- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
First, lose the delusion that a "Big 3" bankruptcy is a great idea because it will allow them to get away from their legacy costs. As everyone (bar the odd ignoramus) now knows, the pay cost issue for the Big 3 is that they have to cover their long standing promises to provide health-car to retirees as well as their pensions. While it is true that a trustee in bankruptcy will be able to avoid these obligations, the cost will not disappear. Rather it they will be transferred to the public, by Medicare and Medicaid and by the PBGC (Pension Benefits Guarantee Corporation.) There are about 550,000 Big 3 retirees, all aged 50+ and the coverage typically covers their spouses and dependents. I'd price that coverage at an average $6,000 a year, and that is probably low -- so $3.3 billion a year will be transferred to the US taxpayer (capitalize that alone and it is more than $15 billion.) Add to that the fact that the PBGC will have to pick up a large chunk of the pensions, which it will recover in part by hiking the insurance rates on other pensions, but which will probably require a Federal bailout - this has an annualized cost of about, my guess, $20 billion a year! So if the Big 3 go bankrupt, or even just GM, it will cost the public a lot more than this rescue plan.
Next recognize that the transplant car companies in the United States have benefited from massive subsidies. Indeed, BMW, Mercedes Benz (especially) and Volkswagen's construction of plants in Tennessee and Alabama was the subject of substantial controversy in Germany when it happened because of the way in which huge subsidies were granted by those states to get the companies to build cars there -- that is right, the Germans were pissed at how big the tax rebates, free infrastructure, bond deals and other things used to get these plants to move from Germany to the US deep south were.
Third, Tennessee and Alabama made the Federal taxpayer effectively pick up the tab for many of subsidies, by bond back much of the infrastructure (with tax benefits), by using Federal Highway funds to build much of that infrastructure, by allowing the denial of benefits to employees of these benefits that then imposes costs on the Federal Government.
Fourth, the states where the Big 3 are located are generally substantial net contributors to the Federal Budget, i.e., they pay much more tax than they receive. By contrast, Red States pretty uniformly actually extract much more money from the Federal Government than they contribute, i.e., they are in effect freeloaders. In the case of Alabama and Tennessee they are massively freeloaders, extracting $30 billion more from the Federal Government than they contribute in taxes -- the bailout by the way would have cost about half of this. Were their Senators genuinely concerned about taxpayers money they would be taking steps to redress the balance.
Will it make a difference if the Big 3 go under - aren't the transplants enough. Well let's start with the states where the transplants have established themselves -- not only are these the net tax sucking states -- they are such deadbeats because they are the dumb states, the stupid places in the USA, the places where people are as a whole badly educated. Such labor is cheap and docile, but but it is no-creative. These are pure screwdriver assembly operations -- but know that design will remain in Stuttgart, Langen, Munich, Toyoda City, etc. That is where the profits will go, and the plants will move the next time they are offered a more attractive package. Even now, the US design facilities for the transplants, if in the US, are in California or (shock) Michigan.
The next problem in losing the Big 3 is losing the ability to create vehicles, which are big complex systems. This is a big issue -- prior to World War II Europe could build these things and the US was just about able (pre-WWI the US simply could not.) The more a country like the US exports these roles, the more it will lost the ability to build these things. Thus, for example in Europe, the UK was 90 years ago the best at building such systems (AIrcraft, ships, etc.) Over the last 40 years it has largely lost this ability, so that even the new Aircraft Carriers (which the British invented, including the steam catapult and angled deck) that the Royal Navy wants have to be designed in France. The ability to build big systems is a hugely important economic competence which currently resides with France, Germany, the US and Japan and to a lesser degree Italy, Canada and the UK -- it is not something to be discarded. Part of maintaining that ability is a supply of jobs for the managers and engineers who have or want to get those skills.
