finknottle

But remember that the strength of small businesses lie in their flexibility - a three person company can ramp up to 8 easily if they win a contract, and go back to 3 if it runs out or is cancelled. It would take years for a 500 person company to get up to 800 in response to new opportunities, and years to drop back to 500 - and they probably could not do it without risking bancruptcy. Another problem with such tax breaks is that it encourages low-wage jobs. I believe Obama proposed a $3,000 tax credit for new hires - that encourages me to hire three people at 30k rather than one at 90k. But IMO the biggest disincentive (thankfully not under discussion yet) is legislation (common in Europe) in which the company is responsible for paying a years salary for workers that are let go. It strongly discourages the expansion of the workforce until it is absolutely neccessary, and in particular discourages foreign companies from setting up shop - pulling the plug on a venture is too expensive if it doesn't work out.

No, giving corporations tax breaks when there is no demand does... nothing. If they are not making any money, their tax rates are irrelevant. And (still assuming they are not making any money overall) keeping the tax breaks doesn't cost the government anything in lost revenue since they wouldn't be getting anything anyway. All revoking the breaks would do is send a long-term message to the business world that this is a less business-friendly country in which to set up shop. The only tax tinkering that makes any sense is to lower income tax on the consumers.

What is wrong with corporate welfare exactly? Suppose a company paid *no* taxes? The people owning it would still be paying taxes on dividends and capital gains... so who exactly is gaining unfairly? And why doesn't your argument apply to non-profits? They pay no taxes but can pay no dividends - this allows them to plow the profits into executive compensation. Where is the outrage? Is it because they are generally Democrat?

I agree with this very strongly.

Can you describe what you mean by 'Universal Health Care?" Do you mean free government-provided health insurance? How about a government that mandates that you buy insurance, and offers an affordable plan for those that the insurance companies won't touch? Is that universal health care?

If health care is free then use will go up and any savings quickly disappear. In principal I would support mandating the offering of a universal coverage product, and mandating the purchase of coverage (ala auto insurance). But simply offering free healthcare would be disasterous.

Why is it that only the flag 'universal coverage' is considered, and not the wait times? Or indeed, the likliehood that a patients will actually be approved for a proceedure? Wiki has an interesting piece on Canada's system: 65% of Canadians buy supplimental insurance so that they can get priority access. Here's some random tidbits on wait-times I've asked my friends in India about the topic. They too have universal health care, but getting treatment if you are poor is a bit like petitioning the emperor - be prepared to wait-list a few years. The answer for why Heatkcare is so expensive is simple: we already have psuedo-universal healthcare: anybody can show us in an emergancy room and be treated without paying. The cost of providing that services is passed on to those that do, increasing their rates. Similarly, HMO plans provide little disincentive for abusive use - a $10 copay per visit doesn't discourage unneccessary visits.

What is their civilian mission? And are there such jobs? Seems to me that maybe the autoworkers should snap them up then and save us all some money.

I take it you also don't believe in evolution and dynamical systems like that? How about football? When you draft a guy in the first round, do you stick with him regardless of how it turns out? Or a coach convinced that his revolutionary system will work once he has the right players? And when you buy a stock, Ford or GM say, do you ride it to the bitter end, regardless of its performance or outlook later on? All of these things have one thing in common - they are experiments competing against other experiments. Not all work out, and only a fool believes in the sort of top-down investing that say's when you gamble on an investment you don't put a cap on your exposure and never get out if it doesn't succeed. I take that back - there is one very prominant sort of investor who behaves that way: big government. Once a program is started, good money will follow bad regardless of any overruns and failure that might occur.

Fine - let's call it a failed business model and cut our losses. I take it you would be in favor of a bailout for companies like Blackwater? After all, there are about 200,000 Americans actually in Iraq and employed by contractors, not counting those employed directly and indirectly here in the US and dependent on Iraq business.

Was a gun put to their heads? Whether we are talking about auto dealerships or fast food franchises, a business partnership is exactly what it is, no more and no less. Some partnerships suck - so what? If the disadvantageous outweigh the advantages, don't buy in. If a company treats its distributors poorly, that's between them. How is it our problem? Should we have some kind of legally binding sharia for businesses, mandating that they only cut deals that meet your sense of fairness?

Wow - this speaks volumes about your understanding of the free market. In for a penny, in for a pound, huh? Never cut your losses, never invest in anything unless you are prepared to put up every penny you can lay your hand on, and always double down? Just out of curiosity, what do you think of venture capitalists who pull the plug on startups they have invested in? Are they bad businessmen?

In 24 years operating here, Toyota has never cut back or laid off it's US workforce. All cuts in response to slowdowns have always been temp workers in Japan.

I dunno... why are the US companies asking for money from Canada, Germany, and Sweden? Is this about preserving jobs in the US, or about where the headquarters are located? Don't forget, you can buy stock in the Japanese automakers too.

You mean like publically declaring a unilateral withdrawl date in Iraq while there is still fighting raging?

Many of the niche exploration and extraction companies did, and overall employment was sharply down. The impact was masked by the job expansion during the dot-com boom. From a 1999 report "Employment Trends in Oil and Gas Extraction" http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/issues/oil_gas.html

Same deal as faced by all the parts suppliers. Sure, people will still buy cars, and if the big 3 go under and Nissan US et al take their place they can pick up the parts slack from the big 3's suppliers, but a lot of those suppliers won't make it through the short-term disruption. If Exxon has trouble with pricing or supply but doesn't sell an alternative fuel, all those Exxon stations (like dealerships) can't just sign a deal with another company and offer their wares too.

Yeah, and the reconstruction money budgeted for Iraq was a loan too, to be paid back through oil revenue. Uh-huh. Regardless, from your response and your support in other posts, I take it that despite two decades of downward spiral the business plans they cooked up during a 30-day all-nighter shows you that they will allow them to recover? Who knew reversing macro trends could be so easy!

In addition to those VA points out work in exploration and refining, what about all the gas stations that litter the landscape? There is at least another million people on the retail side. In fact, I think it's a fair bet that there are more jobs in oil/gas than in the auto business.

That apology should be trademarked Buffalo Bills.

If you have not discovered it yet, this is not a board for meaningfull discussion. You are lucky if you get one serious response on any topic before the thread degenerates.

I have not heard anyone object to the basic premise: that the UAW torpedoed the plan by refusing to agree to a 2009 date for their consessions. How would the 'CEO $1 compensation' advocates feel about a CEO who agreed to it in principal, perhaps starting in a few years, but with no committment on a date?

For the record, I can't stand that sort of thing, including Reagan... But at least they waited until his eighth year in office, after he had actually done something, before calling for his deification.

Get with the spin, man. The story line is that the big three is the US auto industry, and that if they go bankrupt then US auto manufacturing goes with it. The existance of (foreign-owned) plants in red states is an inconvenient truth.

Or least least blushing a deep red.