Stubborn Facts: The Gun Industry Employs Twice as Many Americans as GM

[RugersGR8]

Does Obama really want to kill that many J-O-B-S?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/26/nr-draft-how-important-are-guns-to-the-u-s-economy-for-starters-the-firearms-industry-employs-twice-as-many-americans-as-bailed-out-gm/
Stubborn Facts: The Gun Industry Employs Twice as Many Americans as GM (and That’s Just the Beginning)
Mar. 26, 2013 8:59am Glenn Hall

 

[ChuckC]

Obviously to big to fail then.

 

[WessonOil]

My guess is that not a very large percentage of gun manufacturers voted for Obama, therefore he can afford to let them be unemployed as it doesn't really affect his voter base.

However, if he was to outlaw alcohol and tobacco, both of which kill more children and Americans than guns, he'd stand to lose a lot of votes and probably an election, or a lot of seats in Congress.

Hussein Obama, Feinstein, Schumer, etc., only worry about saving the lives of Americans when it doesn't affect those who vote for his party.

It's that simple.

 

[SoonerP226]

The only problem I have with the article is that they consider the entire gun manufacturing industry, but they only consider GM's workforce, which is like comparing apples and fruit baskets. The workforces of the auto makers are just the tip of a very large iceberg; the automakers' suppliers are very tightly integrated into their production processes. Unlike Colt, which could, essentially, go from raw materials to finished products, the auto makers can't produce vehicles without their suppliers. There are some assemblies in your car that the manufacturer never saw until they were delivered to the assembly plant ready to be shoved into vehicles. That's why everyone was so keen on keeping GM and Chrysler afloat--losing either (or both) of them would have taken down the majority of the supplier base, as well, which would have brought all auto manufacturing to a halt within weeks. Some research indicated that it would have been years before you saw any of the remaining automakers build a car in the US if GM (in particular) had folded.

 

[n2sooners]

The only problem I have with the article is that they consider the entire gun manufacturing industry, but they only consider GM's workforce, which is like comparing apples and fruit baskets. The workforces of the auto makers are just the tip of a very large iceberg; the automakers' suppliers are very tightly integrated into their production processes. Unlike Colt, which could, essentially, go from raw materials to finished products, the auto makers can't produce vehicles without their suppliers. There are some assemblies in your car that the manufacturer never saw until they were delivered to the assembly plant ready to be shoved into vehicles. That's why everyone was so keen on keeping GM and Chrysler afloat--losing either (or both) of them would have taken down the majority of the supplier base, as well, which would have brought all auto manufacturing to a halt within weeks. Some research indicated that it would have been years before you saw any of the remaining automakers build a car in the US if GM (in particular) had folded.

I think it's because they deemed GM too big to fail, but they are ready to take down nearly the entire gun industry. And the gun industry also effects other markets. Magpul pulling out of Colorado is going to negatively effect their plastics industry, and that is a relatively small company.

It wasn't the entire auto industry, it was just GM and Chrysler. And GM and Chrysler wouldn't have gone away completely. They would have just gone through bankruptcy (which they did anyway) but it would have gone according to the law with investors being in line first and the American taxpayers not being on the hook for billions of dollars to bail out the auto unions. Fact is, it wasn't a bailout of the auto industry at all, it was a bailout of the auto unions and we got stuck with the tab. Ford didn't participate in the bailouts and is doing fine, Chrysler is no longer a US company, and many 'foreign' automobiles are manufactured here in the US. A little off topic, but they are willing to stick it to the taxpayers to save the unions but when it comes to the gun industry, jobs suddenly aren't so important.

 

[SoonerP226]

It wasn't the entire auto industry, it was just GM and Chrysler. And GM and Chrysler wouldn't have gone away completely. They would have just gone through bankruptcy (which they did anyway) but it would have gone according to the law with investors being in line first and the American taxpayers not being on the hook for billions of dollars to bail out the auto unions. Fact is, it wasn't a bailout of the auto industry at all, it was a bailout of the auto unions and we got stuck with the tab. Ford didn't participate in the bailouts and is doing fine, Chrysler is no longer a US company, and many 'foreign' automobiles are manufactured here in the US. A little off topic, but they are willing to stick it to the taxpayers to save the unions but when it comes to the gun industry, jobs suddenly aren't so important.

Without intervention by the US Gov't, GM and Chrysler would have folded; the credit markets were frozen, and certainly wouldn't have provided the multi-billion loans that GM and Chrysler needed to go through a "prepack" Chapter 11 reorganization. Without those loans, they were very likely looking at a Chapter 7 liquidation; if that had happened, the interconnected nature of the supplier networks would have brought the entire industry to a screeching halt. Ford's own estimate was that they would have been forced to close plants within two weeks due to a lack of parts--that's why Alan Mulally went to the Hill with the CEOs of GM and Chrysler.

Don't get me wrong--I think we would have been better served by the Feds guaranteeing the loans for GM and Chrysler (bullying the banks into taking them if necessary) and allowing the Chapter 11 process to happen the way it's supposed to happen, rather than taking an ownership position, providing the loans directly, and screwing with the bankruptcy process, but without some involvement by the Feds, things were headed for a big catastrophic mess (even the GOP saw that--Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) came up with the pre-packaged bankruptcy plan that the Dimocrats bastardized into what happened). It was primarily a problem of timing--if GM and Chrysler had figured out their problems earlier (or at all, but that's another discussion), they could've done something while the credit markets were still fully functional, and gov't involvement could have been avoided. (That's what saved Ford--Bill Ford realized that he was in over his head and hired a capable leader; the best thing Alan Mulally had going for him, after his innate leadership skills, was timing--he was able to arrange lines of credit for Ford while the credit markets were still functioning.)

In the end, I do agree that they were willing to bail out GM and Chrysler primarily because of the union votes, but I don't think it would matter if every shop in the firearms industry were unionized--the hoplophobes have such an irrational fear of firearms that I doubt they'd care about the employment impacts if they even gave them any thought at all (which I'm pretty sure they don't).

 

[NikatKimber]

Without intervention by the US Gov't, GM and Chrysler would have folded; the credit markets were frozen, and certainly wouldn't have provided the multi-billion loans that GM and Chrysler needed to go through a "prepack" Chapter 11 reorganization. Without those loans, they were very likely looking at a Chapter 7 liquidation; if that had happened, the interconnected nature of the supplier networks would have brought the entire industry to a screeching halt. Ford's own estimate was that they would have been forced to close plants within two weeks due to a lack of parts--that's why Alan Mulally went to the Hill with the CEOs of GM and Chrysler.

Don't get me wrong--I think we would have been better served by the Feds guaranteeing the loans for GM and Chrysler (bullying the banks into taking them if necessary) and allowing the Chapter 11 process to happen the way it's supposed to happen, rather than taking an ownership position, providing the loans directly, and screwing with the bankruptcy process, but without some involvement by the Feds, things were headed for a big catastrophic mess (even the GOP saw that--Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) came up with the pre-packaged bankruptcy plan that the Dimocrats bastardized into what happened). It was primarily a problem of timing--if GM and Chrysler had figured out their problems earlier (or at all, but that's another discussion), they could've done something while the credit markets were still fully functional, and gov't involvement could have been avoided. (That's what saved Ford--Bill Ford realized that he was in over his head and hired a capable leader; the best thing Alan Mulally had going for him, after his innate leadership skills, was timing--he was able to arrange lines of credit for Ford while the credit markets were still functioning.)

In the end, I do agree that they were willing to bail out GM and Chrysler primarily because of the union votes, but I don't think it would matter if every shop in the firearms industry were unionized--the hoplophobes have such an irrational fear of firearms that I doubt they'd care about the employment impacts if they even gave them any thought at all (which I'm pretty sure they don't).

My issue is that this isn't the first time Chrysler has been in financial woes. Also, how do we know that they won't both be in the same sinking boat in another 10 years? Then what do we have to show for that bailout money. What's the payoff plan on the bailout funds? At what point do we see the return on that? Also, what says that we're still not headed towards a big fat mess even with having given the bailout?

Not saying it wouldn't have been a nightmare, but before too long, someone would have filled in the gap on vehicle production, and then someone would have had to be providing parts.

 

[SoonerP226]

My issue is that this isn't the first time Chrysler has been in financial woes. Also, how do we know that they won't both be in the same sinking boat in another 10 years? Then what do we have to show for that bailout money. What's the payoff plan on the bailout funds? At what point do we see the return on that? Also, what says that we're still not headed towards a big fat mess even with having given the bailout?

Chrysler had been circling the bowl for years at that point (God only knows why Cerberus Capital bought them from Daimler-Benz), but they're no longer our concern--they belong to Fiat, so they're more like Lincoln or Buick than Ford or GM at this point.

Not saying it wouldn't have been a nightmare, but before too long, someone would have filled in the gap on vehicle production, and then someone would have had to be providing parts.

IIRC, the Center for Automotive Research was estimating that the collapse of GM (and Chrysler) would have ended automotive production in North America for at least five years as the suppliers had to go through their own bankruptcies and (hopefully) reorganizations--and it's not like just anyone can start supplying automotive parts. Aside from being able to supply parts on the massive scales required by automakers (at low tide, they were still selling ~12 million vehicles per year), those parts have to go into assemblies that have to meet Federal (and state) emissions and/or safety criteria.

 

[TerryMiller]

Point is, just like Obama's energy department wanted to pick and choose who was to get government money for green energy, a venture that has failed miserably, Obama wanted to do something nice for the unions to repay them for their support and money in getting elected. Sadly, I wonder if all of the rank and file of the unions would agree with how the unions spent the money from the dues of the workers.

Any business, whether firearms related or automotive, needs to stand or fall on their own merits. Government needs to get out of picking winners and losers, based on lobbying and special interests. Oh, and special interests do include unions of all kinds.

This all gives new credence to the old saying that "I'd rather push a Ford than drive a GM."

Now, to get back on topic to the original post, The Blaze has run a whole series of weapons related articles. See them all here:

The Blaze Series on Guns in America