Green Edge 10: Can Government Create Green Jobs?
I propose that the Mayor of New York should spend the money and time to convene meetings of green thinkers and entrepreneurs to launch new businesses.
I propose that the Mayor of New York should spend the money and time to convene meetings of green thinkers and entrepreneurs to launch new businesses.
Recently, I sat down with the Minnesota Vikings' Adrian Peterson. Peterson's athletic accomplishments are remarkable; however, not for his records, but rather for the adversity he's overcome.
Obama says he wants to address the immediate economic crisis in a way that supports long term goals. If one of those goals is reducing gender inequality, then universal pre-k education might be a good place to start.
Can you imagine having to explain that you're unemployed to the people you see only once a year?
In 1999 you may have been flooded with opportunities, but now the emphasis has shifted to your proactive efforts. Sure it's going to be more work but the results will be worth it.
Ten months of heavy job losses left places the end of terrible job losses somewhere next summer. And that assumes we'll see a rate of job destruction on par with the worst rate of the last 60 years.
Even more disturbing than the inaccuracy of the attacks against working people is the premise on which they are based.
You've probably heard claims about those inefficient UAW members supposedly making $70 an hour, including benefits, making unions the prime culprit in the failures of the Big 3 automakers. But it's all a big lie.
Yesterday, joined by San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed and Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums, I announced a nine-step policy plan for transforming the Bay Area into the "Electric Vehicle (EV) Capital of the U.S."
Think your are helping the economy by buying some holiday gifts? Instead of giving more stuff to your relatives and friends that they don't need, d...
I am proud and slightly flummoxed to say that I do not (as yet) have a criminal record. On the advice of my attorney, who is in jail, I can't say anything except that I am disappointed I recently wasn't chosen for jury duty.
Though Obama's plan feels right on the surface, for me it raises two questions: "Which Main Streets?" and "Who gets those jobs?"
Especially since I posted two months ago the "silver lining" news about small business still hiring in September, and then last month about small business jobs dropping in October, seems like this was probably inevitable.
A recent CNN article explains well why a growing number of companies use brainteasers and logic puzzles of a type called "guesstimations" during job i...
Going out of your way not only to thank, but to materially help peers and subordinates is the foundation of what great leaders do.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The logically correct thing is to let GM fail. It will make Ford immediately profitable because they will capture most of GM's business. Chrysler get's a fighting chance. The whole operation costs exactly nothing. And if GM goes through a bankruptcy, some of it might even emerge on the other side of that.
A total win-win-win, a choice the US did not have in years. And we are so blind that most people can't even see it.
What about the fact that Ford will most likely be unable to build cars because they share suppliers, and most of the suppliers could not continue to sat in business if they lost half their orders. It's a complicated situtation, and it might be cheaper to bail out GM then let them die.
To answer Mr. Moore's question as to ""Why would we give them 18 billion when their total value is $3 billion."
This is because GM's revenue for the last twelve months is 165.5 billion dollars. It's market capitalization does not translate to the cost of the company.
Also, please don't make the assumption that green cars = successful car company. Too many people seem to think that all Detroit has to do is made all hybrids or all electric cars and they'll be saved. The problem with that is as of yet, no hybrid or electric car has been profitable. Many automotive experts believe even the Prius is still losing money for Toyota. There seems to be evidence of that since Toyota actually sold fewer Prius in the US this year than last and that November sales of the Prius tanked by 48%.
The way to save an floundering auto company is not by forcing them to sell cars that do not make money.
The Prius is highly profitable, which you can see immediately when you take a look under the hood. There is nothing supercalifragilisticexpealidocious in there. Toyota is just too good a player, so they don't want to admit it. Because if they did, everyone would try to take that part of their business away. Toyota makes fewer of them now because they saw the sales drop coming. They know who bought the car for the green image sake and who bought it out of desperation over gas prices. Look at their pricing policy. They won't give it to you for free or at a loss like most other companies will with most models (especially SUVs). They know that the hard core Prius owner will buy the car no matter what. So they just cut back on production and keep the line profitable. It's called supply and demand. If demand is down, you cut supply. And if that does not convince you, look at their original exponential production schedule. It will tell you how many they expected to sell. One does not scale up like that on a loss leader (at least Japanese companies do not).
But I agree... it would take ten years for any American hybrid to be as successful as the Prius. And that's just not enough by two orders of magnitude to save GM or anybody else.
What evidence do you have that they are profitable, let alone "highly profitable"?
They would scale up on them if the CAFE credit they get from the Prius helps offset the hit they were going to take from the 200,000-a-year truck plant they opened.
The fact still remains that GM is a failed company running on fumes. If the management really wanted to be competitive they should have cut models, dealerships and while increasing mileage annually. They did none of these things. In fact when approached by members of the actors guilde to do free advertisments for green engergy cars GM said not interested. These men are not managers and if we keep giving them money it will keep being wasted. ENOUGH
T the very least GM should consolidate the number of models in a major way. There is so much overlap. Then they should green the entire offering that is left.
Amen!
There is unfortunately a barrier to this. When GM shutter Oldsmobile a few years ago, it cost them billions of dollars, mainly because of laws to protect dealerships. (These are the same laws that prevent online shopping for new cars). These laws would need to be changed in order to shed brands, because GM certainly doesn't have the cash to settle the dealership problem.
Talk about magical thinking here. So if we allow online new car sales GM's business will look better?
Right.