Nonsense buddy. 'Auto companies' are branches of government which are largely effected by macroeconomics rather than some kind of 'hard work' or 'good decisions'. As you well know, quality of products has nothing to do with 'success'.
It was only neo-liberal economic policies which killed GM and Chrysler, so rectifying these polices is the solution, not closing those branches.
It's actually quite simple: Ford was successful because they mostly delivered products the market demanded. They did so in a cost-efficient manner. In stark contrast, GM and Chrysler mostly delivered products the market did not demand, and they obviously did so without being cost-efficient. To put it succinctly, Ford the winner was forced to help bailout losers. A policy prescription like this that is applied over and over again, and bailing out Chrysler for the second time sends that signal, is not going to lead to pleasant outcomes in the long-run.Ford had problems but solved them earlier. That is just luck.
The results justify themselves. Liquidation as a rule is a destructive process. But let's remember that both GM and Chrysler are defense contractors, which may have something to do with the bailout.
The fault lay elsewhere in decisions by a previous administration and in a speculative bubble not focused on automobiles that went bad. If you have triage and you must choose between giving a liver transplant to a child who has liver problems through no personal fault and some habitual drunkard who hasn't gotten the message by age 55 that alcoholism is a way to an early grave, then which prospective patient gets the donated liver?
The strength of our economic system depends upon people taking reasonable chances. That includes second chances, which explains why we have such institutions as bankruptcy protection.
You will get infraction points for that non-family-friendly analogy. More relevant is an assembly line in which machines set the pace of work and ensure that people can't do spectacularly better than another worker. I understand to some extent how an assembly line works -- and the learning curve for assembly-line work is nearly flat for a very long time. once one reaches the standard. There just isn't much to learn. One has the hand speed and manual dexterity or one doesn't. Assembly-line workers are paid by the hour, and if their work fails to meet a certain standard they are gone. What one is capable of doing aside from working on an assembly line doesn't figure into the pay.
Wage differences on an assembly line within a manufacturing plant generally reflect
(1) training wage versus 'trained' wages
(2) doing one of the more difficult, critical, or dangerous processes on the line
... like being a "straw boss"
(3) having more versatility on the job so that one can be moved elsewhere on the line if necessary
(4) unequal pay due to inability to negotiate effectively for pay.
I question whether the first three cause much trouble. Someone who can be moved from Position #15 to Position #98 in the event that the person usually at Position #98 is not at work that day is more valuable than someone who can't be moved around as needs change. People who can do things other than assembly-line work generally don't stay on such work unless the pay is really attractive.
The fourth cause should be irrelevant. Self-promotion and kissing up to the boss rarely have any bearing on one's competence in most jobs. Employers often browbeat employees into working for less; big employers often have professional staff that know how to scare people into taking pay cuts out of need for the paycheck. Oh, so your wife just had a baby? That may not decrease your competence on the job, but that may have weakened your bargaining position with your employer. And then there is the possibility of discrimination on the job on grounds of gender, race, ethnicity, national origin, etc.
Employers who have any decency avoid cause #4. Those that exploit cause #4 deserve a strong and militant union just to keep them honest.
