The story covered in an earlier post noting GM to build more cars overseas did not get much press. Look for this to change.

A5-8-09 post entitled "Who said life was simple: Under Restructuring, GM To Build More Cars Overseas" didn't get much press, but it did elicit this comment on this blog:

I personally will not buy one of the GM autos if they are allowed to do this. As a matter of fact, I will not allow one to be parked in front of my house. The people who have paid them with their tax dollars should demand that the monies be returned if this goes forward. This money was given to GM to save American jobs, not to lose them.

The post noted:

The U.S. government is pouring billions into General Motors in hopes of reviving the domestic economy, but when the automaker completes its restructuring plan, many of the company's new jobs will be filled by workers overseas.

According to an outline the company has been sharing privately with Washington legislators, the number of cars that GM sells in the United States and builds in Mexico, China and South Korea will roughly double.

As a result, the long-simmering argument over U.S. manufacturers expanding production overseas -- normally arising between unions and private companies -- is about to engage the Obama administration.

[Former labor secretary Robert B. Reich asks:] "If GM is going to do more of its production overseas, then why exactly are we saving GM?"

The administration has aroused similar complaints by shepherding a merger between Chrysler and Italian automaker Fiat. But it has extracted a promise from Fiat that it will build small cars in the United States.

The complaints about GM's operations portend a potentially larger argument, a political dispute led in part by the United Auto Workers.

While paying a U.S. autoworker with benefits costs about $54 an hour, a South Korean worker earns about $22 an hour, a Mexican worker earns less than $10 an hour and some Chinese workers can earn as little as $3 an hour, industry sources said.

"If you are shutting down plants in this country, U.S. tax dollars should not go for building plants in other countries," said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) . . . .

So what does the U.A.W. think about General Motors negotiating a reorganization that could increase vehicle imports from its plants in Mexico and Asia while closing factories and cutting the work force in the United States. Last Friday it sent a letter to each member of Congress raising cain, saying that to qualify for more government assistance, GM should be required “to maintain the maximum number of jobs in the United States.”

Forget it U.A.W. Shouldn't you be happy that you are going walk away with 55% ownership of Chrysler (throuh its VEBA) and the current GM proposal is for you to own 39% of GM.

And you helped bring these companies to where they are, and the lenders who took collateral to finance them and keep them going are getting the shaft.

The Obama administration, for better or for worse, has determined that if it insisted that GM preserve American jobs by shifting production to the United States from abroad, many times more in federal aid than the $16.3 billion in loans now anticipated would be required, and this is just not going to happen.

Sorry U.A.W. As noted above, life is not simple; life might be seem fair.

Personally, I was opposed to TARP and don't like much of what has been done since the fall of 2008 with respect to bailouts. But you A.I.W. are coming out of the demise of these two American icons intact, something perhaps undeserved, but most definitely something you should appreciate. You have no standing to complain.

See story at CNBC.com.