Bailout Watch 197: The Battle Lines Are Drawn Pt. 3

Robert Farago
by Robert Farago

And now, a few decades and several tens of billions of dollars later, we have southern politicians with automotive manufacturing facilities in their backyards. And, for some reason, they’re not feeling a particularly strong desire to spend federal taxpayers’ money on bailing out Detroit. As The Atlanta Journal Constitution puts it, “For behind the philosophical back-and-forth over government intervention, scheduled to begin Monday in the U.S. Senate, is a cut-throat, economic reality: the South has ambitions of becoming Detroit’s rival. And a federal dollar that artificially props up manufacturing on the northern end of I-75 is a dollar that hinders the creation of new economic models downstream, some Southern politicians maintain.” Par example? “Georgia’s Kia plant is scheduled to open next November, employing as many as 2,500 workers. The site is located within U.S. Rep. Lynn Westmoreland’s 3rd District. Westmoreland, like other House Republicans, voted against the $700 Wall Street bailout. He’ll vote against a Detroit rescue as well – on the grounds that it would create a slanted field of play for the workers he’ll soon represent. ‘One of the things we have constantly said is we can’t compete with some of these foreign businesses because the government has intervened in those businesses, and it makes an unfair advantage,’ Westmoreland said. ‘What we’re doing here with the auto industry is basically the same thing.'” Fine words. And the way the AJC takes him to task is classic…

“As have other states, Georgia laid out a boatload of incentives to land its auto plant, worth an estimated $415 million. But that’s not the same thing, the Georgia congressman said. ‘I don’t think we were doing that because of bad business decisions Kia was making,’ Westmoreland said. ‘We did that to get them in here, to create the jobs, to create the taxes, to put economic development into the area.'” A distinction without a difference? Maybe not. Michigan has been throwing tax breaks at American automakers for lo these many years.

The AJC’s wider point is well taken. No, not the one about laissez-faire capitalism coming back to bite Delta or Lockheed-Martin in the ass. The bit about wages. “Even if you’re a prospective Kia employee, you might not want to see Detroit fall. Wages are lower in Southern auto plants, but they’re still tied to wages hammered out between the United Auto Workers and the Detroit Three, according to [assistant research scientist for the University of Michigan’s Transportation Research Institute Bruce] Belzowski. ‘Those people wouldn’t be making the money they’re making now if not for the UAW.'” And American cars might not be as expensive.

Robert Farago
Robert Farago

More by Robert Farago

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 25 comments
  • John Horner John Horner on Nov 17, 2008

    "$300 billion in spending to rebuild New Orleans" Which city is mathematically certain to get swamped in another hurricane someday in the future. A city below sea level situated between a massive lake and an ocean with known seasonal hurricane activity is not a sustainable scenario. Oh yeah, and don't forget the receding shoreline. I would be ok with the Feds being the debtor in possession funding source if a real house cleaning restructuring of GM were in the works, but is anyone really talking about that? Also, is this really an industry bailout being talked about ... or a GM bailout with a Chrysler liquidation thrown in? Finally, does anyone believe $25B is the end of it? Speaking of which, how the bleep is AIG consuming over $100B in taxpayer money? What exactly is being done with that massive pile of cash? How many people in the US based auto industry raised a shout when the textile and furniture industries packed up their bags and move offshore, leaving the southern states screwed over? Don't be surprised that those same states which are now enjoying some transplant success don't feel very bad for the midwest. Then again, the furniture industry in the US was mostly based in Michigan before it retreated to the south. However it sorts out, the trend of buying massively more stuff from foreign countries than the US sells to them has run smack into the brick wall of reality. I don't care much how the shareholders are distributed around the globe, but we need to make more of our own stuff in the US of A. I don't think Red Ink Rick agrees with me though.

  • Jackc10 Jackc10 on Nov 17, 2008

    A little accuracy to the posts about the South: Katrina did not just damage NOLA. The French Quarter, which includes Bourbon Street, (it is a street in the Quarter) was not affected much. The Mississippi River did not flood. The beads and tits crowd at Mardi Gras is, in large part, tourists. That includes many from Michigan.

  • Jalop1991 In a manner similar to PHEV being the correct answer, I declare RPVs to be the correct answer here.We're doing it with certain aircraft; why not with cars on the ground, using hardware and tools like Telsa's "FSD" or GM's "SuperCruise" as the base?Take the local Uber driver out of the car, and put him in a professional centralized environment from where he drives me around. The system and the individual car can have awareness as well as gates, but he's responsible for the driving.Put the tech into my car, and let me buy it as needed. I need someone else to drive me home; hit the button and voila, I've hired a driver for the moment. I don't want to drive 11 hours to my vacation spot; hire the remote pilot for that. When I get there, I have my car and he's still at his normal location, piloting cars for other people.The system would allow for driver rest period, like what's required for truckers, so I might end up with multiple people driving me to the coast. I don't care. And they don't have to be physically with me, therefore they can be way cheaper.Charge taxi-type per-mile rates. For long drives, offer per-trip rates. Offer subscriptions, including miles/hours. Whatever.(And for grins, dress the remote pilots all as Johnnie.)Start this out with big rigs. Take the trucker away from the long haul driving, and let him be there for emergencies and the short haul parts of the trip.And in a manner similar to PHEVs being discredited, I fully expect to be razzed for this brilliant idea (not unlike how Alan Kay wasn't recognized until many many years later for his Dynabook vision).
  • B-BodyBuick84 Not afraid of AV's as I highly doubt they will ever be %100 viable for our roads. Stop-and-go downtown city or rush hour highway traffic? I can see that, but otherwise there's simply too many variables. Bad weather conditions, faded road lines or markings, reflective surfaces with glare, etc. There's also the issue of cultural norms. About a decade ago there was actually an online test called 'The Morality Machine' one could do online where you were in control of an AV and choose what action to take when a crash was inevitable. I think something like 2.5 million people across the world participated? For example, do you hit and most likely kill the elderly couple strolling across the crosswalk or crash the vehicle into a cement barrier and almost certainly cause the death of the vehicle occupants? What if it's a parent and child? In N. America 98% of people choose to hit the elderly couple and save themselves while in Asia, the exact opposite happened where 98% choose to hit the parent and child. Why? Cultural differences. Asia puts a lot of emphasis on respecting their elderly while N. America has a culture of 'save/ protect the children'. Are these AV's going to respect that culture? Is a VW Jetta or Buick Envision AV going to have different programming depending on whether it's sold in Canada or Taiwan? how's that going to effect legislation and legal battles when a crash inevitibly does happen? These are the true barriers to mass AV adoption, and in the 10 years since that test came out, there has been zero answers or progress on this matter. So no, I'm not afraid of AV's simply because with the exception of a few specific situations, most avenues are going to prove to be a dead-end for automakers.
  • Mike Bradley Autonomous cars were developed in Silicon Valley. For new products there, the standard business plan is to put a barely-functioning product on the market right away and wait for the early-adopter customers to find the flaws. That's exactly what's happened. Detroit's plan is pretty much the opposite, but Detroit isn't developing this product. That's why dealers, for instance, haven't been trained in the cars.
  • Dartman https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-fighter-jets-air-force-6a1100c96a73ca9b7f41cbd6a2753fdaAutonomous/Ai is here now. The question is implementation and acceptance.
  • FreedMike If Dodge were smart - and I don't think they are - they'd spend their money refreshing and reworking the Durango (which I think is entering model year 3,221), versus going down the same "stuff 'em full of motor and give 'em cool new paint options" path. That's the approach they used with the Charger and Challenger, and both those models are dead. The Durango is still a strong product in a strong market; why not keep it fresher?
Next