GM Admits It Lied About Federal Stimulus Package's Job Creation

Robert Farago
by Robert Farago

First, let’s get something out in the open. The Detroit Free Press’ story on the jobs impact of Uncle Sam’s Motown mega-order forgets to mention one salient fact. As TTAC reported back in June, one-third of the 17,600 vehicles ordered from Chrysler, Ford and GM were/are/will be assembled outside the United States. Any article about the order’s effects on American jobs should begin with that fact, which this one has. Surprise! The federal fleet sailing to The Big Three’s rescue did no such thing for American autoworkers. “The overriding purpose of the stimulus was to jump-start the economy and create jobs, though Obama never claimed the vehicle purchases would create jobs. While the latest reports from stimulus recipients show all three carmakers getting orders totaling $270 million so far, job creation from the purchases was nil.” Don’t you just love it when the media pre-apologizes for the President? How about when a major manufacturer lies about its federal blessing to please its federal taskmasters?

In its report, GM initially said the $88 million it had received to date for 5,279 vehicles shipped was responsible for creating or retaining more than 105 jobs.

But the company told the Free Press last week that, as was the case with the other automakers, employment actually “remained static” and the order was incorporated into regular production.

“The government asked us to attach a number of employees to fulfill the order,” said GM spokesman Greg Martin. “The bigger and more important picture is that regardless of where vehicle orders come from, the line continues to run and people continue to work.”

We lied, but the bigger picture is that it doesn’t matter. Riiiiiight. It’s the perfect set-up for the nationalized automaker’s financial results, released tomorrow.

Robert Farago
Robert Farago

More by Robert Farago

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 20 comments
  • Steven02 Steven02 on Nov 16, 2009

    @ GS650G and ZoomZoom 88M went to GM, not the 270M that was spent total. Not that this makes it better, but it is the stimulus math of out gov't. Except they are in the trillions of dollars to create or save jobs, with very fuzzy math.

  • GS650G GS650G on Nov 16, 2009

    OK, that is so much better. we only spent 838K to save those precious 105 jobs. Boy, was I jumping to conclusions about the wisdom of Keynesian government.

  • Theflyersfan With sedans, especially, I wonder how many of those sales are to rental fleets. With the exception of the Civic and Accord, there are still rows of sedans mixed in with the RAV4s at every airport rental lot. I doubt the breakdown in sales is publicly published, so who knows... GM isn't out of the sedan business - Cadillac exists and I can't believe I'm typing this but they are actually decent - and I think they are making a huge mistake, especially if there's an extended oil price hike (cough...Iran...cough) and people want smaller and hybrids. But if one is only tied to the quarterly shareholder reports and not trends and the big picture, bad decisions like this get made.
  • Wjtinfwb Not proud of what Stellantis is rolling out?
  • Wjtinfwb Absolutely. But not incredibly high-tech, AWD, mega performance sedans with amazing styling and outrageous price tags. GM needs a new Impala and LeSabre. 6 passenger, comfortable, conservative, dead nuts reliable and inexpensive enough for a family guy making 70k a year or less to be able to afford. Ford should bring back the Fusion, modernized, maybe a bit bigger and give us that Hybrid option again. An updated Taurus, harkening back to the Gen 1 and updated version that easily hold 6, offer a huge trunk, elevated handling and ride and modest power that offers great fuel economy. Like the GM have a version that a working mom can afford. The last decade car makers have focused on building cars that American's want, but eliminated what they need. When a Ford Escape of Chevy Blazer can be optioned up to 50k, you've lost the plot.
  • Willie If both nations were actually free market economies I would be totally opposed. The US is closer to being one, but China does a lot to prop up the sectors they want to dominate allowing them to sell WAY below cost, functionally dumping their goods in our market to destroy competition. I have seen this in my area recently with shrimp farmed by Chinese comglomerates being sold super cheap to push local producers (who have to live at US prices and obey US laws) out of business.China also has VERY lax safety and environmental laws which reduce costs greatly. It isn't an equal playing field, they don't play fair.
  • Willie ~300,000 Camrys and ~200,000 Accords say there is still a market. My wife has a Camry and we have no desire for a payment on something that has worse fuel economy.
Next