In 2008 GM & Chrysler combined account for less than 31% of U.S. vehicle sales, down from approx 39% in 2006.
- Source: Autodata 2008

Total Auto jobs are split - approx 1 Million in Automaking & Parts and 1 million at new car dealerships, but this is for ALL U.S. car makers - not just the big three.

Ref: http://tinyurl.com/6zaqgj

The majority of the jobs are in Parts and New Car Dealerships - over 775,000 in parts and 1,105,000 at New Car Dealerships.

Pro bailout propaganda always paints a picture of the total loss of the Big Three, including Ford and it most often includes auto industry jobs that they say will be lost that include parts and dealership jobs as well as jobs like glass and metal manufacturing and car washing.

Basic economic theory of supply and demand says that there will be a certain demand for a product. So for cars, there will be a demand from the population to buy a certain number. Although that number fluctuates due to economic good and hard times, overall it will be a certain demand. It does not say 100% GM, or even 50% domestically manufactured.

Artificially propping up an auto company to manufacture products ignores this supply / demand concept. If the demand for autos drops off, then the industry needs to account for it.

If an Auto Manufacturer goes out of business, it does not change the demand - either the demand is not there, or some other manufacturer will move in to fill the demand. The trickle down that the pro-bailout supporters say will decimate jobs in parts and dealerships is the same. Is demand there? If so, then the closure of 10 GM dealerships will mean expansion at Ford or Toyota dealerships in the U.S. which means more jobs. More sales of Toyota or Ford means more parts needed. It may not be a one-for-one relationship, but it is not fair to use statistics of total jobs lost, when in reality, the number includes more than GM & Chrysler and also quotes total existing 'trickle down' jobs that will not all disappear.

I think the biggest problem is not the employment numbers, manufacturing numbers or 'trickle down' jobs, but the huge number of pensioners and spouses that GM & Chrysler committed to support using existing sales.

The big question is - what kind of short-sighted management who only needs basic calculator skills would allow for a pension set up that is doomed to failure like some crazy pyramid scheme?

Why not use employee deductions and company matching to invest as employees work and make sure those funds are paid into the plan and vested to the employee? Promising pension income to retirees without paying into a plan that way makes no sense at all and I don't think the government and taxpayer should have to shoulder the cost. Who is paying for the millions of retired Americans who have little or no income in retirement and because they do not all work for the same company, they are not even considered? Did they not work as hard or harder than auto workers?

What do you think? Post your comment here or join the debate at: http://tinyurl.com/lrpsjq