"In the long run, it will be GOOD for the economy.
In a capitalistic society, the obsolete, overpaid jobs need to evaporate -- so that capitol and labor can be redeployed toward more productive work. "
The jobs are overpaid, but they aren't obsolete.
I have no research, but here is my perception, (feel free to correct me if you have contradicting facts): Most of these displaced workers are undereducated. Most have families and bills. Most will not find jobs that come close to replacing their current income.
If you accept those premises, then it's not too difficult to believe that many of these people will end up on welfare, (increasing our tax burden). Another significant segement of these people will default on their financial obligations. (And businesses will pass that cost onto us as well).
So, there you have drag on the economy, without positive impact. And that's good?
I know the government can't, and shouldn't fix the management at GM. I'm just saying this is painful, and it mystifies me how people in America can see this as good?
When these jobs show up in Mexico, and China, and your company has 500k less potential clients, that will be good too?
Protectionism isn't the total answer. GM got it in the 80s and pissed it away. I don't know the answer. But I know this isn't good.
But, for whatever reason, we have 30,000 ultimately insupportable jobs at stake. At some point, they have to go away. In most economic circumstances, it's better to pay the price sooner rather than later. Bear the short-term pain, whatever it is, in favor of the long-term benefit.
It's not the first time a major employer (or industry) has suffered a major dislocation and subsequent downsizing. And, after every one of them, we've still ended up with something close to full employment at healthy wage levels (and a few new millionaires who made the most of their opportunity).
That is, so long as Jimmy Carter wasn't running the show...