That sounds like company math to me. That 17 billion that they claimed the government would have lost is probably assuming not a single one of those 1.2 million people would have found another job.
1 - 20 of 96 Posts
Yes but you're missing the actual issue. Even if 25% of them got other jobs - that is not newly created jobs. They would have taken jobs that 300,000 other unemployed would have gotten instead of them. So you have to count the 300,000 unemployed that had nothing to do with GM et al that remained unemployed because sacked GM workers would have taken the jobs they otherwise would have gotten.
So net/net it's still 1.2 million in tax receipts no matter how fungible the workforce...
I guess that's true if all those 300,000 unemployed people are actually still looking for employment.Yes but you're missing the actual issue. Even if 25% of them got other jobs - that is not newly created jobs. They would have taken jobs that 300,000 other unemployed would have gotten instead of them. So you have to count the 300,000 unemployed that had nothing to do with GM et al that remained unemployed because sacked GM workers would have taken the jobs they otherwise would have gotten.
So net/net it's still 1.2 million in tax receipts no matter how fungible the workforce...
You also have assume that none of the 1.2million decided to make a change and create their own way in life by starting their own business and actually creating job opportunities.
I know several people who used getting fired/laid off as a catalyst to start their own business.
That's true, so long as their business success didn't eat into someone else's business causing either under-employment of another self-employed person, or a job lay-off (both of which would reduce income tax receipts for a net/net nullification).
Of course it could also be argued that if GM failed then other American auto factories would have picked up the slack and thus employed more people - thus countering some of the GM job losses.
That certainly would be true in the long run, but given they are referring only to 2009 tax receipts , and given all manufacturers had a glut of cars through 2009 and beyond, that probably would not have changed things for that year much at all.
If anything GM going under would cause an auto parts shortage for other operations in North America as many suppliers would have gone down too. This would have made things worse for the existing auto makers as well as the even further drop in vehicle demand caused by the massive layoffs.That's true, so long as their business success didn't eat into someone else's business causing either under-employment of another self-employed person, or a job lay-off (both of which would reduce income tax receipts for a net/net nullification).
Of course it could also be argued that if GM failed then other American auto factories would have picked up the slack and thus employed more people - thus countering some of the GM job losses.
That certainly would be true in the long run, but given they are referring only to 2009 tax receipts , and given all manufacturers had a glut of cars through 2009 and beyond, that probably would not have changed things for that year much at all.
The prospect of this was enough to cause Bush to via executive order bail out both GM and Chrysler (stating he wasn't going to be a Hoover).
Come on..... How often do you get to make corporate leaders grovel? That's worth the price right there...
1 - 20 of 96 Posts
