To read this pathetic article, one would think the Detroit News is bucking for Helen Thomas' old seat. First up:
It estimated most of the jobs — 1.14 million — were saved in 2009 during the low point of the industry's severe downturn. But another 314,400 jobs were saved in 2010, the center said Wednesday.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, it's citing a "study." So what? It does so without commentary. Here's what they missed: It's guilty of relying on the Theory of the Next Pitch.
Assume a guy is on first base. He tries to steal 2d, and is pegged out to the dismay of the fans. The next pitch to the batter, now with bases empty, is a curve that hangs, and is promptly deposited into the 48-ounce Big Boy beer cup of some guy distracted by the bouncing donkey in front of him. "Oh," the baseball uninitiated think, "if only the guy hadn't tried to steal! We could have had two runs instead of just one!" Ah, my baseball-is-like-chewing-aspirin friends, if the guy was still on first base, the pitcher would not have thrown curve! The next pitch, you see, is always determined by the circumstances.
So are the "saved jobs" numbers any good? What we do know is that the legitimate creditors of GM lost a lot of jobs because their positions were given to the labor unions pension funds.
Next up. Now we enter the soft-glove territory:
The government will recoup some of the $82 billion spent on the bailout when General Motors Co. launches an initial public stock offering Thursday . The IPO will allow it to reduce the 61 percent stake in GM that it took in exchange for loans.
We've been told that GM repaid ALL of its debt. The truth, of course, is that they have repaid merely $10 billion. The more ugly truth is that the amount of debt keeps on changing from $50-some billion to $80-some billion.
But notice the touchy-feely handling of information by the DN: government will recoup some; will allow it to reduce the 61 percent stake. The truth is that they have no information. None. What we do know is that China is going to buy about 1% of the company. Expect it to build rapidly to the point where their cumulative votes of common stock will have a representative of the Communist Party of the People's Republic of China seated on the Board of Directors.
And it gets better:
Former White House car czar Steven Rattner said Monday the failure of GM and Chrysler might have been catastrophic for the entire industry.
"Might have been." If my nephew had been a girl, I might have been an aunt.
The article ends on just an irritating note:
In terms of the jobs saved, "we never tried to calculate the number," Rattner told the Automotive Press Association in Detroit. "But I've thought about it since then and I think we could have seen 2 million or more jobs lost in this country in an instant — many of them here, but not all of them here."
"I've thought about it"?!? Rephrased – "I have absolutely no data whatsoever. Nothing. But 2 million sounds like a good number." STFU.
What bugs me about this particular piece of "news reporting" is that there is nothing insightful about it. It lacks balance of any kind. They don't even link to the study they reference. Ah, but let me be fair …
The study blows.
Here's the "data" on the "saved jobs":
The May results estimated that the outcomes of the orderly bankruptcy proceedings would save 1.28 million jobs in 2009, while the current review estimates slightly lower job savings of 1.14 million jobs. For 2010, original estimates (of orderly bankruptcies vs. unsuccessful proceedings) were that 267,300 jobs would be saved, while the current review estimates that 314,400 jobs were preserved.
Yeah, reads like a conclusion to me, too. That's because the "study" is not a study – it's reporting the results of another entity's work: Regional Economic Models, Inc. Here's the overview of their approach:
The REMI model is a dynamic forecasting and policy analysis tool that can be variously referred to as an econometric model, an input-output model, or even a computable general equilibrium model. In fact, REMI integrates several modeling approaches, incorporating the strengths of each methodology while overcoming its limitations. The result is a comprehensive model that answers "what if…?" questions about your economy.
Ayep. Sounds like a marketing brochure to me, too. In fact, as I dance around their website, I cannot find much hard data. That's fine as far as it goes – this is a private group hawking its wares. I get it. But this "study" is not peer-reviewed. It's a guess. Maybe a good one, maybe a bad one: We don't and can't know.
So, Detroit News, look a little deeper before you can dry dumping the leg in front of you. You're pimping someone's private product. That's called "advertising."
