NationStates Jolt Archive

Really? My neighbor just told me, but I looked and looked and looked and looked and I can't figure out where he got that from.


Please tell me it's not true. :( I'm about to buy myself another one.

If it's true, can someone post a link? If it's not true do you think he should do it? Why?

All he did was raise mpg requirements by 2 mpg. On cars and light trucks.

i think he told GM that they must sell the humvee division or not get bailout money.

Its a load of crap. Your neighbor is full of it.

Although I wouldn't blame Obama. Most owners of SUVs have no family members, it's just that one person driving that huge gas-guzzling car.

Although I wouldn't blame Obama. Most owners of SUVs have no family members, it's just that one person driving that huge gas-guzzling car.

While I detest the vehicals, Im gonna have to call BS and ask for a source.

I'm still getting conflicting information here.....can anyone link to anything? (yes, I know Google, I already tried, I might have some form of Google-disability)

Sounds like a load of nonsense.

I'm still getting conflicting information here.....can anyone link to anything? (yes, I know Google, I already tried, I might have some form of Google-disability)

Youre not finding anything on Google because it didnt freakin' happen. Youre neighbor is either misinformed or lying to you.

Obama said it wants GM and such to be more responsible. Thats it. I cant find you a source on what Obama didnt do.

try this article from the wall stree journal. it outlines clearly what the president's plan is.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123845591244871499.html?mod=article-outset-box

try this article from the wall stree journal. it outlines clearly what the president's plan is.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123845591244871499.html?mod=article-outset-box

We should have done bankruptcy first.

Really? My neighbor just told me, but I looked and looked and looked and looked and I can't figure out where he got that from.


Please tell me it's not true. :( I'm about to buy myself another one.

If it's true, can someone post a link? If it's not true do you think he should do it? Why?

He should. He won't. He hasn't.

I for one applaud the decision and shall now offer rides in my rather large 80s Chevrolet 3/4 ton for Americans who wish to see and experience what it meant to go big or go home. Just make your way to Canada with cash in hand please...

We should have done bankruptcy first.
bankruptcy screws the suppliers.

bankruptcy screws the suppliers.

It also would have divided GM's good and bad assets. the whole bailout wasnt about the suppliers anyways. It was about getting the votes of UAW workers.

It also would have divided GM's good and bad assets. the whole bailout wasnt about the suppliers anyways. It was about getting the votes of UAW workers.
uh huh

obama isnt running for election.

uh huh

obama isnt running for election.

The 1st bail out was done by Bush just before the election.
To keep the auto workers from voting 100% democrat instead of the normal 90%.

Any subsequent bail outs have just been to hopefully get a return on the previous bailouts.

Wow, it's amazing how quickly people will believe the worst.

I think it's good that Obama is going to [hopefully] let the auto makers go bankrupt. They need to do so in order to re-negotiate their contracts with the labor unions that are limiting their competitiveness and keeping them from being productive and profitable. Obama is gonna piss off a shitload of democrat-voting union dudes, but its the right thing to do. The union people are being selfish morons.

The union people are being selfish morons.

I have this strange feeling that its not the unionized workers who are being the selfish ones.

When a CEO gets $20 million for getting shitcanned, I have a hard time seeing workers making a decent living as greedy.

When a CEO gets $20 million for getting shitcanned, I have a hard time seeing workers making a decent living as greedy.
A CEO being selfish does not exclude selfishness at the union level too. Why would it? The difference is that the unions caused the ridiculously high level of wages for low skilled factory workers in auto-America that hinder the auto-companies and renders them incapable of competing with foreign auto companies who pay lower, more acceptable wages for low-skilled factory workers. Unions forcing wages for low skill level jobs to rise does nothing but hurt the company over all. Instead, people should aquire a marketable skill and advance onto a higher paying job instead of except to make a ridiculous, union induced, living off being an assembly line worker.
I have this strange feeling that its not the unionized workers who are being the selfish ones.
See above.

I was going to get a Jeep, cause I wanted to be taller and have a little more power/headroom than my Hyundai Accent...

I figured it was the perfect size to get more room, but not sacrifice maneuverability...

However, I then found out that everyone wants an arm and a leg for them, and they have horrible gas-mileage...

Im thinking of getting a Jetta instead...

I have a cross-over. If you check out all the parking lots all over New York. That is all you see SUV and cross overs.

I am okay with making them more fuel efficient but lets face it they are selling. people like the power, view of the road, storage, comfort.

Very few people need a truck or a van either unless you use it to work with but why mess with what is selling?

I was going to get a Jeep, cause I wanted to be taller and have a little more power/headroom than my Hyundai Accent...

I figured it was the perfect size to get more room, but not sacrifice maneuverability...

However, I then found out that everyone wants an arm and a leg for them, and they have horrible gas-mileage...

Im thinking of getting a Jetta instead...


Nothing handles like a Jeep. You know you are riding in a Jeep. Not exactly built for comfort but a very sturdy vehicle. Sorry brings back memories from the military.

A CEO being selfish does not exclude selfishness at the union level too. Why would it? The difference is that the unions caused the ridiculously high level of wages for low skilled factory workers in auto-America that hinder the auto-companies and renders them incapable of competing with foreign auto companies who pay lower, more acceptable wages for low-skilled factory workers. Unions forcing wages for low skill level jobs to rise does nothing but hurt the company over all. Instead, people should aquire a marketable skill and advance onto a higher paying job instead of except to make a ridiculous, union induced, living off being an assembly line worker.


Value of CEO compensation, in one year:

"General Motors' says it gave Chief Executive Rick Wagoner compensation valued at $14.9 million last year for leading a company that lost $30.9 billion and is running on government loans."

http://www.cnbc.com/id/29530270

Estimated compensation of average GM worker - about $73 per hour.

So - one CEO makes 204,000 worker-hours - or approximately as much as 100 of those union workers that you are pretending are the death of the company.

Value of CEO compensation, in one year:



http://www.cnbc.com/id/29530270

Estimated compensation of average GM worker - about $73 per hour.

So - one CEO makes 204,000 worker-hours - or approximately as much as 100 of those union workers that you are pretending are the death of the company.

BUt, but, BUT....REAGANONICZ!!!!

Value of CEO compensation, in one year:



http://www.cnbc.com/id/29530270

Estimated compensation of average GM worker - about $73 per hour.

So - one CEO makes 204,000 worker-hours - or approximately as much as 100 of those union workers that you are pretending are the death of the company.

Clearly it is the fault of the unions.

I have a cross-over. If you check out all the parking lots all over New York. That is all you see SUV and cross overs.

I am okay with making them more fuel efficient but lets face it they are selling. people like the power, view of the road, storage, comfort.

Very few people need a truck or a van either unless you use it to work with but why mess with what is selling?

They're not. What's selling (http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/daily-news/080604-Honda-Civic-Now-America-s-Best-Selling-Vehicle/), not what you're noticing, but what actually has the numbers, are the Honda Civic, Toyota Camry, Toyota Corolla, and Honda Accord even beating out the F-series truck in May of last year that not only sells a wide variety of itself to individual customers but as a fleet/work trucks. What's selling for GM is cars like the Aveo, Vibe, Cobalt, and Malibu (good lord, people buy Malibus on purpose...I mean, how many of these can Avis and Enterprise be buying?).

In the final tally (http://www.autoblog.com/photos/top-ten-best-selling-vehicles-in-2008/) the F-series and Silverado, bulstered by the fact that those brands represent a wide range of trucks that again includes fleet trucks top the list. But of the ten, the closest thing to an SUV is the Honda CR-V. Anything that isn't also a tow truck etc. is a mid-sized to compact car, including again Accord, Civic, Corolla, and Altima. And the Impala.

So no, it does not seem like they are 'messing with what is selling.' Only with what you appear to be selectively noticing.

*snip*

Yeah, Im willing to bet as far as those SUV's what not, the majority is within 7-15 years old...

Problem is, a shit-load of people Bought SUV's, but they are not and have not been whats selling for the past few years...

Value of CEO compensation, in one year:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/29530270

Estimated compensation of average GM worker - about $73 per hour.

So - one CEO makes 204,000 worker-hours - or approximately as much as 100 of those union workers that you are pretending are the death of the company.
Well, the union workers truly only hurt the consumer, and themselves. In raising their wages, they increase the cost of consumer goods through increasing the cost per unit sold. Likewise, they decrease the total amount of employment an individual employer can provide. In fact, this is jointly bad for the consumer, as their wages are lower and buy less.

Additionally, if a company is stupid enough to overcompensate its CEO, it simply decreases profitability in a number of manners: it decreases its ability to efficiently meet demand (quality of the product / service could be reduced, quantity produced could be reduced through less employees, etc). There are an array of ways in which it could occur, but in a business environment involving risk, a firm would quickly realise how unprofitable excessive compensation of executives is.

Now, if you socialise losses and declare companies "too large to fail", you set yourself up for precisely that: there is no risk of failing, and thus no incentive to run a profitable business.

Well, the union workers truly only hurt the consumer, and themselves. In raising their wages, they increase the cost of consumer goods through increasing the cost per unit sold. Likewise, they decrease the total amount of employment an individual employer can provide. In fact, this is jointly bad for the consumer, as their wages are lower and buy less.

Additionally, if a company is stupid enough to overcompensate its CEO, it simply decreases profitability in a number of manners: it decreases its ability to efficiently meet demand (quality of the product / service could be reduced, quantity produced could be reduced through less employees, etc). There are an array of ways in which it could occur, but in a business environment involving risk, a firm would quickly realise how unprofitable excessive compensation of executives is.

Now, if you socialise losses and declare companies "too large to fail", you set yourself up for precisely that: there is no risk of failing, and thus no incentive to run a profitable business.
Which is why Obama should let the auto companies fail so that they can re-negotiate their labor contracts in order to become profitable and competitive instead of just staying on perpetual public life-support.

They're not. What's selling (http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/daily-news/080604-Honda-Civic-Now-America-s-Best-Selling-Vehicle/), not what you're noticing, but what actually has the numbers, are the Honda Civic, Toyota Camry, Toyota Corolla, and Honda Accord even beating out the F-series truck in May of last year that not only sells a wide variety of itself to individual customers but as a fleet/work trucks. What's selling for GM is cars like the Aveo, Vibe, Cobalt, and Malibu (good lord, people buy Malibus on purpose...I mean, how many of these can Avis and Enterprise be buying?).

In the final tally (http://www.autoblog.com/photos/top-ten-best-selling-vehicles-in-2008/) the F-series and Silverado, bulstered by the fact that those brands represent a wide range of trucks that again includes fleet trucks top the list. But of the ten, the closest thing to an SUV is the Honda CR-V. Anything that isn't also a tow truck etc. is a mid-sized to compact car, including again Accord, Civic, Corolla, and Altima. And the Impala.

So no, it does not seem like they are 'messing with what is selling.' Only with what you appear to be selectively noticing.

:eek:

Aahhh!! Facts!

Well, the union workers truly only hurt the consumer, and themselves. In raising their wages, they increase the cost of consumer goods through increasing the cost per unit sold.


If you honestly believe this logic, you must be a communist.

Want to see why?

It applies to everything. If anyone makes $n+1 then the cost of consumer goods increases, according to your model. Thus, if EVERYONE makes $n+1, it would lead to a major increase in the prices of consumer goods.

Which would mean that $n+1 wouldn't keep up with the cost of living, so $n+1 would need to be revised, to keep pace with the index... etc.

Logically - the only mechanism that would work - if your assertion were true - is some collective and/or communistic model.


Likewise, they decrease the total amount of employment an individual employer can provide. In fact, this is jointly bad for the consumer, as their wages are lower and buy less.


So wages are lower... and consumer prices are higher... and the buyers are buying less... and the unit cost of supply is increasing...

So - everything costs more, except labour - except that you said wages are ALSO lower, right? So labour DOESN'T cost more, so the unit prices would drop, so the supply price can be lower, so consumers WON'T buy less...


Additionally, if a company is stupid enough to overcompensate its CEO, it simply decreases profitability in a number of manners: it decreases its ability to efficiently meet demand (quality of the product / service could be reduced, quantity produced could be reduced through less employees, etc). There are an array of ways in which it could occur, but in a business environment involving risk, a firm would quickly realise how unprofitable excessive compensation of executives is.


Clearly not - this hasn't just arrived out of the blue - this particular 'market bubble' has been seen coming for years.


Now, if you socialise losses and declare companies "too large to fail", you set yourself up for precisely that: there is no risk of failing, and thus no incentive to run a profitable business.

Preaching to the wrong crowd - I say nationalise GM. There's an incentive to run profitable.

Which is why Obama should let the auto companies fail so that they can re-negotiate their labor contracts in order to become profitable and competitive instead of just staying on perpetual public life-support.
To be honest, it goes beyond that. Obama has already set the stage for substantial harm to the average worker through his bailouts and the inevitable devaluation of the dollar. If companies like GM are so sentimental that they feel the need to retain a plethora of brands that simply do not sell well enough to justify being their own brand -- Pontiac, Buick, etc -- they deserve to fall out of business. Ford, on the other hand, has taken a much better direction. They've sold Jaguar and Land Rover; they're considering selling Volvo; they've cut production, and they've dedicated themselves to better fuel economy and quality while refusing to take further bailout money.

I have a cross-over. If you check out all the parking lots all over New York. That is all you see SUV and cross overs.

I am okay with making them more fuel efficient but lets face it they are selling. people like the power, view of the road, storage, comfort.

Very few people need a truck or a van either unless you use it to work with but why mess with what is selling?

We live in the same area and I drive and SUV so I don't want you taking this the wrong way. If that's all that was selling then GM would be in a great position right now. They have more SUV's and crossovers in the same exact categories than any other manufacturer around. The problem is that these vehicles aren't selling as much due to the lagging economy and the fact that fuel went upwards of 5 or 6 dollars. This is especially true for NYC. We live in an area where the general socioeconomic status is higher than many other places. This is why we can afford to buy these vehicles. We also experience some nasty weather that makes it much better to have something with 4WD or AWD. I think you are generalizing to the greater society what is a regional preference here.

Value of CEO compensation, in one year:



http://www.cnbc.com/id/29530270

Estimated compensation of average GM worker - about $73 per hour.

So - one CEO makes 204,000 worker-hours - or approximately as much as 100 of those union workers that you are pretending are the death of the company.

I think you just put me with TAI here. 73$ per hour to work on an assembly line is damn fine. Hell, I know teachers who can't charge that much per hour with multiple Master's degrees to tutor. I know accountants who can't charge that. Hell, a psychologist with a Ph.D can only charge $100 and hour for their services. Then they need to pay their overhead, rent, etc. I'm not anti-union either as I used to belong to one. Compared to the CEO they make shit, compared to the rest of high school, GED, or less educated Americans they are the definition of opulence.

I think you just put me with TAI here. 73$ per hour to work on an assembly line is damn fine. Hell, I know teachers who can't charge that much per hour with multiple Master's degrees to tutor. I know accountants who can't charge that. Hell, a psychologist with a Ph.D can only charge $100 and hour for their services. Then they need to pay their overhead, rent, etc. I'm not anti-union either as I used to belong to one. Compared to the CEO they make shit, compared to the rest of high school, GED, or less educated Americans they are the definition of opulence.

But, would it not be for the wealthy up top taking so much money, would we not be able to pay the aforementioned more money?

I think you just put me with TAI here. 73$ per hour to work on an assembly line is damn fine. Hell, I know teachers who can't charge that much per hour with multiple Master's degrees to tutor. I know accountants who can't charge that. Hell, a psychologist with a Ph.D can only charge $100 and hour for their services. Then they need to pay their overhead, rent, etc. I'm not anti-union either as I used to belong to one. Compared to the CEO they make shit, compared to the rest of high school, GED, or less educated Americans they are the definition of opulence.

I think you're confusing what a person gets paid, and what the value of the compensation package is.

That's why I cited the $73 figure - that's the compensation package, not what the employee takes home. And - I need to do that so that I'm not dishonest about comparing the CEO's compensation, with the union worker's take-home pay.

Compare that to your psychologist, and you could be looking at a compensation package that could be multiple hundreds of dollars.

I don't know if you're working, much less working in America. If you are - ask your employer tomorrow what the total cost of your compensation package is... and then compare it to what you take home.

I think you're confusing what a person gets paid, and what the value of the compensation package is.

That's why I cited the $73 figure - that's the compensation package, not what the employee takes home. And - I need to do that so that I'm not dishonest about comparing the CEO's compensation, with the union worker's take-home pay.

Compare that to your psychologist, and you could be looking at a compensation package that could be multiple hundreds of dollars.

I don't know if you're working, much less working in America. If you are - ask your employer tomorrow what the total cost of your compensation package is... and then compare it to what you take home.
But do these laborers make $73 or so an hour or not? If not, what?

But, would it not be for the wealthy up top taking so much money, would we not be able to pay the aforementioned more money?

Yes - it has to be pointed out that CEO's are not only raking it in in union companies. If you've got a guy on the line at some factory here in Georgia, where his compensation might only be worth $15 an hour, but the CEO could still be receiving millions...

But do these laborers make $73 or so an hour or not?

Not.

Not.
Don't cut out the rest of what you quoted, snake. Answer the rest. If you're feeling froggy, leap.

If you honestly believe this logic, you must be a communist.

Want to see why?

It applies to everything. If anyone makes $n+1 then the cost of consumer goods increases, according to your model. Thus, if EVERYONE makes $n+1, it would lead to a major increase in the prices of consumer goods.

Which would mean that $n+1 wouldn't keep up with the cost of living, so $n+1 would need to be revised, to keep pace with the index... etc.

Logically - the only mechanism that would work - if your assertion were true - is some collective and/or communistic model.
Haha. If you deny that the costs of production affect price, you have to be living in an alternate world: capital is limited in a private firm, and prices reflect the need to make a profit, as well as the particular product's / service's scarcity and demand.

You've made a bit of a straw man by oversimplifying my argument.

EDIT: Scratch that. Because an increase in wages has to be responded to by a decrease in employment, production decreases and prices rise. The rise in prices mitigate their gains in salary, while worsening everyone else. Some would even be unemployed and without wage entirely.

So wages are lower... and consumer prices are higher... and the buyers are buying less... and the unit cost of supply is increasing...

So - everything costs more, except labour - except that you said wages are ALSO lower, right? So labour DOESN'T cost more, so the unit prices would drop, so the supply price can be lower, so consumers WON'T buy less...
Wages aren't lower, that's my fault. Wages are set higher by the Union. The decrease involved is in employment and production due to increased employment costs. Unit price increases due to less production (ceteris paribus). Considering that unions across the market force companies into wage agreements, a substantial amount of unemployment is caused by these -- and if they force them to hire a certain number of workers at an exaggerated wage, the company will simply be rendered unprofitable. Ceteris paribus, consumers see an increase in price due to decreased quantity (because of decreased production due to the increased cost of labour and subsequent decrease in employment).


Clearly not - this hasn't just arrived out of the blue - this particular 'market bubble' has been seen coming for years.
The market bust doesn't have anything to do with CEO compensation. It comes wholly from low, non-market Federal Funds Interest Rates and currency printing by the Federal Reserve to facilitate it. What appears to be an increase in capital leads to malinvestment by corporations throughout the system, leading to the abrupt halting of those activities when the bubble bursts.



Preaching to the wrong crowd - I say nationalise GM. There's an incentive to run profitable.
Which is why this debate really isn't worth either of our time. I'm done with this one.

Don't cut out the rest of what you quoted, snake. Answer the rest. If you're feeling froggy, leap.

I cut the rest of it because I don't feel like digging around for the figures while I'm on a slow connection again.

Considering you were positining yourself as some kind of expert on the evils of the unions earlier, one would have thought that NONE of what I was saying would have been a puzzle to you.

You're a GOP expert, unfortunately. Your figures are the figures O'Reilly or Rush regurgitates, and reality be damned - which is why you were caught in the cold on the compensation issue.

Wow, it's amazing how quickly people will believe the worst.

Not so amazing if you know Okies.

Kidding... sort of. :tongue:

But, would it not be for the wealthy up top taking so much money, would we not be able to pay the aforementioned more money?

The wealthy who? Superintendents of schools make a pretty penny, but even they have doctoral degrees, loads of experience, and would struggle against that 73$ number. I'm talking about the value of work and the goods or services provided. The CEO is way overpaid and I won't argue that. But so are these workers who really aren't producing enough value to justify their cost. I take a dishwasher and pay him 8.50 an hour. That's pretty dam good for washing dishes. Now I give him 40 hours a week and let's say 5 hours OT for two weeks. He's making $807 every two weeks to wash dishes. Sure you subtract taxes etc. that we all have to pay. Now the dishwashers are unionized. They've forced it to a level where they are getting paid 17/hr and $1615 every two weeks. They are still washing dishes. Now the company needs to charge more for their product (the food). The rest of the consumers pay more because the dish people are over compensated. Now my poor manager with a degree and business sense says, "I work 60 hours a week on salary with no overtime. I make 45K a year so for two weeks I get 1730. Divide that by the hours I work I get paid $14.42/hr. Are you serious that the dishwashers make more then me, work less hours, and require very little skill to do their jobs?" So now my workers are better compensated than my management team and I have to charge ridiculous prices to stay open. Or I can take huge losses every quarter like GM did.

I think you're confusing what a person gets paid, and what the value of the compensation package is.

That's why I cited the $73 figure - that's the compensation package, not what the employee takes home. And - I need to do that so that I'm not dishonest about comparing the CEO's compensation, with the union worker's take-home pay.

Compare that to your psychologist, and you could be looking at a compensation package that could be multiple hundreds of dollars.

I don't know if you're working, much less working in America. If you are - ask your employer tomorrow what the total cost of your compensation package is... and then compare it to what you take home.


No, I knew what you meant. Compensation, healhtcare, time off, 401k matching (haha). I am the employer and I know what the total costs are. In my company you contribute a whole lot more to your benefits than the union autoworkers do. Honestly, even if thy were grossing a little less than half of that it would be extremely high for a job that is not highly skilled. The psychologist probably takes about the same amount away from the initial fee as the UAW workers so in salaried compensation. One is a lot of up front investment and the other is just not.

Haha. If you deny that the costs of production affect price, you have to be living in an alternate world:


Costs of production don't necessarily affect price. It depends on a number of factors, and the extent of the alteration.


...capital is limited in a private firm, and prices reflect the need to make a profit, as well as the particular product's / service's scarcity and demand.


See? Your own 'argument' explains why production needn't affect price.


You've made a bit of a straw man by oversimplifying my argument. The "$n+1" situation would be viable in a ceteris paribus situation with only wages and price of consumer goods being altered. Effectively, by talking about an increasing cost of living your including an entirely different variable which is related to currency inflation. Do away with fiat currency controlled by a single institution and that would not occur.


I didn't 'oversimplify', I simplified. I showed that the assertion doesn't stand in logical terms, by attempting to rebalance your claimed equilibrium, by adding equal value to each side.

It doesn't balance, which means your equilibrium is a flawed assumption.

For starters:


Wages aren't lower, that's my fault.


Yes. I told you that.


Wages are set higher by the Union. The decrease involved is in employment and production due to increased employment costs.


Not intrinsic. You could increase wages and not decrease employment or production. Depending on other factors, and the extent of the change.


Unit price increases due to less production (ceteris paribus).


Again, not automatic or inherent in the claim.


Considering that unions across the market force companies into wage agreements, a substantial amount of unemployment is caused by these -- and if they force them to hire a certain number of workers at an exaggerated wage, the company will simply be rendered unprofitable.


Unions aren't out there in strength in every industry, in every state.

If the situation were as simple as you suggest, there'd BE no union companies any more, because it would have been unprofitable years ago, and non-union alternatives would have sprung up and sucked up all the work.

Once again, someone oversimplifies the production mdoel to the point that it can no longer reflect reality, and then pretends it shows all sorts of things that support their arguments.


Ceteris paribus, consumers see an increase in price due to decreased quantity (because of decreased production due to the increased cost of labour and subsequent decrease in employment).


As explained, not a valid assumption.


The market bust doesn't have anything to do with CEO compensation.


I didn't say it did. Re-read the post.

I said that THIS bubble (the CEO market bubble) has been building to bust for years.


Which is why this debate really isn't worth either of our time. I'm done with this one.

You're 'done with this one' the same way that the petulant frog hopping away from the orchestra is 'done with showbusiness'.

It's cute that you think you were actually 'in' it.

eyes, drooping, need bed. Be back tomorrow folks.

The wealthy who? Superintendents of schools make a pretty penny, but even they have doctoral degrees, loads of experience, and would struggle against that 73$ number. I'm talking about the value of work and the goods or services provided. The CEO is way overpaid and I won't argue that. But so are these workers who really aren't producing enough value to justify their cost. I take a dishwasher and pay him 8.50 an hour. That's pretty dam good for washing dishes. Now I give him 40 hours a week and let's say 5 hours OT for two weeks. He's making $807 every two weeks to wash dishes. Sure you subtract taxes etc. that we all have to pay. Now the dishwashers are unionized. They've forced it to a level where they are getting paid 17/hr and $1615 every two weeks. They are still washing dishes. Now the company needs to charge more for their product (the food). The rest of the consumers pay more because the dish people are over compensated. Now my poor manager with a degree and business sense says, "I work 60 hours a week on salary with no overtime. I make 45K a year so for two weeks I get 1730. Divide that by the hours I work I get paid $14.42/hr. Are you serious that the dishwashers make more then me, work less hours, and require very little skill to do their jobs?" So now my workers are better compensated than my management team and I have to charge ridiculous prices to stay open. Or I can take huge losses every quarter like GM did.
This.

I cut the rest of it because I don't feel like digging around for the figures while I'm on a slow connection again.

Considering you were positining yourself as some kind of expert on the evils of the unions earlier, one would have thought that NONE of what I was saying would have been a puzzle to you.

You're a GOP expert, unfortunately. Your figures are the figures O'Reilly or Rush regurgitates, and reality be damned - which is why you were caught in the cold on the compensation issue.
Oh, pipe down. You didn't say shit. I said they are over-paid, you said they are not, they are just 'compensated' around $73 an hour. You then had ZERO sources to show that they are still not over-paid, regardless of your claims of compensation pay.

But let's dose your seemingly hard argument with a cold splash of reality and render it limp.

Here is the competitive labor cost:

Competitive Labor Cost Comparison
2006 Average Labor Costs — UAW represented (per hour worked)

DaimlerChrysler $75.86

Ford $70.51

General Motors $73.26


U.S. Japanese Transplants Labor Cost Comparison
2005 Average Labor Costs

*Honda $42.95

*Nissan $41.97

*Toyota $47.60

*Memo: DaimlerChrysler estimates

. Or I can take huge losses every quarter like GM did.

Except thats not what happend to GM at all, the numbers have already been stated by GnI, so I need not repeat them...

I made a small joke about about wealth differential...

And you go on to prove the very fallacies of the arguments against the Auto-Workers...

eyes, drooping, need bed. Be back tomorrow folks.
Be sure to check out this post when you drop by tomorrow:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14650721&postcount=51

Preaching to the wrong crowd - I say nationalise GM. There's an incentive to run profitable.

GM deserves to die and be swept into the dustbin of history.

This.


Oh, pipe down. You didn't say shit. I said they are over-paid, you said they are not, they are just 'compensated' around $73 an hour. You then had ZERO sources to show that they are still not over-paid, regardless of your claims of compensation pay.

But let's dose your seemingly hard argument with a cold splash of reality and render it limp.

Here is the competitive labor cost:

Competitive Labor Cost Comparison
2006 Average Labor Costs — UAW represented (per hour worked)

DaimlerChrysler $75.86

Ford $70.51

General Motors $73.26


U.S. Japanese Transplants Labor Cost Comparison
2005 Average Labor Costs

*Honda $42.95

*Nissan $41.97

*Toyota $47.60

*Memo: DaimlerChrysler estimates

I'm not sure what you think you proved. Yes, if you work for a foreign company, you're probably making less out of the deal. And this has been news since.. .when? The call-centres all moved to India? The textiles industry buggered off to China?

Yes, you've got your finger right on the pulse. You nailed me. How could I have not known that Toyota only pays like 2/3 or what GM pays? (is it worth pointing out that their CEO's have the same magnitude of divide, but would only be making like a million dollar compensation package?)

Ah, yes - it's because your cold splash of reality, is to bring in an outside (or, as we say in the trade 'irrelevant') quantity. Because it doesn't MATTER what Honda pays, now does it?

I understand WHY you want to shift the goalposts, I just think it's intellectually dishonest of you to do it.

GM deserves to die and be swept into the dustbin of history.

Conceptually, I agree.

However, I'd rather see a profitable industry employing the same people, but actually working to some kind of planned approach that benefits the economy - than see the whole house of cards just come crashing down.

Which is why I think they should nationalise GM, and repurpose it to produce something useful. Subsidised high-fuel-efficiency cars, maybe. CPG vehicles, maybe.

Something like that.

GM deserves to die and be swept into the dustbin of history.

GM did some amazing work in its heyday, and deserves credit for a slew of great design work. But yeah, I wouldn't want to be them right now.

As for fuel standards, I don't mind an increase for new cars. Just so long as it isn't retroactive. Mine's a '91, and I couldn't afford to have it modernized if the standard increased, the way some owners of classic cars not officially designated "classic" have had to.

Well, the union workers truly only hurt the consumer, and themselves. In raising their wages, they increase the cost of consumer goods through increasing the cost per unit sold. Likewise, they decrease the total amount of employment an individual employer can provide. In fact, this is jointly bad for the consumer, as their wages are lower and buy less.

Unions often increase productivity and the extra wages create increase in demand raising wages and employment for others. Here are some sources. (http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/why/uniondifference/uniondiff8.cfm#_ftn2)

Oh, pipe down. You didn't say shit. I said they are over-paid, you said they are not,


This part isn't intellectually dishonest - it's just plain dishonest.

You didn't say that. I didn't say that.

Revisionist history seems to be a new skill you're refining?


they are just 'compensated' around $73 an hour. You then had ZERO sources to show that they are still not over-paid, regardless of your claims of compensation pay.


Here we are, of the $73 you just mentioned, GM themselves say:

"The average annual cash compensation for hourly employees in 2006 was $39.68 per hour. Included in average earnings are straight-time pay, Cost of Living Allowance (COLA), night-shift premiums, overtime premiums, holiday and vacation pay"

So - almost half of the total package is not-in-the-hand compensation - and the cash in hand includes shift and hour premia.

Is it 'a lot'? Matter of opinion, I guess. The guy who is getting 35 bucks an hour probably thinks 11 million a year is a lot. But that's irrelevent. Is that $35 an hour the difference between the company running successfully, or dying in the gutter? Compared to compensation packages for upper level execs that are in the multiple millions, each? Probably not as much as you'd like to pretend.

Clearly it is the fault of the unions.

Yes it is. Of CEOs' Unions.

Oh wait.

About time, if this is true.

SUVs and jeeps are completely silly and non environmentally friendly. If you have a family with 4 kids, then fine, but if you just want the biggest baddest automobile on the road for the sake of having one, then you should be ashamed of yourself. :(

However, if they somehow manage to make a green/solarpowered/hybrid SUV that produces O2 as its waste product, then by all means go for it! :)

This.


Oh, pipe down. You didn't say shit. I said they are over-paid, you said they are not, they are just 'compensated' around $73 an hour. You then had ZERO sources to show that they are still not over-paid, regardless of your claims of compensation pay.

But let's dose your seemingly hard argument with a cold splash of reality and render it limp.

Here is the competitive labor cost:

Competitive Labor Cost Comparison
2006 Average Labor Costs — UAW represented (per hour worked)

DaimlerChrysler $75.86

Ford $70.51

General Motors $73.26


U.S. Japanese Transplants Labor Cost Comparison
2005 Average Labor Costs

*Honda $42.95

*Nissan $41.97

*Toyota $47.60

*Memo: DaimlerChrysler estimates

How much of this is because foreign automakers only recently moved here so they don't have as much cost figured in for retirement benefits?

The New York Times told readers that GM's autoworkers are paid $70 an hour (including health care and pension). This is not true. The base pay is about $28 an hour. If health care cost per worker average $12,000 per year, that adds in another $6 an hour. If the pension payment takes up 25 percent of base pay (an extremely high pension), that gets you another $7 an hour, bringing the total to $41 an hour. That's decent pay, but still a long way from $70 an hour.

How does the NYT get from $41 to $70? Well the trick is to add in GM's legacy costs, the pension and health care costs for retired workers. These legacy costs are a serious expense for GM, but this is not money being paid to current workers. The person on the line in 2008 is not benefiting from these legacy costs.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200811220004?f=h_top

Arguments that act like foreign automakers won't have those same costs down the line are bullshit and everyone paying attention knows it. If they fired every one of the current workers they would still owe the retired workers pensions, just like Toyota will if they're still operating in the US in 20 years.

Really? My neighbor just told me, but I looked and looked and looked and looked and I can't figure out where he got that from.


Please tell me it's not true. :( I'm about to buy myself another one.

If it's true, can someone post a link? If it's not true do you think he should do it? Why?

Its bullshit, move somewhere better like I wish I could.

He should. He won't. He hasn't.

He could. But if he did, there might be some riots and public outcries, and his next term would probably be lost. There are many things the President will not do because of the anger of a few. If he invaded Iran he would see far more support, which makes me feel a tad glum.

But supposing you were President, and you had a second term to think about: Would you do that?

When I see the government sell all their SUV's and Limo's then I might take a proposal
like that seriously.

He could. But if he did, there might be some riots and public outcries, and his next term would probably be lost. There are many things the President will not do because of the anger of a few. If he invaded Iran he would see far more support, which makes me feel a tad glum.

But supposing you were President, and you had a second term to think about: Would you do that?

I wouldn't make a very good president.

If I'd been elected on Obama's mandate, I'd have ridden it the way Bush rode the mandate he pretended he'd been handed.

Which means no invasion in Iran, and some pretty heavy amendments to pollution and insurance laws, etc, that would have made SUV's (and non commercial pick-ups) such a pain in the ass that people would be setting fire to them in their drive-ways, just to get rid of them.

He could. But if he did, there might be some riots and public outcries, and his next term would probably be lost. There are many things the President will not do because of the anger of a few. If he invaded Iran he would see far more support, which makes me feel a tad glum.

But supposing you were President, and you had a second term to think about: Would you do that?

I could have sworn congress is the one that bans things.

I wouldn't make a very good president.

If I'd been elected on Obama's mandate, I'd have ridden it the way Bush rode the mandate he pretended he'd been handed.

Which means no invasion in Iran, and some pretty heavy amendments to pollution and insurance laws, etc, that would have made SUV's (and non commercial pick-ups) such a pain in the ass that people would be setting fire to them in their drive-ways, just to get rid of them.

A withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, an end to the embargo on Cuba, a creation of Federal laws concerning homosexual rights (without even considering marriage, they are not equal citizens in many states)--the list goes on, and, sadly, if you did any of these things, you would not win a second term.

I wish someone would ban those stupid monsters over here... :(

I could have sworn congress is the one that bans things.

The President is one that controls the pressures, and, in the end, it is he who is either credited or blamed by the public.

Arguments that act like foreign automakers won't have those same costs down the line are bullshit and everyone paying attention knows it. If they fired every one of the current workers they would still owe the retired workers pensions, just like Toyota will if they're still operating in the US in 20 years.

That's just the ticket, though. Toyota won't have to pay retiree pensions in 20 years if they don't offer their workers pensions to begin with, or divest it with impunity before costs get too much. A quick look at the postings on the careers section of Toyota.com, and I don't see any mention of any pension program amongst their compensation package. It may not be mentioned, sure, but I'd be willing to wager that, like most other non-unionized companies, pensions are going the way of the dodo. THAT'S the advantage that the non UAW car companies have. If, in 20 years, they see that the pension program (if they even offer one) is costing them an arm and a leg, they can just shut it down, and no new retirees get one. There's no UAW contract to honor.

If the Detroit manufacturers could just shed their obligation to all those retiree pensions, they'd instantly be much healthier. Not healthy enough, but healthier.

A withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, an end to the embargo on Cuba, a creation of Federal laws concerning homosexual rights (without even considering marriage, they are not equal citizens in many states)--the list goes on, and, sadly, if you did any of these things, you would not win a second term.

Yes, yes, yes and yes. And probably yes to much of the etc too.

Like I said, I'd not be a good president. :D

The President is one that controls the pressures, and, in the end, it is he who is either credited or blamed by the public.

Even the democrats in congress wouldn't go with him on something extreme like banning SUVs. The ones in Pennsylvania and Michigan depend on too many union votes.

Is it 'a lot'? Matter of opinion, I guess. The guy who is getting 35 bucks an hour probably thinks 11 million a year is a lot. But that's irrelevent. Is that $35 an hour the difference between the company running successfully, or dying in the gutter? Compared to compensation packages for upper level execs that are in the multiple millions, each? Probably not as much as you'd like to pretend.

Well.

It's a $25 per hour per person difference between GM comp and Toyota comp.

GM has a workforce of approximately 250,000 people. I know some of those are the execs, but for the sake of simplicity, we'll just assume they're all factory workers.

250,000 * 2080 working hours in a year = 520,000,000 man-hours a year for the whole company

520,000,000 man-hours * $25 an hour = $13 billion in extra compensation costs a year for GM versus Toyota.

Yes, yes, yes and yes. And probably yes to much of the etc too.

Like I said, I'd not be a good president. :D

:tongue: No, just not a good politician (which does not necessarily have anything to do with executive leadership potential).

Really? My neighbor just told me, but I looked and looked and looked and looked and I can't figure out where he got that from.


Please tell me it's not true. :( I'm about to buy myself another one.

If it's true, can someone post a link? If it's not true do you think he should do it? Why?

your neighbor probably 'read' an article like this (http://cbf.typepad.com/bay_daily/2009/01/pull-over-suv-drivers-theres-a-new-cop-patrolling-the-highways-officer-barack-obama-and-his-lights-are-flashing-in-you.html) and jumped to conclusions.

Officer Obama Writes Warning to SUV Drivers

Pull over, SUV drivers! There’s a new cop patrolling the highways: Officer Barack Obama. And his lights are flashing in your rearview mirror as he scribbles you a friendly warning.

Either that or your neighbor heard it from someone else and thus got their interpretation of it.

Except thats not what happend to GM at all, the numbers have already been stated by GnI, so I need not repeat them...

I made a small joke about about wealth differential...

And you go on to prove the very fallacies of the arguments against the Auto-Workers...

GM did take huge losses, in part because their labor and retirement costs are far too high. They made some bad business decisions at the top, but if they can now lower their labor they may be able to do well again.

Conceptually, I agree.

However, I'd rather see a profitable industry employing the same people, but actually working to some kind of planned approach that benefits the economy - than see the whole house of cards just come crashing down.

Which is why I think they should nationalise GM, and repurpose it to produce something useful. Subsidised high-fuel-efficiency cars, maybe. CPG vehicles, maybe.

Something like that.

I agree as well. As a free market capitalist I believe the good shall prosper and the weak shall wither and die. This goes for GM and all car makers.

GM did take huge losses, in part because their labor and retirement costs are far too high. They made some bad business decisions at the top, but if they can now lower their labor they may be able to do well again.

even the CEO's fault I have issues with. It takes years to design a new car (somewhere in the neighborhood between 4 to 8 years).

How was a CEO supposed to predict that gas prices would quadruple, and then when the gas prices came back down the credit market would collapse.

even the CEO's fault I have issues with. It takes years to design a new car (somewhere in the neighborhood between 4 to 8 years).

How was a CEO supposed to predict that gas prices would quadruple, and then when the gas prices came back down the credit market would collapse.

Yes, yes, he was supposed to predict. She or he was supposed to realize that markets change and not marry themselves to behemoth cars that sell only in the US. American cars are beholden to the American markets and have failed to compete with foreign cars on so many levels.

But, nah, it has nothing to do with expecting the CEOs to direct the company in a way that allows them to survive. Obviously, it's all caused by those greedy autoworkers who dared to expect pensions just like the executives do.

Yes, yes, he was supposed to predict. She or he was supposed to realize that markets change and not marry themselves to behemoth cars that sell only in the US. American cars are beholden to the American markets and have failed to compete with foreign cars on so many levels.

But, nah, it has nothing to do with expecting the CEOs to direct the company in a way that allows them to survive. Obviously, it's all caused by those greedy autoworkers who dared to expect pensions just like the executives do.

How could they know that oil prices would eventually climb? That's NEVER happened!

Oh.

Yes, yes, he was supposed to predict. She or he was supposed to realize that markets change and not marry themselves to behemoth cars that sell only in the US. American cars are beholden to the American markets and have failed to compete with foreign cars on so many levels.

But, nah, it has nothing to do with expecting the CEOs to direct the company in a way that allows them to survive. Obviously, it's all caused by those greedy autoworkers who dared to expect pensions just like the executives do.

Actually I was blaming it on oil prices quadrupling in a few year and then the credit markets collapsing (no credit no new car sales).

That's just the ticket, though. Toyota won't have to pay retiree pensions in 20 years if they don't offer their workers pensions to begin with, or divest it with impunity before costs get too much. A quick look at the postings on the careers section of Toyota.com, and I don't see any mention of any pension program amongst their compensation package. It may not be mentioned, sure, but I'd be willing to wager that, like most other non-unionized companies, pensions are going the way of the dodo. THAT'S the advantage that the non UAW car companies have. If, in 20 years, they see that the pension program (if they even offer one) is costing them an arm and a leg, they can just shut it down, and no new retirees get one. There's no UAW contract to honor.

If the Detroit manufacturers could just shed their obligation to all those retiree pensions, they'd instantly be much healthier. Not healthy enough, but healthier.

Toyota has retirees in the hundreds because they haven't been around long enough to have very many. GM counts its retirees in the 10s of thousands. The majority of cost for retirees is in health benefits. And both companies provide health benefits. Toyota's problem may not be on the same scale because they are a bit careful with the way they provide retirement benefits, there problems are mounting. They will have a lot of people retiring in the next few years. People who started with when they came to the US.

It's not an honest comparison when people pretend liek the fact that one company has been here longer and has retirees is evidence that their employees are greedier. It's nonsense. If people wish to compare the benefits packages of employees honestly, they should. But they'll find that executives are quite a bit bigger burden per capita relative to the Japanese companies. The compensation of one CEO can cover the pension costs for the most expensive 1000 retirees. That's more retirees than Toyota has.

EDIT: Toyota does have pension costs. http://investing.businessweek.com/businessweek/research/stocks/financials/pensions.asp?ric=TM

How could they know that oil prices would eventually climb? That's NEVER happened!

Oh.

please link a peer reviewed article predicted dated from the year 2000 predicting a quadrupling of oil prices within 8 years.

Actually I was blaming it on oil prices quadrupling in a few year and then the credit markets collapsing (no credit no new car sales).

And yet, Honda and Toyota aren't collapsing. They must have crystal balls.

And if they do, how can they even walk?

please link a peer reviewed article predicted dated from the year 2000 predicting a quadrupling of oil prices within 8 years.

Why?

The last couple of years are hardly the first time we've had oil shortages and/or price jumps.

Add to that, oil IS a finite resource.

If GM didn't see ANY potential for diminishing stocks and/or rising prices, it was an act of willfull ignorance.

And yet, Honda and Toyota aren't collapsing. They must have crystal balls.

And if they do, how can they even walk?

And Kia are opening factories in Georgia.

It's almost like not ALL auto-makers have tried to ride the same wave, and some fared better than others.

(Hell, even Ford aren't in quite the same straits as GM, because Ford has actually tried to split their revenue streams a little, like competing elsewhere in the globe, where burning the most fuel possible isn't considered a bonus).

please link a peer reviewed article predicted dated from the year 2000 predicting a quadrupling of oil prices within 8 years.

Hehe. I love that. It requires a peer-reviewed article to prove that American companies should have paid attention to the market? Maybe Japanese CEOs are just better. Somehow they managed to prosper when gas prices were low AND when gas prices were high. Somehow they're surviving a credit freeze. And now gas prices are low again and STILL American cars are tanking.

Could it be that when the only reason you can think of to say Americans should buy your car is "but... but... we're American... You're American... See what we did there?"

It isn't just that they're big cars with poor gas mileage. American cars suck. They don't last. They aren't efficient. They used to rule. But we haven't improved our gas mileage in decades. We haven't improved how long the last. We haven't improved ownership costs. They aren't even as safe as a lot of foreign cars. Seriously, what exactly where the CEOs doing in your estimation to improve their marketshare worldwide in your estimation?

And Kia are opening factories in Georgia.

It's almost like not ALL auto-makers have tried to ride the same wave, and some fared better than others.

(Hell, even Ford aren't in quite the same straits as GM, because Ford has actually tried to split their revenue streams a little, like competing elsewhere in the globe, where burning the most fuel possible isn't considered a bonus).

VW is opening a plant in Chattanooga while American companies are begging to be saved. Seriously, Greed needs a map and a compass and a magic shovel to find something worthwhile the CEO of GM has done.

Why?

The last couple of years are hardly the first time we've had oil shortages and/or price jumps.

Add to that, oil IS a finite resource.

If GM didn't see ANY potential for diminishing stocks and/or rising prices, it was an act of willfull ignorance.

Finite resources? No way. No one ever brought up that we were going to have an oil crisis before 2000. Not a soul. Nope.

Why?

The last couple of years are hardly the first time we've had oil shortages and/or price jumps.

Add to that, oil IS a finite resource.

If GM didn't see ANY potential for diminishing stocks and/or rising prices, it was an act of willfull ignorance.

1970's was political was it not ?
The experts were pointing toward two dollars a gallon. Instead we reach almost 5 dollars a gallon. Two dollars a gallon is not worth the expense or time of redesigning the engine(a very expensive and long process).

Finite resources? No way. No one ever brought up that we were going to have an oil crisis before 2000. Not a soul. Nope.

I know! If this was coming, why didn't we here phrases like 'peak oil' in the mid-50's? Why didn't we see those predictions fulfilled in the 70s?

I'm getting that 'liberal bias of reality' vibe, for some reason.

1970's was political was it not ?
The experts were pointing toward two dollars a gallon. Instead we reach almost 5 dollars a gallon. Two dollars a gallon is not worth the expense or time of redesigning the engine(a very expensive and long process).

This shows what you know about running a business.

Don't feel bad - GM made the same mistake.


GM put all it's eggs in one basket - high-ticket items that burn prodigious amounts of fuel... and they did this because they somehow didn't expect oil prices to EVER change.

They dropped a couple of little eggs, but they didn't invest. They fannied around with alternate technologies, but they didn't invest.

Two dollars IS worth the expense of going back to the drawing board. Indeed, even if the prices still hadn't changed NOW, it would STILL have been worth going to the drawing board in the later 90's.

How do we KNOW it would have been 'worth it'? Because GM are biting a bullet that the rest of the world is largely sidestepping.

And it's BAD. This is NOT a good economy. But - apparently - it's killing GM. But not Kia. Or VW. Or even Ford.

This shows what you know about running a business.

Don't feel bad - GM made the same mistake.


GM put all it's eggs in one basket - high-ticket items that burn prodigious amounts of fuel... and they did this because they somehow didn't expect oil prices to EVER change.

They dropped a couple of little eggs, but they didn't invest. They fannied around with alternate technologies, but they didn't invest.

Two dollars IS worth the expense of going back to the drawing board. Indeed, even if the prices still hadn't changed NOW, it would STILL have been worth going to the drawing board in the later 90's.

How do we KNOW it would have been 'worth it'? Because GM are biting a bullet that the rest of the world is largely sidestepping.

And it's BAD. This is NOT a good economy. But - apparently - it's killing GM. But not Kia. Or VW. Or even Ford.

No, no. Seriously, Grave get your shit together. When company tanks it's the fault of the employees. Not the CEO. Never the CEO. CEOs don't lead companies. CEOs just pick a direction and rub their hands together at the mountain of cash they're going to make while laughing maniacally. Seriously, learn to read a job posting.

In all seriousness, I can't take this arguement seriously. Apparently CEOs deserve to make 20 million dollars in a year but they shouldn't actually be capable of making a profit.

The CEO of my company makes about a quarter million a year and he's not going to make a penny if our company tanks. And he knows it. It's a job. That job pays you to make the company prosper. And if you don't. It's because you fucking failed.

In all seriousness, I can't take this arguement seriously. Apparently CEOs deserve to make 20 million dollars in a year but they shouldn't actually be capable of making a profit.

The CEO of my company makes about a quarter million a year and he's not going to make a penny if our company tanks. And he knows it. It's a job. That job pays you to make the company prosper. And if you don't. It's because you fucking failed.

No more to be said, really. That's the nutshell.

I could talk about costs, and unexpected... etc but the point is, that's WHY the CEO is there - to fix shit. If the labour is a problem , the CEO finds a way to fix the problem. If the product is the problem the CEO finds a way to fix the problem.

It gets obscured - because a CEO can - under the right circumstances - fuck-up for a long time, and get away with it.


If the company falls, the CEO failed.

No, no. Seriously, Grave get your shit together. When company tanks it's the fault of the employees. Not the CEO. Never the CEO. CEOs don't lead companies. CEOs just pick a direction and rub their hands together at the mountain of cash they're going to make while laughing maniacally. Seriously, learn to read a job posting.

I apologise. It's one of my failings. I stand corrected, now - a CEO is there to remove excess money and look pretty. Got it.

1970's was political was it not ?
The experts were pointing toward two dollars a gallon. Instead we reach almost 5 dollars a gallon. Two dollars a gallon is not worth the expense or time of redesigning the engine(a very expensive and long process).
I believe the experts were saying $4 a gallon and the president was the one saying that didn't seem likely.

The source of gas had gotten so unstable that some people were able to fly planes into buildings. Even before that Honda and Toyota had introduced hybrid cars that were flying off the lot. By 2001, the only SUV in the top ten vehicles sold was the Explorer, and that was its last year. It seemed clear to consumers that gas was a growing issue, and yet the response to things like fact that used Prius' sold for a premium because there wasn't a six month wait was to reintroduce the muscle car. Seriously, that's about as close to fiddling during a fire as you can get.

Yes...SUVs which have wide margins had a heyday in the late nineties. Seems like companies every where else managed to not ride that off the cliff. Hell, even Ford started paddling before going over the waterfall and at least had the Escape Hybrid before the gun was put to the head to catch up.

I believe the experts were saying $4 a gallon and the president was the one saying that didn't seem likely.

The source of gas had gotten so unstable that some people were able to fly planes into buildings.
.

So Bin Ladin had 9/11 happen to raise gas prices is your contention ??
and like i requested earlier show me 1 peer reviewed journal article from 2000 predicting gas prices would go to 4 dollars a gallon by 2008.

So Bin Ladin had 9/11 happen to raise gas prices is your contention ??

No, it wasn't. However, one of the things that bin Laden wanted was $100/barrel oil as he felt that American influence and compliant Middle Eastern leaders were selling the people short by artificially keeping the price of oil low.


Oh, wait, I'm sorry...he hated our freedomz!!!

I'm not sure what your fascination with a peer reviewed journal about gas prices. Toyota read those tea leaves. Honda read those tea leaves. Volkswagen read those tea leaves. Gas has steadily risen over the years. It seems like a remarkably specific thing to ask for when the only ones not to see it coming were two and half manufacturers.

even the CEO's fault I have issues with. It takes years to design a new car (somewhere in the neighborhood between 4 to 8 years).

How was a CEO supposed to predict that gas prices would quadruple, and then when the gas prices came back down the credit market would collapse.

Because the CEO didn't diversify his product line sufficiently. GM has too many of the nearly same exact vehicles, in the same classes, and similar price points. What happens when you have a vehicle in development for 4 years and by year 3 the economic situation has changed? You can keep going and produce the car anyway...Or you can scrap the project and cut your losses right there. Instead of 10 extremely similar designs lined up for a yearly roll out, how about having a varied line-up? This way if things change you still have a great deal of viable options. It's called contingency planning. We did it in the military and we still do it where I work now.

So whatever went with that Air Car coming to America?

So Bin Ladin had 9/11 happen to raise gas prices is your contention ??
and like i requested earlier show me 1 peer reviewed journal article from 2000 predicting gas prices would go to 4 dollars a gallon by 2008.

It was a bullshit request earlier and it's a bullshit request now. I'm not sure quite what you think you'd be proving.

Do you actually know what 'peer reviewed journal article' even means?

I'm assuming you don't, since you'd know what a nonsense your request was.

Businesses should be accounting for the costs of their products. If they are making a product that needs another essential component, it's incredibly bad planning to not make allowances for the cost of THAT product. Which is why companies that don't even make the batteries for their toys, etc... try to eke the most power they can get out of cell technology that is available.

The big car companies have no excuse for not being prepared for oil prices to rise. The big car companies have no excuse for not being prepared for the value of the dollar to fall. Both these things are historical trends - and the GM approach (cross your fingers and pray it won't happen) was ridiculous.

No, no. Seriously, Grave get your shit together. When company tanks it's the fault of the employees. Not the CEO. Never the CEO. CEOs don't lead companies. CEOs just pick a direction and rub their hands together at the mountain of cash they're going to make while laughing maniacally. Seriously, learn to read a job posting.

As a member of the generation that has grown up with Mr. Burns as our symbol for corporate leadership, I find this entirely plausible.

Have you seen this, Ctoan?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_knx10qDUM

It was a bullshit request earlier and it's a bullshit request now. I'm not sure quite what you think you'd be proving.

Do you actually know what 'peer reviewed journal article' even means?

I'm assuming you don't, since you'd know what a nonsense your request was.

Its only BS because it does not exist. If it did you would be thumping it like a redneck with a bible. Geologist and economist have peer reviewed articles as well and part of their field is to predict the supply of oil and the cost of items.
You are aware that geologist, economist, and political scientist have peer reviewed journals correct ??

Businesses should be accounting for the costs of their products. If they are making a product that needs another essential component, it's incredibly bad planning to not make allowances for the cost of THAT product. Which is why companies that don't even make the batteries for their toys, etc... try to eke the most power they can get out of cell technology that is available.

The big car companies have no excuse for not being prepared for oil prices to rise. The big car companies have no excuse for not being prepared for the value of the dollar to fall. Both these things are historical trends - and the GM approach (cross your fingers and pray it won't happen) was ridiculous.
Yes because big car companies in 2000 could predict bush was going to get elected.
Because they also could predict terrorist were going to fly planes into our buildings in 2001.
Because they could also predict that Bush would invade Iraq in 2003.
All of these things increased Oil prices, and all of these things were completely unpredictable in 2000 (before November).

You are aware that geologist, economist, and political scientist have peer reviewed journals correct ??

I know I, personally, would be delighted if you'd share the titles of the journals in which you would expect to find circa 2000 predictions about the cost of oil over the next decade.

Surely it won't be hard for you to provide at least two from each discipline for us. Hell, given your certainty on this subject, I'm guessing you already have citations for scholarly articles that provide predictions on gas prices like you were talking about.

To blame the UAW is idiotic, the labor unions in america drive all amercan workers wage up, if anyone is to blame its those who live in america and dont drive american vehicals, I see these people as Unpatriotic

That's just idiocy. Obama hasn't outlawed SUVs.

All of these things increased Oil prices, and all of these things were completely unpredictable in 2000 (before November).

You didn't need to know the specifics to know that the price of oil has been on the whole, constantly rising for the past few decades. What few dips in prices there are in the years of steady increases are far and few in between, and often short lived.

Failing to take into account consistent trends when it comes to forecasting future events means you fail as a CEO. There is no if, no maybe, no but. It is a failure of immense proportions, and nothing you've said changes that.

To blame the UAW is idiotic, the labor unions in america drive all amercan workers wage up, if anyone is to blame its those who live in america and dont drive american vehicals, I see these people as Unpatriotic

I drive a Hyundai. It was manufactured in the United States. My mother's Dodge was manufactured in Mexico. Which of us is being more patriotic?

Yes because big car companies in 2000 could predict bush was going to get elected.
Because they also could predict terrorist were going to fly planes into our buildings in 2001.
Because they could also predict that Bush would invade Iraq in 2003.
All of these things increased Oil prices, and all of these things were completely unpredictable in 2000 (before November).

Stop being obtuse. Predicting that oil prices would go up is like predicting the sun will rise. Scarce resource + increasing demand = higher prices. Economics 101. For men who make millions a year to fail to grasp this elementary concept is demonstrable proof of their incompetence. They did not need to predict the exact dates and dollar amounts that the increases would be; knowing that gas would be more expensive as time carried on, and understanding that this would lead to an increased demand for fuel efficient vehicles, is something a 10 year old could comprehend.

Have you seen this, Ctoan?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_knx10qDUM

I have, and have been coveting the hell out of it. I had kind of intended to beg whoever would listen for it when I visited the Autostadt in Wolfsburg when I was there, but when I got there I was overwhelmed... Far better than what Volkswagen had actually planned. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhTXjQ59--g&feature=related)

Stop being obtuse. Predicting that oil prices would go up is like predicting the sun will rise. Scarce resource + increasing demand = higher prices. Economics 101. For men who make millions a year to fail to grasp this elementary concept is demonstrable proof of their incompetence. They did not need to predict the exact dates and dollar amounts that the increases would be; knowing that gas would be more expensive as time carried on, and understanding that this would lead to an increased demand for fuel efficient vehicles, is something a 10 year old could comprehend.

Its not a matter of predicting they they would go up but a matter of predicting how much. The amount was predicting to be significantly less.
For instance producing a smart car in the oil glut of the 1980's would have been a clear to send your corporation to bankruptcy. The demand for that type of automobile was simply not there.
Likewise understanding that the War in Iraq raises demand and lowers supply(hey we are bombing a country that used to sell us oil) is soemthing that an 8 year old can understand.
It takes 2-4 years to design a new car If you DO NOT redesign the engine.
If you do redesign the engine,which you need to do to get the gas mileage, it takes 6 to 8 years to build a new car.

For instance producing a smart car in the oil glut of the 1980's would have been a clear to send your corporation to bankruptcy. The demand for that type of automobile was simply not there.

Yeah, but it's also true that they fell behind technologically, getting a lot lower MPG ratings on vehicles in the same class as their competitors. There's a crucial difference between making more fuel efficient cars and making cars more fuel efficient, and they failed to deliver on either side.

Plus, appearance and performance suffered as the engineering and design departments were slashed to "cut costs" (never mind that the design and performance of the car are big parts of selling it to consumers) and strategic decisionmaking was increasingly concentrated in the hands of the financial side of GM. Of course, when you put that power in the hands of people whose interests lie first and foremost in meeting short-term numbers, you get the kind of lazy badge-engineering and obsolescence that have reamed GM in recent years.

So, apart from the SUV boom (which was more of a "rising tide" phenomenon than any particular success on their part), they were basically living on borrowed time due to the utter inability of much of the company to deliver consistent profits.

Although I wouldn't blame Obama. Most owners of SUVs have no family members, it's just that one person driving that huge gas-guzzling car.The government has no right to tell me what kind of vehicle I can own, if I want to drive a gosh damn tank down my local street I can.:p

Yeah, but it's also true that they fell behind technologically, getting a lot lower MPG ratings on vehicles in the same class as their competitors. There's a crucial difference between making more fuel efficient cars and making cars more fuel efficient, and they failed to deliver on either side.

Plus, appearance and performance suffered as the engineering and design departments were slashed to "cut costs" (never mind that the design and performance of the car are big parts of selling it to consumers) and strategic decisionmaking was increasingly concentrated in the hands of the financial side of GM. Of course, when you put that power in the hands of people whose interests lie first and foremost in meeting short-term numbers, you get the kind of lazy badge-engineering and obsolescence that have reamed GM in recent years.

So, apart from the SUV boom (which was more of a "rising tide" phenomenon than any particular success on their part), they were basically living on borrowed time due to the utter inability of much of the company to deliver consistent profits.


Very interesting. Source ? or you just happen to be an executive at GM?

Its not a matter of predicting they they would go up but a matter of predicting how much.

You know, you keep saying that, but you don't provide any sort of evidence to support it. Show us some industry predictions from the mid-1990s. Show us some proof that it takes 6 to 8 years to redesign an engine. Support your argument.

It also would have divided GM's good and bad assets. the whole bailout wasnt about the suppliers anyways. It was about getting the votes of UAW workers.How does screwing over the auto workers get their votes?

A CEO being selfish does not exclude selfishness at the union level too. Why would it? The difference is that the unions caused the ridiculously high level of wages for low skilled factory workers in auto-America that hinder the auto-companies and renders them incapable of competing with foreign auto companies who pay lower, more acceptable wages for low-skilled factory workers.Incorrect on multiple grounds. Other than the absurd opinions this holds, it isn't the way the auto workers are compensated that has decreased GM's profits.
You do realize that they sell their cars for $2000-3000 less than comparable foreign cars, right?

Well, the union workers truly only hurt the consumer, and themselves. In raising their wages, they increase the cost of consumer goods through increasing the cost per unit sold. Likewise, they decrease the total amount of employment an individual employer can provide. In fact, this is jointly bad for the consumer, as their wages are lower and buy less.All the more reason for the consumer to also join a union to raise their wages.

But so are these workers who really aren't producing enough value to justify their cost.Can you prove this?

Its not a matter of predicting they they would go up but a matter of predicting how much. The amount was predicting to be significantly less.
For instance producing a smart car in the oil glut of the 1980's would have been a clear to send your corporation to bankruptcy. The demand for that type of automobile was simply not there. Or, alternatively, they could have continued producing the electric car they were designing and producing in the late 1990s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EV1

You know, you keep saying that, but you don't provide any sort of evidence to support it. Show us some industry predictions from the mid-1990s. Show us some proof that it takes 6 to 8 years to redesign an engine. Support your argument.

I will get back to you once Jstor start working.

To blame the UAW is idiotic, the labor unions in america drive all amercan workers wage up, if anyone is to blame its those who live in america and dont drive american vehicals, I see these people as Unpatriotic

I don't. Now, if a US company offered a car like mine, I'd likely buy it. Unfortunately, they decided not to invest in things like hybrids until well after other companies were making good money at it. The only hybrids available when I bought mine were foreign.

For instance producing a smart car in the oil glut of the 1980's would have been a clear to send your corporation to bankruptcy. The demand for that type of automobile was simply not there.

AH.

It all becomes clear.

You don't consider the CEOs responsible for anything, because the product they were making met a demand.


I have news for you - any CEO that runs a company on the basis of ONLY meeting an existing demand, has signed his death warrant. You can run a business, day-to-day, on established demand - but to run LONG term, you need to be reacting to demands that haven't peaked.

GM's executive committed the greatest crime possible in a modern business, they were entirely non proactive.

You don't see that as a problem - which leads me to suspect you've never run a business.

Its... BS because it does not exist.


This much, at least, is true.

It is bullshit, because it doesn't exist. You're asking me to bring you god's left testicle as evidence.


Geologist and economist have peer reviewed articles as well and part of their field is to predict the supply of oil and the cost of items.
You are aware that geologist, economist, and political scientist have peer reviewed journals correct ??


Awesome.

I'll be expecting you to present the peer reviewed articles, from 2000 (as you demanded) that say that there was no expectation for the price of oil to rise, or the dollar to devalue, specifically, with reference to 2008.


Yes because big car companies in 2000 could predict bush was going to get elected.
Because they also could predict terrorist were going to fly planes into our buildings in 2001.
Because they could also predict that Bush would invade Iraq in 2003.
All of these things increased Oil prices, and all of these things were completely unpredictable in 2000 (before November).

A couple of points:

1 - What happened on 9/11 was 'news' but it wasn't NEW. Terror is not new. Even the technique of hijacking planes and crashing them, or trying to take down prominent structures with them - not new.

2 - PNAC were publishing in (at least) September of 2000. I'm sure you've read the PNAC "Rebuilding America's Defenses" manifesto? Anyone who didn't have at least a reasonable idea that we might be engaged in the Persian Gulf - and, specifically, in Iraq - was ignoring available data. Hardly a recommendation.

3) You're missing perhaps the most important single detail - the fact that the dollar has been bottoming out for years, which is also not a new development. Rising prices of oil were massively magnified by the serious erosion of the value of American money. For anyone to miss this - given that the price of oil and the value of the dollar follow fairly well established trends - is unforgivable.

For instance producing a smart car in the oil glut of the 1980's would have been a clear to send your corporation to bankruptcy. The demand for that type of automobile was simply not there.
Don't tell that to Chrysler, who at the time developed the K-car and allowed it to actually pay back the money lent to it to save the company after it had relied on big gas guzzlers and lost out to imports like Honda and Toyota.

Or to Honda that developed the CR-X which got around 50 mpg and was one of the best selling cars of its time. But, yeah, sure...sing that song about how they would have gone bankrupt...

Likewise understanding that the War in Iraq raises demand and lowers supply(hey we are bombing a country that used to sell us oil) is soemthing that an 8 year old can understand.
It takes 2-4 years to design a new car If you DO NOT redesign the engine.
If you do redesign the engine,which you need to do to get the gas mileage, it takes 6 to 8 years to build a new car.
First of all, even taking your premise, after 9/11 and the war in Iraq, given the lead time, the only company that developed a hybrid, the Ford Escape, is the only one not asking for money. GM released new muscle cars and still big trucks, expanding lines like the Escalade. The Prius was introduced in 2000 and sold like hotcakes. We don't get domestic hybirds save the Escape until this year. That's 9 years. Even by your standards, that drops the ball.

And perhaps that development time is a problem, because back in 1997 Mazda was down to 18 months (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-19547272.html).

SUVs are good cars. The now-gone Chrysler Aspen and the Dodge Durango are brilliant, and the Chevrolet Trailblazer, awesome - shame us British don't get them!

GM and Chrysler need to build these as they make money - and the fact SUVs are safe.

In Portsmouth, United Kingdom there seems to be a fair few SUVs, usually Honda CR-Vs or Jeep (Liberty) Cherokees.

Chrysler creating the K-car was probably right for them, for GM it would have to be a mid-size sedan equivalent to the Chrysler 300M that would sell well globally.

As for hybrid cars, well, do Flexifuel/alcohol-powered cars sold in Brazil count?

I will get back to you once Jstor start working.

Make sure you meet your own demand for proof of the predicted gas prices for 2008. Make sure you continue to ignore that all the companies but 2 (and most of a third) got it right, because looking at reality really kills your argument. Also, make sure you ignore that gas mileage was better on American cars in the 70s so it's not like they had to come up with entirely new technology. Make sure you ignore that SUVs were doing terrible before Bush was President and before Republicans were telling people the only way to defeat the terrorists was to be totally wasteful.

It's really amazing how absolutely sure that the CEOs bear no fault for the condition of the companies they run. It's especially funny because these same CEOs claim to be worth approximately what a few hundred workers make because they say they make or break a company. I'm sure all the CEOs I know would be intrigued to know they aren't actually supposed to be competent.

Just a matter of time. It will be true. If he can get gas back up to $5 / gal it will help his cause. He already said $5 is not bad. the bad thing was it went up too quickly. He promised to bankrupt the coal industry also.

Just a matter of time. It will be true. If he can get gas back up to $5 / gal it will help his cause. He already said $5 is not bad. the bad thing was it went up too quickly. He promised to bankrupt the coal industry also.

Andand...I heard he's looking for the Ark of the Covenant so he could totally have immortal power, too!

I have a cross-over. If you check out all the parking lots all over New York. That is all you see SUV and cross overs.

I am okay with making them more fuel efficient but lets face it they are selling. people like the power, view of the road, storage, comfort.

Very few people need a truck or a van either unless you use it to work with but why mess with what is selling?
Gah I never got the cross over thing ... it was always so useless for me personally

Cant pull worth shit and gets worse gas milage and is more expensive then a reasonable sized sedan

Just always struck me as a bad compromise