[Hylton]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't start this thread to create an argument but most of these threads seem to end up that way. I was just pointing out that GM seems to be planning on cutting two thirds of their manpower out of the Canadian work force. That is huge. If they can do it now, why didn't they do it a few years ago? They might have actually been able to weather this economic storm had they taken action then. Most companies seem to be geared to full production to make money. Anything less and they are in the red. Let the big three go down and all of a sudden the supplier chain becomes distressed and they start going down. Then the successful companies like Toyota start getting a supply problem. It becomes a vicious circle that spirals outward. I certainly don't know what the answer is, but things aren't going to be pretty over the next 3-5 years for any of us.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't mind using taxpayer money to create long term sustainable jobs but not 850K per job. Suppliers are affected by how many units are produced, not by how many people have jobs. If GM went under tomorrow, they would still be making cars - just under a new organization and ownership structure.

Nobody can expect to have the same job or career for their entire life anymore so if we are going to spend tax payers money, let's use it on retraining people to work in industries that need people. Ever get a drywaller to come in and give you an estimate for taping and mud these days? Geezus!