It would be difficult for me to be unbiased about the fate and nature of the U.S. Automotive Industry. My first job was as an Industrial Engineer for Lear Corp., a tier 1 supplier of a wide array of parts to the Big 3 and all other automotive makers. Shortly, after accepting and doing the job of revamping a facility layout, I had the opportunity to interview for a GM job in Bay City, Michigan at their powertrain plant. I was offered a position that I did not take. I also interviewed with Toyota out of Erlanger, Kentucky for an energy development position in 1996, but never had a real shot the job.
So though I didn’t always appreciate the opportunites and circumstances that led to me being considered for such jobs, I did realize the importance of the automotive industry. Which is why I write.
In a report prepared back in March 2006, the U.S. Dept of Commerce painted a bleak picture of the industry. The conclusion was:
Employment in the U.S. automotive industry is only slightly healthier than that of most other
domestic industries. BLS data show that total manufacturing employment, less the auto sector,
declined by 21% between 1990 and 2005, and by 18% since 2000. The auto industry gained 4%
between 1990 and 2005, but fell 16% after 2000. Industry employment is headed downward and is not likely to recover for several years, if ever. Some declines are undoubtedly the result of improved worker efficiency and productivity, but most losses are the product of the declining fortunes of America’s two largest motor vehicle producers and the supplier base that relies on them for business. Foreign-affiliated automotive companies have invested billions of dollars in new production facilities in the United States and have announced plans for more factories to come. However, the new jobs they create have, and will provide only partial relief for the severe impact that the entire U.S. automotive workforce is absorbing. In fact, in the next 6 years, GM and Ford will lay off nearly as many workers as all the foreign affiliates have hired so far.
Not a happy thought from the U.S. Commerce Dept.
However, what is stated, in another auto industry report, is that foreign investment continues to be part of the very reason non-Big Three are getting more and more of a market share of the U.S. auto industry.
With increased competition, the combined market share of the Detroit 3 (GM, Ford and
Chrysler) continued to fall, decreasing from 71.3 percent in 1997 to 50.9 percent in 2007. The loss of North American profitability and the need to control legacy costs led GM and Ford to announce massive restructuring plans in late 2005 and during 2006. After being sold by Daimler, Chrysler also announced restructuring plans in February 2007.Meanwhile, foreign competitors continue to invest in U.S. auto assembly plants and their individual, as well as cumulative U.S. market share continues to grow. Japanese brands had a 37.2 percent market share, and German brands had 5.9 percent in 2007. The Korean manufacturers, in particular, continue to make inroads in the U.S. marketplace with their market share growing from 2 percent in 2000 to 4.8 percent in 2007.
Why is it that only foreigners can invest? Because of “legacy” costs, namely health care and pension benefits? Because of locating to low-tax areas, particularly the South where they (the workers) can be non-union and lower paid? All of the above.
One of the cruxes of the automotive industry is the support of health care plans. Health care costs would be better served under a National Health Care System, thus eliminating a hamstringing problem of current operation expenses of these automotive legends. Even with that said, the UAW and the Big Three did restructure to reduce cost by $1000 per vehicle just this past year. (Page 5, Trade.gov Report )
But this wasn’t good enough, or quick enough, to come through the mortgage crisis malaise which could very well end 100 years of business for GM. GM has cash problems that are only getting worse through the daily operation of their business. Their ‘burn rate’ has them in the precarious position of bankruptcy without some loan from the government. (Likely bankruptcy by January 2009, if analysts are spot on.)
Should GM, Chrysler and Ford suffer (or the 1,000,000 direct employees) for what started as mortgage/Wall Street SNAFU-to- a Great Depression event? No.
When we look at the neglectful behavior of the Bush administration – including their brain trust in Treasury and the Fed – the automotive industry, with all their flaws and warts and recently poor models in concert with $4.00/gal gas, seems to be a more victim than victimizer.
I know, “they’ve been in bed with BIG OIL!!!” True. Their usage of the Oil lobby to get their gas-guzzling vehicles on the market is a big reason why ANY loan or bailing out of the BIG THREE will require a major overhaul to their business model.
We do need revamp. Total, complete and without GM, Ford or Chrysler’s hemhawing about it. Either do it, or die. Because of international trade agreements, which we are being threaten by other countries about (see article) it seems the auto industry could go belly up anyways. (Though I, personally, would forcefully tell the EU that they owe us for their entire continent (WWII) and therefore, better accept that we are looking out for our self-interests as well as theirs. Having the U.S. in a Depression isn’t going to help Europe either. GM made the tanks that saved your bread from a far, far worse fate.)
I also think back to how Michigan suffered during the late 1970s-1984 through the worst of that recession. Unemployment was at least 15% total, and 25-30% amongst African Americans. While Reagan talked about keeping America great, the Japanese got their 1st real foothold in the North American automotive circuit through being able to relocate to America soil. While I am not a protectionist, we made deals that seemed very nice to a country we could not get fair trade in return.
Recently, on PBS, Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina made the crass comment about the BIG THREE:
JUDY WOODRUFF: Gov. Sanford, the same question about the auto industry.
GOV. MARK SANFORD: My view is let them go. I don’t know where this ends. I don’t know how your cell phone charges, Judy — I don’t know if you have to worry about them in a personal sense — but at some point, it gets to the absurd of now we’ve got to start bailing out folks on their cell phone bills.
I mean, once that slippery slope begins, it becomes a problem in this way. The heart of the capitalistic system that has created the wealth that we enjoy in America is based on success and failure and there being a consequence to making bad decisions.
And if you go through the business of bailing these folks out so that — you know, through Chapter 11, they can’t then renegotiate union contracts, which were at times very generous in the way that they were created, if you can’t go through that process of creative destruction — as Adam Smith called it — then you go to the heart of undermining that which has created the wealth that we enjoy as Americans.
I would make this point, as well. If we had had a series of bailouts, there wouldn’t be a Nucor Steel that’s based in the South that’s done awfully well because we would have bailed out steel in Pittsburgh. There wouldn’t be a BMW in South Carolina or a whole host of other auto industries scattered across the South because we would have just kept them all in Detroit.
Amazing insight Governor. If you were a governor of Michigan, what would you say???
But you’ll currently notice Jennifer Granholm, Michigan’s governor, is in the background of Barack’s economic advisers. Meaning there is hope for the auto industry…
The entire Midwest needs retooling. Green Jobs, effective use of resources, education of a new generation of workers, not just in automotive plants and parts assembly, but energy construction would do the breadbasket a world of good.
The automotive industry should not go gentle into that good night, but rage against the idea that they are expendable. When the United States thinks that eliminating manufacturing and technology in favor of investment banking and mortgage dealings is a better avenue to profits and sound economics, we as a nation have lost the economic war waging on this Earth. The ability to produce things that people want, to creat technology through manufacturing is what keeps us healthy. Managing money is fine, but wealth creation is only as good as the material it backs. Tangible assets come from tangible production of goods and ideas. Pushing paper around the world can be done by anyone…
Rage BIG THREE. IT IS THAT DIRE.






















