Log In | Register
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Economy headlines via email.Petitions by Change.org|Get Widget|Start a Petition »
So General Motors is back to making billions in profit. And if the past is any guide, we know what that means: time for some layoffs!
Or maybe not. Back in the '80s and '90s, when GM was consistently posting giant profits, they were simultaneously firing tens of thousands of workers in my hometown of Flint and across Michigan. Right now it looks like the only person being canned is CEO Edward Whitacre. (Only last week Whitacre was saying he wasn't planning to leave anytime soon—kind of ironic that the former president of the Boy Scouts of America failed to Be Prepared.)
But if they're not laying people off yet, they're also not hiring.
Michael Moore: Profits Are Way Up at General Motors ... So Why Aren't They Hiring?
Article Source: AlterNet.org- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (6)
The way I see it there are three possible reasons:
1.) realizing they can do more & make more, with less labor.
2.) waiting to build up some $$$, so they have something to fall back on.
3.) future demand for their product does not require the need for more workers.
Pick which one you want, probably more possible reasons, myself leaning towards greed (1 on the list)
Personally, I'd rather invest in our infrastructure and not just roads. I would like some transportation freedom that does not include the car for all of my journey.
- 2 votes
#1 - Thu Aug 19, 2010 10:35 PM EDTMichael Moore: Profits Are Way Up at General Motors ... So Why Aren't They Hiring?
As Moore indicates, they stopped needing workers. They have found cheaper labor and new markets, so they are moving on, helped along by the American taxpayer whom they no longer need. GM, the person protected by our Supreme Court ruling as an individual under the Constitution, doesn't seem to display that patriotism one would expect of a fellow citizen in such hard times.
- 1 vote
#2 - Thu Aug 19, 2010 10:43 PM EDTCould simply be that they just lost their CEO, are preparing for an IPO (which would finally allow GM to pay off their loans w/interest) and the U.S. market isn't yet driving demand: business.
- 2 votes
#3 - Thu Aug 19, 2010 11:55 PM EDTAll good responses gentlemen, and it shows that unemployment is going to be hard to reduce without some innovative ideas.
The answer that you all seem to point out is that GM isn't hiring new people right now because the incentives aren't there. Another reason is the same reason that most companies don't hire people back. They have probably figured out how to do more with less people and more technology.
GM is only one company. We are going to have to figure out how to realign incentives to get people rehiring again.
One thing that needs to be looked at, IMHO, is the wisdom of lending money to the banks at 0% so they can turn right around and lend it back to our government at a premium. As long as the Fed and the Treasury represent a free money scheme, banks will not take risks in the real economy because they do not have to.
- 2 votes
#4 - Fri Aug 20, 2010 12:15 PM EDTOne thing that needs to be looked at, IMHO, is the wisdom of lending money to the banks at 0% so they can turn right around and lend it back to our government at a premium
I would be more aggressive, no lending to international banks period!, only community ones. Call me a think globally ACT LOCALLY kind of guy, but Citibank isn't funding and keeping those funds within a community, which helps everyone in that community. We need to support bottom up growth, the big players DO NOT NEED INCENTIVES they are already sitting on piles of cash... as for the bad paper they still hold on to, they can eat it.
- 2 votes
Goldman invests in China, Citi(Virkam Pandit)in India...why would they invest here? It is easier to "suck their blood" there with less responsibilities and hidden revenues, so less taxes.
GM still sells very expensive cars, to satisfy shareholders greed, and soon to come outrageous bonuses for the CEO elites. Another scheme to enslave you, the buyer, financially.
I would love an electric car but not one with $44K. Who the hell do they think is going to buy it? The prohibitive price is another concession for the teabaggers oil spoiled lunatics that deny climate change and evolution. If you make little calculations, the price will make a lot of money for the lenders(TBTF) while the conscious buyer will have to get enslaved by his green ideals( if electricity is renewable source, of course.)
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
