Goodbye, GM: Michael Moore has ideas for taxpayer owned company

[Chicken Little]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/goodbye-gm_b_209603.html

It is with sad irony that the company which invented "planned obsolescence" -- the decision to build cars that would fall apart after a few years so that the customer would then have to buy a new one -- has now made itself obsolete. It refused to build automobiles that the public wanted, cars that got great gas mileage, were as safe as they could be, and were exceedingly comfortable to drive. Oh -- and that wouldn't start falling apart after two years. GM stubbornly fought environmental and safety regulations. Its executives arrogantly ignored the "inferior" Japanese and German cars, cars which would become the gold standard for automobile buyers. And it was hell-bent on punishing its unionized workforce, lopping off thousands of workers for no good reason other than to "improve" the short-term bottom line of the corporation. Beginning in the 1980s, when GM was posting record profits, it moved countless jobs to Mexico and elsewhere, thus destroying the lives of tens of thousands of hard-working Americans. The glaring stupidity of this policy was that, when they eliminated the income of so many middle class families, who did they think was going to be able to afford to buy their cars? History will record this blunder in the same way it now writes about the French building the Maginot Line or how the Romans cluelessly poisoned their own water system with lethal lead in its pipes.

Youch.

But you and I and the rest of America now own a car company! I know, I know -- who on earth wants to run a car company? Who among us wants $50 billion of our tax dollars thrown down the rat hole of still trying to save GM? Let's be clear about this: The only way to save GM is to kill GM. Saving our precious industrial infrastructure, though, is another matter and must be a top priority. If we allow the shutting down and tearing down of our auto plants, we will sorely wish we still had them when we realize that those factories could have built the alternative energy systems we now desperately need. And when we realize that the best way to transport ourselves is on light rail and bullet trains and cleaner buses, how will we do this if we've allowed our industrial capacity and its skilled workforce to disappear?

[cannon_fodder]

While I can not say he hits the nail on the head (one can not pay workers in an attempt to make a self sustaining company, the loop doesn't work), but by and large he is correct.  GM killed itself.  They continuously fought with labor, with government (bossed government around really), and fought the future.  They told consumers what they wanted, even when consumers stopped buying their cars.

I'd prefer Moore's version of events to what will likely happen.  $50 Billion on bullet trains > $50 billion to maintain the status quo.  Which is, after all, failure.

[Conan71]

And Moore thinks he's still more relevant than GM...that's a good laugh.

[rwarn17588]

And Moore thinks he's still more relevant than GM...that's a good laugh.

Well, last I checked, Moore's products actually make money, and GM's don't. So, yes, i'd say that Moore is more relevant to American consumers.

[Chicken Little]

While I can not say he hits the nail on the head (one can not pay workers in an attempt to make a self sustaining company, the loop doesn't work),

I think he is referring to Henry Ford's revelation that if you pay your workers enough to buy a car, then they WILL buy your cars.  Not only is it great marketing, but it creates a base of loyal customers on which to build.  So, many credit Ford for helping to invent the middle class, i.e, highly-paid, highly productive, workers who consume lots and lots of stuff. 

And the loop continues to close so long as productivity increases.  But when you export the work outside the loop, the built-in base of buyers shrinks.  Each little cost-saving measure they made when the off-shored work, contributed to an eroding standard of living.

[Conan71]

Well, last I checked, Moore's products actually make money, and GM's don't. So, yes, i'd say that Moore is more relevant to American consumers.

Stupid buying stupid doesn't make him relevant in my world. 

[cannon_fodder]

Ford didn't pay his workers so they could afford to buy his cars.  He paid his $5 wage so he could demand the best workers and work the hell out of them.  If you didn't like it, quit.    He managed to get the best craftsmen, mechanics, machinists, and most reliable workers to work for HIM.  As a result qualifty improved, productivity went up, and he saved a ton of money by reducing turnover.  Enabling workers to buy his product was a secondary purpose - this not only creating more demand, but it helped cement the product as the American norm and instilled a sense of purpose in the workers (they were building cars for "us" and not "them").  "Creating" a middle class was merely a by product of his business decision.

If Ford had to deal with incompetence and an entitled workforce he would have simply closed shop and opened a new company.  Ford mandated many aspects of his workers lives - if they lived with a woman and were not married they were docked pay.  He had 50+ people working for him to spy on the personal lives of workers.  His interest in paying workers more was to improve his lot in life, not theirs (theirs was an ancillary benefit).

Why take my word for it?

[Ford] thought they were too heavily influenced by some leaders who, despite their ostensible good motives, would end up doing more harm than good for workers. Most wanted to restrict productivity as a means to foster employment, but Ford saw this as self-defeating because, in his view, productivity was necessary for any economic prosperity to exist . . .

The guy was going to shut down the Ford Motor Company instead of unionizing it, but his wife insisted he leave his company in tact to his sons.

The economics simply DO NOT work to pay someone extra so they can spend a portion of that money purchasing the item you paid them to build.  It is the economic equivalent of a perpetual motion machine.  I pay you $50,000 to build cars, you pay me $25,000 to buy a car, so I can pay you $50,000 to build another car.  It is a regressive loop.  Particularly when you lose money on the sale price of the car!


As an interesting and little heralded side note:  

Ford provided tracked vehicles, tracks for tanks, and cargo trucks for the German army from 1932 - 1944.   Ford built a factory in Berlin for that express purpose in 1938, a factory which survived the war without being bombed by the allies.  In part, he utilized SS labor in his Berlin plant with money being paid to the SS for their services.  In total he produced nearly 100,000 vehicles for the German army.Adolf awarded Ford the highest honors ever given to a non-German and kept a life sized portrait of Ford on his study wall.

Following the our break of war with the USA  Ford sold vehicles to the USA to destroy the vehicles he produced for Nazi Germany.  Even as his German factory continued to pump out new ones.  Kinda funny how history remembers people isn't it?

(own stock in Ford.  Ford's contributions to industry are no doubt great.  But the notion that he was a friend to labor or an all American man have been invented after the fact.)

[Conan71]

Interesting tidbit on Ford building military vehicles for the Germans.  I'd never heard that before. Where'd you manage to dig that up?

[cannon_fodder]

I read it in a biography of Henry Ford.  It is pretty well known if you look into the man at all.  I bet it is even on the wikipedia page (I looked just now, pretty much the same.  I can't stand by their details as I don't recall details from the book, just the basic info).  If you google Ford Nazi or Ford Weimarch (sp?) you will certainly get more info.

[Conan71]

It's kind of ironic.  I have a friend who refused to buy GE stock because he claims GE is selling components that find their way into the hands of Iranians who in turn are supplying Iraqi insurgents who kill U.S. troops.

That same friend has been hording Ford stock for several years.

FWIW, I'm a part owner in both companies.

[Chicken Little]

Ford didn't pay his workers so they could afford to buy his cars.  He paid his $5 wage so he could demand the best workers and work the hell out of them.  If you didn't like it, quit.    He managed to get the best craftsmen, mechanics, machinists, and most reliable workers to work for HIM.  As a result qualifty improved, productivity went up, and he saved a ton of money by reducing turnover.  

Exactly.  I'm not trying to lionize that hitler-lovin' anti-semite, but I am recognizing the value he placed on skilled labor.  He increased profits, not by starving workers or ripping off the government (de riguer for robber barons), but by using labor to increase productivity.  Worker productivity drove down costs and increased output and quality.  It was a partnership, willing or not.  And, I contend, it was a social contract that worked for our WHOLE economy for generations.  

Until, that is, a bunch of greedy pr*cks started off-shoring our business to third-world countries with no labor standards, environmental regulations, or hope of changing that.  All of a sudden, slavery was once again A-OK.  Kinda tough to compete with that.  And so, we're back where we started...a handful of oligarchs all over the world are doing just dandy, and the the rest of us are getting squeezed.

As far as I can tell, YOU were the only one claiming that workers should be paid "extra"; everybody else, including Moore, is content to have people paid what they are worth.

[Chicken Little]

And the tie-in with "PlaniTulsa & Urban Planning" is....?

Eventually, I hope people will talk about trains and cars, which is a lot about urban planning, I think.

[rwarn17588]

Stupid buying stupid doesn't make him relevant in my world. 

Those "stupid" people include a great many conservatives who shook their heads and agreed that Moore hit the bull's-eye in his movie against HMOs called "Sicko."

[sauerkraut]

This is something, hard to believe G.M. is gone. Rumor has it Ford plans to crank up production and fill the void left by G.M. The cars G.M. will be forced to build are cars people don't want to buy. That is why Honda & Toyota started to build big SUV's the demand is there but Obama wants to force people into small dangerous cars. What needs to be done is more domestic oil drilling -we have the oil. I guess Chrysler may be coming back from the brink soon. It'll be ruff for G.M. to make it.

[Michael71]

the demand is there but Obama wants to force people into small dangerous cars.

Really?  This goes on Obama?  Regardless of how much oil we have in the us...we still need sustainable energy.

On our "urban planning" note...sustainable energy would make our rail & mass transit run cleaner so that we (Tulsa) have better air quality.