CNN iReport

      With  the U.S. auto industry failing, what should be done to save it? Many  say we should let capitalism run its course, even if it means allowing  the industry to fail, while others say that the government should spend  tax-payer money to keep this large provider of jobs afloat. Both options  will cause great harm to the U.S. economy. If, however, the government  were to invest some money to make the auto industry into a solar panel  manufacturer, the government would save many jobs and reduce economic  decline.

      Currently,  educated peoples, like the Washington Post editorial, believe that if  we truly are a capitalist state, we should let the U.S. car manufacturers  run out of business. The Washington Post editorial stated “Let them  fail and file for bankruptcy. In the long run, the economy will be stronger  and the workers better off. It'd be worth the short-term pain, which  might not even be so severe (Cohn)”. They contend that U.S. car makers  are too many years behind their foreign counterparts, and even U.S.  citizens prefer buying cars from Toyota or Honda than Chrysler. By 2005,  foreign automakers provided 40% of the auto-making jobs in the U.S.,  paying slightly lower wages to their skilled workers, and thus having  more money to invest in more efficient and more appealing cars (Steve).  When their cars performed better than American cars, more people wanted  to buy them, thus providing further profit and further investment. In  the meantime, American car companies lost customers. This cycle repeated  again and again, but CEOs of U.S. automakers failed to understand how  far behind they were falling. This assessment of the auto industry says  it is impossible for U.S. auto makers to catch up to foreign competitors,  so we shouldn’t waste our tax money to try and save a sinking thousand  ton ship (Steve).

      The  problem with this argument is that if the U.S. auto makers fail, 14  million Americans will lose their jobs. Governor Jennifer M. Granholm  of Michigan said, “The auto industry supports one in every ten jobs  in the United States” (Rampell).That vast increase in unemployment  would move the recession into a deep depression, one whose duration  the U.S. government can not predict. Therefore, this “Let them fail”  solution does not seem viable.

      An  equally vociferous group of experts argue that the U.S. government should  keep U.S. automakers in business in order to keep millions of workers  employed. They reason that even if it takes a long time to make U.S.  auto makers competitive, damage to the U.S. economy would be too great  if millions of Americans suddenly lost their job. Susan Helper, an economist  at Case Western University, estimates that if the U.S. government allowed  the U.S. auto industry to fail, then about 2 million people would lose  their jobs (Steve). At the end of 2008, the U.S. economy was in a deep  recession. 508,000 people were laid off (Mass Layoff Statistics). Were  that half a million to quadruple, the results would be an economic disaster  reminiscent of the fall of the U.S. steel industry in the 1970’s.

      Squabbles  with Unions and poor management led to the steel industry’s failure  in the late 1970’s. The U.S. auto industry’s decline is very similar.  Unions and bad management have heavily contributed to its downfall (KlatooBNikto).  When U.S. Steel went out of business, about 340,000 workers became unemployed.  In some parts of Pennsylvania, one can still see the economic scars  left by the fall of U.S. Steel (Mass Layoff Statistics).

      Still,  as necessary as it is to avoid losing millions of jobs, it would take  too much tax-payer money to continue funding factories to build cars  no one wants. Thus, allowing the U.S. auto industry to continue making  cars very few people want is also not acceptable.

      What  is needed is a solution that retains most of the auto industry’s workers  and broadens the industry’s manufacturing to include necessary and  desirable products. If the U.S. auto industry were to make solar panels  instead of cars, the U.S. population would have better access to renewable  resources and be able to curb the output of pollutants into the atmosphere.  At the same time, millions of workers would keep their jobs and continue  to support the economy. If the U.S. auto industry were to stop producing  cars, then American consumers could buy cars from foreign companies,  for according to the Level Field Institute, “Ford, GM, and Chrysler  sell less than half the cars bought in the U.S.” (Level Field Institute).

      Cities  that used to hold car factories could manufacture solar panels. The  city of Toledo, Ohio was able to revive many of the jobs it lost when  U.S. automakers started laying off workers, by manufacturing solar panels  (Kalyan89). In other words, the county could begin to solve the energy  crisis and the auto industry crisis at the same time. It would, however,  be necessary to educate the American public about the advantages and  long-term gains such a solution offers. According to Karl-Henrik Robèrt,  a Swedish Scientist who majors in energy and cancer, the prices of manufactured  goods are determined by a system of economics called supply and demand.  When many people want something, in this case solar panels or other  supplies for renewable energy systems, the price goes up. If large amounts  of resources, research, or labor are necessary, the price goes even  higher. In the case of solar panels, for example, making solar panels  pushes the supply up. Demand is satiated and the price of solar panels  eventually declines. The lower price makes the panels more affordable,  while Americans become aware that the panels are also a long-term investment  in cheaper energy (Robèrt 178).

      Increased  investment in technology is also decreasing the cost of making solar  panels. Scientists are on the verge of a reduction from solar panel  production costs of $3.66 per watt of electricity produced (the 2007  value), to $2.14 per watt in 2010 (Robèrt 178). With such a decreased  cost of production, the producers can sell solar panels for less and  still make a profit. Even greater reductions may result from the increased  availability of silicon.

      Solar  panels are also getting more efficient due to research in recent years.  In 2008, the best solar cells to manufacture, made of crystalline silicon,  were 40.8% efficient. This compares with the 1999 record holder at 32.3%  efficiency. As solar panels become more efficient, it takes less material  to build a 2000 watt panel, thus reducing the price.

      One  can incorporate solar cells into his home in many interesting ways.  For example, it is possible to create a solar panel roof array that  resembles the top of the Coliseum. Therefore, beauty shouldn’t hamper  solar cell sales, but possibly even increase them!

      Production  of renewable energy sources doesn’t have to stop at solar panels.  It can involve a variety of possibilities including using wind turbines  in open fields or geothermal generator near hot springs. As each year  passes, renewable energy becomes more efficient, requires less space,  and are cheaper to produce in large quantities.

      The  decline of the U.S. industry is causing a deep strain on the U.S., but  the American people can always find benefits as we search for solutions.  If we allow our auto makers to fail, too many people would lose their  jobs, and the economic recession might reach depression levels. We can  not keep U.S. auto makers in business with tax payer money, as that  does not address the underlying problem that not enough people want  to buy American cars. If, however, the U.S. uses automakers’ factories  to build and research renewable-energy resources, 14 million workers  will stay employed and the auto industry might actually begin to make  a profit. This would allow them to repay the government for its investment  and ultimately the American tax-payer and consumer would benefit. Such  a win-win approach, repeated often enough in various sections of the  economy, could go far to help us overcome the current economic crisis.

“Works Cited”