
General Motors to Lay Off 2,000 Employees in Ohio and Michigan - FuNe
http://fortune.com/2016/11/09/general-motors-layoffs-ohio-michigan/
======
tlrobinson
I have to wonder if the timing of this announcement isn't a coincidence, given
the relevance to Trump's platform, and Ohio and Michigan being swing states...

~~~
phkahler
>> what the company believes will be a continued shift from cars to crossovers
and trucks.

This part hints (to me anyway) that they may have waited for the election.
Trump seems to be a fan of fossil fuels, so that would suggest cheap oil will
be around for a while and people will be more willing to buy bigger vehicles.
The article also points out that these vehicles are not selling well enough to
support 3 shifts, so it probably has very little to do with union concerns. I
suspect it's just a straight business decision based on a market forecast
which was solidified by the election. They probably waited a bit for the
election to feed that into the forecast.

~~~
closeparen
From GM, anyway.

I see plenty of small cars around, but they're the Prius, Civic, Accord,
Corolla, Camry, Fit, Golf, and Mazda3.

------
jandrese
It will be interesting to see Trump attempt to follow through on his promise
to eliminate NAFTA and slap tariffs on imported goods. Somehow I doubt he will
have a lot of support from congress on that goal, as pretty much every senator
and representative is in the pockets of big multinationals who have already
moved their manufacturing overseas or to Mexico.

This is one area he really can't ignore. A lot of people voted for him because
he promised to bring their jobs back and they're very keen on seeing
manufacturing return to the US.

~~~
thenewwazoo
> in the pockets of big multinationals

Your comment dismisses any concern that tariffs could be a bad thing, and
ignores literally hundreds of years of research and experimentation that shows
trade barriers to have negative effects on economic health and international
peace. He may have little support from congress because congresspeople believe
it to be _a bad idea_.

~~~
thomaskcr
I understand tariffs aren't good when taken alone, but what else can you do to
put the US on an even playing field? We want to have strict environmental
laws, which make manufacturing more expensive and then companies move to where
there is no EPA so we lost jobs and new laws are a net negative for the
environment.

My opinion is that there should be tariffs to make up for the differences in
laws anywhere without similar laws - if you want to pay workers pennies a day
no problem, but you're going to pay the difference on the way in. China might
let you destroy their local environment but you'll pay for the effects of your
pollution on the way in.

Trade deals should come with negotiations that will help us with our global
warming problem at the very least - if you want to have a trade deal you'll
need to match or beat the regulations we follow or the tariff will reflect an
approximation of the difference in cost.

I think that it is a bit problematic that the majority of those for free trade
also want policies that discourage domestic manufacturing like an increase in
minimum wage and increased environmental regulations.

~~~
digitaltrees
Paying a price on goods entering the country will not encourage the
manufacturing of those goods to come back to the US, it will only reduce the
flow of goods coming in, increase the prices consumers pay or reduce
selection. Also, dont you think the natural reaction of any country on the
other end of such a tariff would be to slap a tariff on our goods and
services? So the net result is lower international trade overall. The result
of that is that goods have to be manufactured in thousands of places
(inefficient) rather than a few place for distribution globally (highly
efficient).

~~~
thomaskcr
I don't think tariffs should be used to keep manufacturing here - but if you
get to move your manufacturing to China and pay people less than you would in
the US and use a process worse for the environment I think it's really silly
not to put something in place to discourage that. If China puts into place
labor laws and environmental laws similar to ours, then sure no tariff should
be in place.

Otherwise we're just rewarding companies (many of which are American) with
access to our market without having to follow any of our laws.

~~~
gloverkcn
A tariff is a tax on the local population, not a penalty to the origin
country. The tariff is added to the sales price so the origin country is
repaid. It makes the price of foreign goods higher for local purchasers to
allow the local market to be competitive.

If it doesn't bring manufacturing jobs back (which it won't) it will do
nothing, but lower sales. the amount lowered depends on the size of the
tariff, and how much that makes the products unaffordable to the locals.

~~~
tropo
Things aren't so simple. A tax (tariff in this case) negatively affects both
sides of a transaction. The effect on our side is then mitigated because the
money from that tax lets us reduce other taxes in our own country.

So yes, in the end it does work out to be a penalty to the origin country.

The only local harm relates to marginal utility, but this is offset by the
benefits of national security and improvements to the mix of different types
of employment.

------
johndoez
Two long term trends: automation car sharing/hiring

Both mean that in the case of autos, Trump won't be able to bring
manufacturing home in terms of jobs.

~~~
pavlov
In energy policy, Trump wants to make coal more affordable compared to
renewables. Applying similar logic, he should work to enact legislation to
prohibit automated vehicles or make them very expensive so they can't be
deployed widely.

In 2020, Trump can point to this piece of legislation and tell voters:
"Silicon Valley billionaires tried to put a million truckers and taxi drivers
out of work, but I prevented that!"

I wonder how that would sit with Peter Thiel.

Anyone who expects the upcoming all-Republican government to be innovation-
friendly may be in for a rude awakening. I have a feeling that many "job
protection" solutions from Congress will be similar in spirit to the state
laws that prevent Tesla from selling cars directly. In other words, there will
be more legislation that's friendly to established business but hostile to
SV's cherished "disruption". (Republican voters said loud and clear that they
haven't liked being disrupted.)

EDIT: I expanded this comment into a post on Medium:
[https://medium.com/@pauli/disruption-in-america-please-
hold-...](https://medium.com/@pauli/disruption-in-america-please-
hold-d997d6cf9461)

~~~
ssharp
I find Trump repugnant and don't think he's remotely fit to lead the U.S. but
what has he said that makes you think he's going to be against private-sector-
driven innovation?

Sectors that require, or are helped substantially by, the government to
innovate will almost certainly suffer but what makes you think he would
interfere with private enterprise?

Trump doesn't like business regulation and seems to want to make it easier for
businesses to operate. Obviously that has negative consequences some some
things but would also mean he wouldn't interfere.

Where he does want to make changes is in regards to trade and outsourcing jobs
and manufacturing to foreign countries.

As far as Republican leadership in the House and Senate, there is no doubt
that they'll play favorites with lobbyists but Trump's main appeal was that he
WASN'T like that. If he is like that, we'll have a Democratic Congress in two
years and a new president in four.

~~~
celticninja
He wants it to be easier for certain businesses to operate, so he wants to cut
environmental protection to cut the costs of companies that pollute, this
means they can produce more (pollute more) and employ more people.

He could well be anti automated driving vehicles, it is widely accepted that
one of the first casualties of the introduction of automated vehicles will
belong distance lorry drivers. There are approx 3.5 million drivers employed
in the US right now, even if we see only 25% of jobs going in the next 10
years that is an extra 850,000 unemployed people. And not only are they
unemployed but their skill set is no longer required, so they are either long
term unemployed or they need to retrain. I imagine many will be older people
and they will not be in a position to retrain significantly, so they become
competition for low paid manual work, further depressing wages in this sector.
So even if you do get a job the wage is likely to be much lower than that of a
truck driver.

These could be protected (for a while) if they introduced anti-automation
policies and laws. This sort of short term thinking is right up the republican
street.

~~~
ssharp
It's just speculation that he'd be anti-automated vehicles. I agree with you
in regards to environmental protection but you can't extrapolate that into
thinking Trump will be against everything you're in favor of.

Until Trump proves otherwise, I'll continue to think he's not going to act
like current Republican leadership, because he didn't act like that during the
primary or general election and his platform doesn't line-up with someone who
would be against self-driving vehicles.

~~~
pavlov
We just don't know yet. His public talks have been to a white blue-collar
audience, so if you take the things he's said there to represent his platform,
then it's pretty clear that he's not in favor of replacing drivers with
automation.

But what is he saying in private to people like Peter Thiel? We have no
idea... And amusingly, Hillary was heavily criticized by Trump proponents for
stating the obvious about public vs. private stances. Every bit of Hillary's
private talks was dug up, but we know essentially nothing about Trump's real
intentions. (Maybe Wikileaks could get on the case? Hah.)

~~~
ssharp
He's largely talked about tax breaks and trade reform to encourage more
companies to bring things back to the U.S. that are currently done overseas. I
don't recall him ever talking about eliminating technology that replaces human
labor. I think it's way too big of a leap to speculate on that until he shows
signs of moving in that direction.

There's a lot to dislike about him and I don't think it's fair to speculate on
positions of his he's given no evidence to merit speculation on.

~~~
shanusmagnus
This interpretation is stunning to me. The Trump base is not savvy Republican
mucky-mucks -- it's _exactly_ the people who would be directly and immediately
impacted (for the worse) by these technologies. It's a very clear path from
"Tesla, Google, and Uber created automated trucking technology that eliminated
2.3 million jobs" to "Donald Trump did nothing to stop the destruction of 2.3
million jobs."

One might make subtler arguments about how this (and much) technology
indirectly benefits all of civilization in myriad ways, even in the face of
causal fallout like that mentioned above, but we have not one scrap of
evidence that subtle arguments will either be employed or considered.

------
angry_octet
People are buying more trucks and SUVs and fewer small cars?

I mean, I get that people are climate change deniers, but there is no need to
be rude about it.

~~~
greggman
Im sure this is a dumb question but why are your energy wasteful activities ok
but others' are not?

Who gets to decide that? Maybe you flew 5hrs somewhere and your jet fuel
environmental damage ends up being larger for the year than the suv driver who
didn't make any long distance trips

I think this points to a basic issue. The only way forward is progress like
Tesla and Impossible Foods and not in some elites choosing which wasteful
activities are ok and which aren't

~~~
rtpg
The difference between driving an SUV in towns and taking a flight is that
there aren't many more fuel-efficient ways to cross the pacific.

Agree with the sentiment, though. We all want to make improvements. The
strongest way to cut waste probably is less around making our current
lifestyles cleaner (electric cars, easier to grow food), and more around
making our lifestyles themselves cleaner (walkable cities, stop eating as
much, or as much meat).

EDIT: Yeah, maybe I shouldn't ever cross the Pacific. It is a luxury in
itself.

~~~
msandford
Sail across the Pacific! I mean it's incredibly slow but guilt free, if you
buy a used boat.

Yes I know it's impractical advice but it's technically not wrong and
hopefully also funny.

~~~
artmageddon
Pros:

-Lots of fun, at least for a little while

Cons:

-Perhaps increased possibility of not making it across

-Would have to quit your job(maybe file this one under 'pro' instead?)

------
sfifs
India actually uses a rather simple strategy to keep car jobs. We simply tax
all car imports at 100%. Full car kit imports that need to be assembled in
India are taxed at a lower rate and companies that manufacture and setup local
supply chains get tax concessions. Guess how global car manufacturers respond.

In a labor heavy supply chain like car manufacturing, it still boggles my mind
why major consumer markets like the US would allow easy car imports at all.

~~~
kylehotchkiss
American lawmakers love their German cars :D

------
willyph
These layoffs are simply part of the cyclical nature of the automotive
industry and the continual flux of consumer preferences.

------
phmagic
Interesting, little is mentioned of re training workers for their new products

~~~
ssharp
The factory that makes the Cruze is set up to make the Cruze and it will
continue to make Cruzes, just 16 hours a day instead of 24.

They might be able to work in another model on the same platform as the Cruze
but they can't build Cruzes for 16 hours a day and then switch to building
trucks.

GM does typically offers reassignments but maybe workers expect to be called
back at some point.

------
greenpizza13
If Trump doesn't do anything about this will they finally believe he's not
really interested in anything but their votes and money?

------
test1235
> is a response to what the company believes will be a continued shift from
> cars to crossovers and trucks.

What's a 'crossover'?

~~~
loudmax
Newer model Subaru Outback is a good example. It looks something like an SUV,
but the shape shows that it descended from a station wagon, not a pickup
truck.

~~~
ssharp
Almost all SUV's are crossovers these days, including the three row ones.
There are still some on truck frames like the Suburban but the market has
almost entirely shifted. I assume they're cheaper to build that way, lighter,
and also drive more like a car than a truck.

~~~
RankingMember
I think the big reason we see more unibody SUVs/trucks is that people don't
need the body-on-frame rigidity as much as the automaker needs to meet CAFE
standards (in the US at least).

------
simonswords82
This news is obviously important and shows a key trend in the vehicle industry
but dailymail is utter garbage as a news source and in no way trustworthy for
facts.

Would recommend truth seekers visit one of the following:

[http://fortune.com/2016/11/09/general-motors-layoffs-ohio-
mi...](http://fortune.com/2016/11/09/general-motors-layoffs-ohio-michigan/)

or

[http://www.reuters.com/article/us-generalmotors-layoffs-
idUS...](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-generalmotors-layoffs-
idUSKBN13431E)

~~~
FuNe
I agree and sorry for linking to dm piece (I'll be more careful next time). I
see though the link was changed - not by me though (you cannot change a link
after submission which would be handy). Also it would be more
appropriate/accurate as it now appears that I submitted a link which I
actually did not.

@HN admin

