Here's a scary thought: GM and Chrysler might merge and the effect would be ... minimal. Unless you're one of the tens of thousands of employees who might be rightsized in the merger, or work in a business that depends on the automakers, or live in Michigan. Up close and personal, it gets ugly. But the fact remains that automakers are not healthy and the weaklings of the herd include America's Big Three automakers: Chrysler, Ford, and GM. Here's my 10-step take on what happens if there's a merger between GM and Chrysler. Remember, the companies say they're only talking.

1. Chrysler-GM becomes GM. Chrysler has been to the altar before, with Daimler-Benz a decade ago, and the results weren't pretty for Chrysler, even if it was called a merger of equals. There's a joke that the merged name, DaimlerChrysler but more often shorted to Daimler, came about this way: a conjunction of the D-A-I-M from Daimler plus the L-E-R from Chrysler

2. GM has good products and technology. As for Chrysler ... GM has some desirable products and great technologies; the Cadillac division is world-class. Chrysler owns one iconic brand, Jeep, and has other recognizable names and shapes such as the Chrysler 300 but it also has too many me-too vehicles. "Has that thing got a hemi?" played better when gasoline cost $2 a gallon. Chrysler was the first U.S. automaker with an in-car hard disk for music, but when one of the MyGig launch vehicles was a Chrysler Sebring, it's hard to get noticed.

3. Good hybrid technology already is shared. To ease the costs of developing hybrid, electric, and diesel engines and transmissions, automakers create basic-research consortiums. That's how Chrysler has access to first-rate hybrid drivetrains. But it doesn't count as a dowry since GM was also part of the consortium, along with Daimler and BMW.

4. Other technology can be re-created. Chrysler was first with automaker-supplied in-car wireless broadband to the whole car, called uconnect, allowing phone, music, video and Web connectivity. (BMW's ConnectedDrive is restricted to integrated LCD displays, and then in front only when the car is parked, and not in the U.S. yet.) But, no offense, Chrysler: uconnect is just a wireless cellular card, antenna, and wireless router.

5. Chrysler builds great minivans (minivans, R.I.P.). The modern minivan was created by Chrysler in 1984 and the company has sold 12 million worldwide. It remains the best and most efficient way to haul kids, dogs, groceries, and lacrosse sticks, but it also screams out "soccer mom" when you see one on the road, so I fear its lifespan is finite compared to the crossover (tall wagon) vehicles. If there's one generalization you can make about moms across America, it's that they don't like being generalized by their cars and they'll buy something else. Also, the minivans of choice are the Honda Odyssey and Toyota Sienna. In other words, in one of Chrysler's core competencies, somebody else is more competent.

6. How much can GM technology help Chrysler? Chrysler's hybrid program is already moving ahead. Chrysler doesn't need access to the secrets of any more heavy pickup trucks or SUVs. Both have diesels (although joint research on cleaner, more efficient diesels would be beneficial). Both have their share of weird, retro cars with finite horizons: Chrysler PT Cruiser and Chevrolet HHR, for instance. On the whole, though, GM does have enough technology to make Chrysler pay attention. And GM would love to extend its OnStar network by another 2 million vehicles a year.

7. Good cars stay, bad cars go. If there is a merger and then consolidation down the line, it won't mean an end to the cars you really want. The Dodge-Chrysler minivans will soldier on (300,000 yearly sales) along with the Chrysler 300; nobody's going to end-of-life the Chevrolet Corvette or Cadillac CTS. But a Dodge Caliber, Chevrolet Aveo, or Pontiac Grand Prix might get a visit from Doctor Kevorkian. Would you miss them?

8. Both covet the other's international business. Even though U.S. sales are soft for Chrysler and GM, they both have strong international operations. That's a plus for both, so long as no international antitrust issues crop up if the two do merge.

9. A great chance to kick out workers, stick it to retirees, and close dealerships. With demand for cars at its lowest level in a generation, automakers need to close old plants, cut capacity, and reduce costs. A merger is a good time to do all this. Sooner or later, we may be paying the health care costs of all the automaker retirees, whose costs can't be supported by an ever-smaller workforce; this may be one of the precursors to universal health care. It may force more dealerships to close at a time when automakers believe there are too many low-volume dealerships especially in rural areas.

10. Asian, European automakers take over plants in the Rust Belt. Maybe. Automakers, especially the Asians, are nervous about being seen as the bad guys here. They're the ones who did sneaky things to the Big Three the past generation such as build reliable cars with good gas mileage, thus stealing away sales. (Honda Civic vs. Ford Pinto vs. Chevy Chevette. Which would you buy?) To atone for the sin of building cars Americans want, you may see foreign automakers establish or expand their R&D presence in Michigan to take advantage of the smart engineers who may come available. Some might even consider taking over existing plants if they can be adapted for ever-more-efficient production and if the plants don't have liabilities such as toxic chemicals in the soil. Any expansion of design facilities would be in California. It is now the world's car design capital. Designers are NOT moving into Michigan.

There's a saying that manufacturing wages for the U.S. are set in the Sun Belt and our minimum wage is set in Malaysia, Vietnam and the Philippines. Chrysler, GM, and also Ford can delay but not ignore this, no matter what the unions and Michigan congressmen say. This is part of a painful change that will ultimately reflect the needs of the U.S. and world economies. Stuff happens.