GM To Add 1,500 Information Tech Jobs in Michigan

[HardOCP News]

It's always good to hear a company is planning on adding thousands of jobs. It's even better news when they are tech jobs. If you live in Michigan, dust off the ol' resume and snag one of those jobs.

General Motors Co said on Monday it will create 1,500 jobs at a new software development center in Michigan as part of the U.S. automaker's previously announced plan to shift information technology work back into the company. GM said it will hire the software developers, database experts, analysts and other IT positions over the next four years for the office in Warren, Michigan. It is the second of four software development centers GM plans to open, following one it announced last month in Austin, Texas.

 

[Starcrossed]

A decade late!

 

[sMiLeYz]

...and alot of people thought it was a bad idea to save GM.

 

[Ducman69]

...and alot of people thought it was a bad idea to save GM.

A lot of people still really do, myself included. We would take such a huge bath now if Obama sold the stock, government should never be interfering with the free-market in this fashion just based on principle, and "too big to fail" is nonsense as we've seen in the aviation industry (competitors, often domestic, quickly absorb the market share).

There was nothing wrong with GM declaring bankrupcy like a normal company and restructuring without getting a free loan.

It was done because the administration wanted to buy the union votes and make friends with indebted GM big-wigs as tax-payers expense.

The GM brands wouldn't have dsappeared after all, but the UAW likely would have in any restructuring unless a foreign entity wanted to purchase their binding contracts which is very unlikely (they are doing everything they can to keep the UAW infestation at bay).

And even in the virtually impossible scenario that GM would have gone belly up and no one would want to purchase their assets, their marketshare most likely would have simply been taken over by competitors like Ford. So you would hear of Ford adding 1,500 IT jobs instead of GM, big whoop. And these are all multi-national corporations anyway, as there are "domestics" with less than 6% domestic parts assembled outside of the country and other "world cars" that are designed and managed by the overseas divisions of Ford and GM.

And the two "Most American" cars at present are foreign, such as the Honda Accord made right here in America with over 80% domestic parts content and American testers and engineering influence etc.

 

[coldtortilla]

GM = government motors

 

[gamerk2]

A lot of people still really do, myself included. We would take such a huge bath now if Obama sold the stock, government should never be interfering with the free-market in this fashion just based on principle, and "too big to fail" is nonsense as we've seen in the aviation industry (competitors, often domestic, quickly absorb the market share).

There was nothing wrong with GM declaring bankrupcy like a normal company and restructuring without getting a free loan.

It was done because the administration wanted to buy the union votes and make friends with indebted GM big-wigs as tax-payers expense.

The GM brands wouldn't have dsappeared after all, but the UAW likely would have in any restructuring unless a foreign entity wanted to purchase their binding contracts which is very unlikely (they are doing everything they can to keep the UAW infestation at bay).

And even in the virtually impossible scenario that GM would have gone belly up and no one would want to purchase their assets, their marketshare most likely would have simply been taken over by competitors like Ford. So you would hear of Ford adding 1,500 IT jobs instead of GM, big whoop. And these are all multi-national corporations anyway, as there are "domestics" with less than 6% domestic parts assembled outside of the country and other "world cars" that are designed and managed by the overseas divisions of Ford and GM.

And the two "Most American" cars at present are foreign, such as the Honda Accord made right here in America with over 80% domestic parts content and American testers and engineering influence etc.

Totally wrong analysis.

First and foremost: GM was so deep in debt, it was going to go into Chapter 13 Liquidation. Nevermind that with the banks in trouble, no one had the money to loan GM to keep operating while going through a reorg.

Secondly, Ford would NOT have "gobbled up" the marketshare. How, exactly, would Ford have increased production, without spending hundreds of millions in infrastrucure upgrades, and even more in hiring more workers, again noting the lack of banks to borrow money from? And lets not forget Ford is actually in the worst debt situation of the big 3 right now to begin with...

The equation is simple: subtract the total cost of the loans (Currently a few Billion), then subtract the holdings the treasury still has in GM stock (a few hundred million at last check) AND the cost of having several thousand extra workers NOT become unemployed while the economy was tanking (letting GM fail would not be free to taxpayers).

So yes, saving GM was the correct financial decision to make. Just like saving AIG was the correct financial decision (we actually turned a profit on that one though ).

As for "to big to fail", liberals like me were against those companies growing so big to begin with. When you have one or two large companies dominate an industry, you have lack of competition, and you WILL have "to big to fail" as a result. The auto industry, sadly, is the perfect example of failed capitalism in that regard.

 

[Ducman69]

Even liquidation if it came to that is a non-issue, as there is still a market and those facilities will be purchased and put to use, just perhaps not by the UAW under existing GM management, both good things.

But I can't break it down play-by-play as that is such a load of doom and gloom nonsense on so many levels. For example, regarding your "Big 3" its "Big 2" as Chrysler, despite huge taxpayer expense in its bailouts as well, went bellyup long ago and was purchased first by Daimler and now by Fiat. But all seventeen plants are still up and running here in the US and more in Canada and elsewhere.

 

[the-one1]

..............Just like saving AIG was the correct financial decision (we actually turned a profit on that one though )......................

Who's we? The 1%? Steve? The old lady down the street? Billy in shipping? Who?

 

[Void]

Even liquidation if it came to that is a non-issue, as there is still a market and those facilities will be purchased and put to use, just perhaps not by the UAW under existing GM management, both good things.

But I can't break it down play-by-play as that is such a load of doom and gloom nonsense on so many levels. For example, regarding your "Big 3" its "Big 2" as Chrysler, despite huge taxpayer expense in its bailouts as well, went bellyup long ago and was purchased first by Daimler and now by Fiat. But all seventeen plants are still up and running here in the US and more in Canada and elsewhere.

So I'm gonna guess that you also feel the same way about all the Government loans that Ford has received over the years that most people don't read/hear about? While they may not have needed it when GM did, they have still been in need of them in the past and I don't see people complaining about that. I wonder how much Ford has borrowed over the years to keep operations running so "smooth"?

 

[Monkey God]

It was a bad idea to save GM. The government bailout basically allowed GM to continue making bad decisions and not addressing core issues. If you take the consequences of failure away, companies will continue to fail.

 

[the-one1]

It was a bad idea to save GM. The government bailout basically allowed GM to continue making bad decisions and not addressing core issues. If you take the consequences of failure away, companies will continue to fail.

Exactly. How many times are they going to let a model go stale, kill it off and build the same sized vehicle with a new name? And then let that go stale again.

 

[Lebowski]

Totally wrong analysis.

First and foremost: GM was so deep in debt, it was going to go into Chapter 13 Liquidation. Nevermind that with the banks in trouble, no one had the money to loan GM to keep operating while going through a reorg.

Secondly, Ford would NOT have "gobbled up" the marketshare. How, exactly, would Ford have increased production, without spending hundreds of millions in infrastrucure upgrades, and even more in hiring more workers, again noting the lack of banks to borrow money from? And lets not forget Ford is actually in the worst debt situation of the big 3 right now to begin with...

The equation is simple: subtract the total cost of the loans (Currently a few Billion), then subtract the holdings the treasury still has in GM stock (a few hundred million at last check) AND the cost of having several thousand extra workers NOT become unemployed while the economy was tanking (letting GM fail would not be free to taxpayers).

So yes, saving GM was the correct financial decision to make. Just like saving AIG was the correct financial decision (we actually turned a profit on that one though ).

As for "to big to fail", liberals like me were against those companies growing so big to begin with. When you have one or two large companies dominate an industry, you have lack of competition, and you WILL have "to big to fail" as a result. The auto industry, sadly, is the perfect example of failed capitalism in that regard.

Ford is not in the worst debt category. Fords debt rating has gone from junk to invest in, all without government bail outs. And Ford is making profit.
The heart of the problem of the "big3" is unions, and we know what party loves the unions.

 

[Ducman69]

So I'm gonna guess that you also feel the same way about all the Government loans that Ford has received over the years that most people don't read/hear about? While they may not have needed it when GM did, they have still been in need of them in the past and I don't see people complaining about that. I wonder how much Ford has borrowed over the years to keep operations running so "smooth"?

In a nutshell; I'm a Libertarian.

So yes of course I opposed the cash-for-clunkers program that Ford and GM lobbied for (again at taxpayer expense) and the public should not have to pay any private company to retool for more fuel efficient vehicles. We can set reasonable mandates and companies can invest themselves as they see fit.

And speaking of companies getting too big, you set an unequal playing field when you have such government interference in free-market, where the big companies are getting handouts and risk mitigation and lobbying for bills that help their sales and the like that the little guys cannot. The little guys already have it hard enough, we don't need to create additional unfairness in the marketplace.

 

[Snagor]

Let's be realistic here. They are just transferring jobs from the outsourcing provider to in-house, and probably few, if any, would be returning off-shore jobs on-shore. So as for net new jobs, probably close to zero.

 

[TheMadHatterXxX]

Detroit: Enter city at your own risk...

 

[gamerk2]

Who's we? The 1%? Steve? The old lady down the street? Billy in shipping? Who?

The taxpayers.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/09/10/plot-twist-in-the-a-i-g-bailout-it-actually-worked/?hp

The Government Accountability Office, which is not swayed by politics, estimated in May that taxpayers will receive a profit of about $15 billion from the A.I.G. bailout. That includes the profit the Fed had already made as part of the broader rescue. There may still be parts of the bailouts to debate: how they were executed, whether they were as effective as they could have been and, perhaps, whether taxpayers should have received an even bigger return for their investments given the risk.

But on the whole, the rescue of A.I.G. — often called a backdoor bailout of Wall Street — should be considered a success.

But hey, who knew giving out loans is VERY good business. Oh wait, just about every major banking institution on the planet. Silly Feds, doing what actually works.

It was a bad idea to save GM. The government bailout basically allowed GM to continue making bad decisions and not addressing core issues. If you take the consequences of failure away, companies will continue to fail.

Funny, considering GM is turning its first profit in ages, and is doing better now then is has for a decade or so now.

GM's root problem was too many nameplates competing against eachother. You have a GMC competing against a Chevy and whatnot. This ensures that the engineers divide their resources, while eating both sales and advertising dollars. This problem has been reduced significantly since the reorg, though there is still overlap that needs to be addressed.


Regardless, at the end of the day: The bailouts were the correct decision for no other reason then it being cheaper to bail then out then do the alternative.

 

[gamerk2]

Let's be realistic here. They are just transferring jobs from the outsourcing provider to in-house, and probably few, if any, would be returning off-shore jobs on-shore. So as for net new jobs, probably close to zero.

I think the point is that they would be AMERICAN jobs, and not OVERSEAS jobs. So yeah, net of 0 for GM, net of 1500 for America.

 

[the-one1]

The taxpayers.................

Sweet. I await my dividend check for $0.43. I gots plans yo.

 

[gamerk2]

Sweet. I await my dividend check for $0.43. I gots plans yo.

Would you rather you lose money as a result of the extra layoffs, leading to a reduction of tax revenue, decreased economic growth, and an increase in government spending (due to medicade, unemployment benefits, and the like)?

 

[Monkey God]

Sweet. I await my dividend check for $0.43. I gots plans yo.

Well this last time, all the private shareholders got raped and robbed. Hope you sell your stock before that happens again.

 

[kbrickley]

Sweet. I await my dividend check for $0.43. I gots plans yo.

They call us Tax "Payers" not Tax "Investors" ... just enjoy that when the government makes money on something that is less they have to take from the tax payer in the future (or more services they can offer for the same taxes)

 

[gamerk2]

I
So yes of course I opposed the cash-for-clunkers program that Ford and GM lobbied for (again at taxpayer expense) and the public should not have to pay any private company to retool for more fuel efficient vehicles. We can set reasonable mandates and companies can invest themselves as they see fit.

While I prefer government not get too involved in private business, if its cheaper to get involved then not, I'm all for it.

And speaking of companies getting too big, you set an unequal playing field when you have such government interference in free-market, where the big companies are getting handouts and risk mitigation and lobbying for bills that help their sales and the like that the little guys cannot. The little guys already have it hard enough, we don't need to create additional unfairness in the marketplace.

But big companies ALWAYS have the advantage. Look at it this way: Do you think any startup could ever raise the necessary cash in todays environment to create a new car company that produces more then a few hundred vehicles per year? Think of the startup costs: Infrastructure, employees, design, production, safety tests, all before the first car is even sold. Sure, you occasionally get a niche player (Tesla in this case), but 9/10 times, this niche player will be absorbed shortly after its stock starts to crumble due to missing some expectation.

Capitalism will always be biased to whoever has the most resources to play with. Hence why the end result of unregulated Capitalism is always Money Inc. The argument isn't so much there be government regulation of the markets, but how much.

Me? I'm for whatever policy produces the largest amount of economic growth without increasing the national debt as a share of GDP. So yeah, basically the economic policy of Truman through Nixon plus Clinton. Because, you know, Keynesian economics works.

 

[gamerk2]

They call us Tax "Payers" not Tax "Investors" ... just enjoy that when the government makes money on something that is less they have to take from the tax payer in the future (or more services they can offer for the same taxes)

I now point out that since taxpayers elect the government who puts all government officials in power, I have to conclude that taxpayers are idiots.

Seriously, taxpayers run the country. If they can't put people in power who know what they're doing, guess who's to blame?

 

[kbrickley]

I now point out that since taxpayers elect the government who puts all government officials in power, I have to conclude that taxpayers are idiots.

Seriously, taxpayers run the country. If they can't put people in power who know what they're doing, guess who's to blame?

I think you had your argument summed up with "taxpayers are idiots" ... unfortunately people often vote their politicians into office on very narrow issues (and their overall ability in other areas isn't factored in) ... I find it distressing when politicians are voted into office on social issues (from either side) rather than technical ones ... I would love to see way fewer lawyers and more "normal" or "professional" people in politics (but our system would devour people like that) ... I sometimes wish we required our voters to take a voting test (not in the Jim Crow sense but in the "Here's your sign" sense) just like a driver's test and if you didn't pass your test you couldn't vote ... it will never happen though

 

[c4v3man]

I now point out that since taxpayers elect the government who puts all government officials in power, I have to conclude that taxpayers are idiots.

Seriously, taxpayers run the country. If they can't put people in power who know what they're doing, guess who's to blame?

Not everyone who votes pays taxes, at least federal income taxes, so I don't know what you're getting at.

 

[c3141hf]

...and alot of people thought it was a bad idea to save GM.

The utility of the action (which I, also, disagree with) is irrelevant because the primary way in which GM was "saved" was by committing acts of grand theft from people who were forced to hand over money in order to prop up their failing business. Thus, even if the outcome was beneficial (which it was not), the action itself is still immoral and reprehensible.

Bankruptcy is the proper was to deal with something like GM. Contrary to the scaremongering, a GM bankruptcy would not have resulted in the entire company suddenly vanishing. At worst, it would have been sold off in parts but those parts would still exist.

 

[haunter]

The utility of the action (which I, also, disagree with) is irrelevant because the primary way in which GM was "saved" was by committing acts of grand theft from people who were forced to hand over money in order to prop up their failing business. Thus, even if the outcome was beneficial (which it was not), the action itself is still immoral and reprehensible.

Bankruptcy is the proper was to deal with something like GM. Contrary to the scaremongering, a GM bankruptcy would not have resulted in the entire company suddenly vanishing. At worst, it would have been sold off in parts but those parts would still exist.

doubtful in many ways

the tooling at most GM factories wouldnt give much benefit to a competitor unless they they needed the space.

when car companies retool for new model lines its not uncomon to shell out 10's of millions of dollars to fit them for the new car. its not like Ford could buy a plant and just start making focus' in it

beyond that many pieces are sub companys that exist to only supply certain parts to GM, FORD has their own, so does chrysler....those pieces would likely dry up and dissappear or massively shrink while they retool to go after a new market segment

of all the things the gov has done lately, the autobailout should low on the gripe list as pretty much all of them paid themselves off ahead of schedule, GM produced actual dividends, and is turning a profit now

 

[Ducman69]

GM's root problem was too many nameplates competing against eachother. You have a GMC competing against a Chevy and whatnot.

Please, the problem was that GM was not cost competative thanks to the UAW extortion over the years, which cut into money they should have invested in future product design, as well as an overreliance on SUV and truck sales while gas prices were rising curbing demand for fuel-inefficient vehicles.

The bailouts purpose was to get in favor with the GM board and put them in the Obama administration's debt (watch the campaign contributions this go around), and bailout the UAW... again, watch for pressure put on by unions around the country to support Barack in the reelection campaign.

 

[nutzo]

The utility of the action (which I, also, disagree with) is irrelevant because the primary way in which GM was "saved" was by committing acts of grand theft from people who were forced to hand over money in order to prop up their failing business. Thus, even if the outcome was beneficial (which it was not), the action itself is still immoral and reprehensible.

Bankruptcy is the proper was to deal with something like GM. Contrary to the scaremongering, a GM bankruptcy would not have resulted in the entire company suddenly vanishing. At worst, it would have been sold off in parts but those parts would still exist.

+1

It was the UAW that would have been hit the hardest by a GM bankruptcy.
Instead, the federal government used force to wipe out the bond holders, and to wipe out the pensions of non-union workers.
The only people who came out ahead was the UAW.

 

[BoogerBomb]

Y'all do realize this thread is supposed to be about the creation of IT jobs in Michigan, not a thread about the bail out of GM?

 

[nutzo]

doubtful in many ways

the tooling at most GM factories wouldnt give much benefit to a competitor unless they they needed the space.

when car companies retool for new model lines its not uncomon to shell out 10's of millions of dollars to fit them for the new car. its not like Ford could buy a plant and just start making focus' in it

beyond that many pieces are sub companys that exist to only supply certain parts to GM, FORD has their own, so does chrysler....those pieces would likely dry up and dissappear or massively shrink while they retool to go after a new market segment

of all the things the gov has done lately, the autobailout should low on the gripe list as pretty much all of them paid themselves off ahead of schedule, GM produced actual dividends, and is turning a profit now

You seem have a complete lack of faith in the free market.

The market would have adjusted to whatever happened without the bailout, and the assets would have been put to a better use than they are now.

As for GM turning a profit, the profit is as fake as the current 7.8% unemployment rate.
As part of the bailout GM was given huge tax breaks. Without these tax breaks there would be no profits.

 

[Teenk9]

Whatever faith you have with the free market, there is no way you can say that the economy would have been able to bear the sudden influx of hundreds of thousands of newly unemployed at the time that the economy was at it worst in decades.

 

[Void]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/joannmu...axpayers-money-the-answer-might-surprise-you/

 

[the-one1]

Y'all do realize this thread is supposed to be about the creation of IT jobs in Michigan, not a thread about the bail out of GM?

No! Every thread is about politics.
Windows 8 = politics
Vista - politics
iPhone 5 - politics
Steve's Camaro - politics
Sony - politics
RIAA/MPAA - politics......wait...that IS politics, or more like buying of politicians

 

[Ducman69]

Whatever faith you have with the free market, there is no way you can say that the economy would have been able to bear the sudden influx of hundreds of thousands of newly unemployed at the time that the economy was at it worst in decades.

And you don't seem to understand how the free market works. Employment in a sector is primarily demand driven. If there is demand for a product, then jobs are created to fill that demand, and expansion can be extremely rapid as is the case with the company I am with right now.

As just one example of that, look at Southwest Airlines. They started with just a single route connecting Houston and Dallas and now are one of the largest airlines in the entire world (almost in a tie for second), thanks almost exclusively to a new and innovative business model that ended up being adopted by competing airlines in short order.

Meanwhile Pan Am used to have a virtual monopoly at least on domestic flights with hundreds of planes, a huge icon player, founded the ATA, and was the first airline to bring the world the 747.

But better competitors came along combined with some very poor top level executive decisions and Pan Am went belly up... but its BECAUSE they went belly up that they created the type of market vacuum that allowed Southwest Airlines, Delta, and United to thrive. If they had been "bailed out" at tax-payers expense, it would have done nothing but promoted inefficiency and damaged free market capitalism.

 

[Teenk9]

Lol. Yes because when PanAm went belly up it was at one of the worst economic times in the country's history and the start of a global economic slide that now threatens to bring down numerous countries.

If GM and Chrysler were allowed to fail nobody would have been there to pick up their remains. Nobody could have. Certainly not Ford, not at the time. Certainly not the banks who themselves were in trouble and were going to lose more money if GM and Chrysler went into bankruptcy. Certainly not auto companies from other countries who were shying away from big investments due to their own hardships. I mean, Fiat only invested in Chrysler because they got a sweet deal. All those newly unemployed would have to have been assimilated by an economy that was on the brink.

 

[sMiLeYz]

Please... the very fairy magic free market beliefs that lead to the deregulation of the financial sector is EXACTLY what caused the financial crisis in the first place.

It's funny that you mention Airline industry because that is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the United States.

GM would have failed, taking thousands of jobs with them if not for the bailouts because the non-existence of credit lines and liquidity at the time.

Right now they're posting a PROFIT, and expanding their work force to include additional 1,500 jobs. This likely wouldn't have happened if they failed.

 

[grayfox2]

Funny, I was just reading how the plant they opened to manufacture Chevy Volt batteries is not producing enough and the employees have one furlough week a month. Oh and it cost us $1.5M in tax dollars, and the one week a month the employees have off makes them eligible for unemployment on that week...

 

[Jagger100]

A lot of people still really do, myself included. We would take such a huge bath now if Obama sold the stock, government should never be interfering with the free-market in this fashion just based on principle, and "too big to fail" is nonsense as we've seen in the aviation industry (competitors, often domestic, quickly absorb the market share).

There was nothing wrong with GM declaring bankrupcy like a normal company and restructuring without getting a free loan.

It was done because the administration wanted to buy the union votes and make friends with indebted GM big-wigs as tax-payers expense.

The GM brands wouldn't have dsappeared after all, but the UAW likely would have in any restructuring unless a foreign entity wanted to purchase their binding contracts which is very unlikely (they are doing everything they can to keep the UAW infestation at bay).

And even in the virtually impossible scenario that GM would have gone belly up and no one would want to purchase their assets, their marketshare most likely would have simply been taken over by competitors like Ford. So you would hear of Ford adding 1,500 IT jobs instead of GM, big whoop. And these are all multi-national corporations anyway, as there are "domestics" with less than 6% domestic parts assembled outside of the country and other "world cars" that are designed and managed by the overseas divisions of Ford and GM.

And the two "Most American" cars at present are foreign, such as the Honda Accord made right here in America with over 80% domestic parts content and American testers and engineering influence etc.

The narrative was completely pulled out of thin air to sell the no bailout viewpoint. It was done with a twist of helping Obama's base, but that's about the only thing that has any justification

1) GM would have had to go through liquidation. A non-special bankruptcy would have bankrupted their supplier chain for starters torn up warranty claims destroying consumer confidence and so on. There is no precedent for surviving the scenario GM faced. All industries that are investment cost intensive and foreign competition intensive in the US that have had companies fail, never recovered, ever. Textiles, Machine tools, TV's and Consumer electronics, general electronics, steel, ....

2) Ever wonder why Mullally himself came to Washington during the bailout? To make sure the others were bailed out because if their went under so did the entire US supply chain.

3) Honda's content you quote, if based off cars.com, is a screwy number and if you don't want to understand why, that's your choice. I will say the number of US employees actually involved in manufacture is a simple stat to check. Honda: 25,000 GM: 77,000. A ratio of 1:3. And if you subtract off a portion from each for dealer and marketing support, which has to be here even if there wasn't one lick of manufacturing, the ratio becomes more severe.

 

[c3141hf]

Please... the very fairy magic free market beliefs that lead to the deregulation of the financial sector is EXACTLY what caused the financial crisis in the first place.

It's funny that you mention Airline industry because that is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the United States.

GM would have failed, taking thousands of jobs with them if not for the bailouts because the non-existence of credit lines and liquidity at the time.

Right now they're posting a PROFIT, and expanding their work force to include additional 1,500 jobs. This likely wouldn't have happened if they failed.

Government telling banks who they have to lend money to is not deregulation.

Crony capitalists committing fraud is not deregulation.

The state and the crony capitalists worked in lock-step to screw over the world economy. One only has to look at the Goldman Sachs revolving door to see this.