[maxerickson]

It did go under. It's not the same company that was operating before the crisis.

[Aloha]

That seems more of a technicality than a practicality - GM workers in 2007 got a paycheck with the GM mark on them - in 2019, they also get a paycheck with the GM mark on them - the fact that the actual legal entity changes, matters for shit. Also the fact that GM considers itself the same GM that existed also somewhat dilutes this idea.

[jasode]

>That seems more of a technicality than a practicality [...] the fact that the actual legal entity changes, matters for shit.

If I can go a meta layer above this subthread and explain the 2 different conversations happening:

- the gp (maxerickson) comment was responding to "2008 GM nearly went under", and it's correct (not technicality) that the old_company (with its own assets-liabilities) did go under. Not "nearly", but completely went under. A new_company was created as different legal entity with a clean slate to pick and choose assets-liabilities.[1]

- the other replies (Aloha, wil421) are more philosphical "Ship of Theseus"[2] type of arguments

All 3 (maxerickson, Aloha, wil421) can simultaneously be right because they are all emphasizing different aspects of what "General Motors" means. It can be either "GM the assets&liabilities" or "GM the brand, the public perception".

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/11/business/11primer.html

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

[Aloha]

Yes, I was indeed making a 'Ship of Theseus' argument - specifically, GM's obligations to its current and some obligations to former employees was not extinguished by the bankruptcy.

I was also arguing that the bankruptcy was immaterial to GM's moral obligation to 'share the wealth' when times are good.

[maxerickson]

The government dissolved the old company and gave the union a significant chunk of ownership in the new company.

It's sort of a technicality, but it's an important one.

[wil421]

It’s the same company if the same executives, managers, salaried and union employees are still there.

Did they rehire everyone and start their plants from scratch when the legal entity changed?

[maxerickson]

You can read about it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Chapter_11_reor...

The new company had ~23,000 less people (I think many of those jobs were sold to other companies).

[coliveira]

Just because a company reduced its workforce it doesn't mean it is a different one.

[chrischen]

I'd say it's the same company if the same stock holders exist.

[bpodgursky]

Equity in the old GM got wiped out. It's more than a practicality for you if you held shares in the old company -- or your retirement fund held shares.

[coliveira]

Shareholders come and go. This makes little difference for the company.

[bpodgursky]

This is like calling a heart transplant an everyday affair. It's deeply incorrect.

Corporate reorganizations under bankrupcy law do happen, but they are rare, newsworthy, and very disruptive to workers (at a minimum, their pension and health benefits are renegotiated). Shareholders being wiped out is not normal, and retirement funds -- or really, the stock market at all -- would not work if it was.