a 100% shutdown is very likely in any circumstances.
If the US is going to buy 10M cars next year, it's going to be painful anyway and many thousands of jobs will be lost. The correct comparison is:
* Bridge loan to D3 with 10M vehicles sold >>how many jobs lost?, versus
* No bridge loan to D3, possible BKs, possible shifts of purchases to other companies, 10M vehicles sold >> how many jobs lost?
Let's say in case 1 we lose 100K jobs. In case 2 D3 cars are still produced in BK. More sales from Ford if not bk and more from foreign nameplates. Some greater loss but how much? Vehicles will be purchased from somebody and all of those vehicles and parts need to be made by workers somewhere.
Today the Michigan senator Levin said 3M jobs would be lost without a loan. Boy are they inflating the numbers now and the full court press is on.