Maybe this will annoy some people but as someone who lives in the GTA, this attitude just sounds like you are saying your investment portfolio is more important than the thousands of people losing their jobs just before christmas.
I know there are big important things to discuss here (such as the bailout that we all know isn't being paid back and overall manufacturing) but my first emotional response is a certain finger pointed in your general direction.
At the base of things, though, GM is looking to make money. If they lose money by staying in Ontario, they do no one any good (not the taxpayers who foot the bill, not the government that transfers money from the taxpayers to the corporation, not the people being paid by the corporation).
The bailout presumes a degree of economic health in the region (and perhaps the country) that may not be there. Being bailed out means the employees are on borrowed time.
Money is the bottom line. Failure is necessary. Jobs are a byproduct of consumption and are not a 'right'. If GM pulls out, there will be other places those employees can seek work. If there aren't other places they can get jobs, perhaps Canada should reconsider some of their business regulations (as regulation suppresses numbers of new businesses).
Depending on where you're from, the individual is the bottom line. Money mediates individual exchange. In the US the Fed has a very specific role. Bailing out companies is not actually part of that.
In fact, if the Constitution were taken seriously any more, someone would have noticed the bit about "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
I suppose this is Canada we're talking about, so the above doesn't mean anything in this context.
>If they lose money by staying in Ontario, they do no one any good (not the taxpayers who foot the bill, not the government that transfers money from the taxpayers to the corporation, not the people being paid by the corporation).
You duplicate your list by listing taxpayers and government, as the government is the repository of tax money. You also assume the government would have to send any money to a corporation. And how would someone benefit from NOT getting paid at a union auto job instead of getting paid?
I know businesses need to make money, but as another poster said, society is the bottom line.
> how would someone benefit from NOT getting paid at a union auto job instead of getting paid?
Because of how the money flows through the system. Instead of products being purchased and driving profits for the company (that then pays the workers), the money comes from the general populous (who get no return for the bailout expenditure), to the government, and is then given to the corporation.
So, the people being paid from bailout money are no longer benefiting the population as a whole, and instead have become parasites that act to divert government money (the population's tax money!) away from the common good.
I understand this response completely. I still stand by my post because to me those jobs aren't lost, but replaced by workers in other countries. I care just as much about Mexicans as I do about Canadians.
I should also note that my investment in GM is very small. My investment in GM went up about 150$ because of this decision.
I know there are big important things to discuss here (such as the bailout that we all know isn't being paid back and overall manufacturing) but my first emotional response is a certain finger pointed in your general direction.