NationStates Jolt Archive

...or so says my delightful Congresswoman Mary Jo Kilroy, a perennial has-run who finally made it in when Pryce retired.

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wosu/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=1506545

Does she honestly think that the auto industry has a responsibility to provide jobs, and has she totally lost sight of the goal of a business enterprise? I seriously have to ask why the some people seem to get all outraged when companies try to cut costs so that they don't suffer and die.

/blog

Seems to me this politician knows there's little chance of success, but when re-election time rolls around she can say she's the one who fought to try and keep jobs in Ohio...

It's all for show.

Seems to me this politician knows there's little chance of success, but when re-election time rolls around she can say she's the one who fought to try and keep jobs in Ohio...

It's all for show.

More broadly, though, I've seen people express this attitude in all sorts of places, including this forum. That because a company is making a profit (or, in the case of GM and Chrysler, merely functioning) they owe society as many jobs as they can create. It bugs me a whole frickin' lot.

More broadly, though, I've seen people express this attitude in all sorts of places, including this forum. That because a company is making a profit (or, in the case of GM and Chrysler, merely functioning) they owe society as many jobs as they can create. It bugs me a whole frickin' lot.

It bugs me too. You wouldn't demand that an individual person work at a loss, but we see people calling for companies to do it all the time. It's like they don't even think about the fact that if a given dealership were financially viable, then it would stay open.

Car companies don't WANT to pull franchises. They don't WANT to reduce the number of cars being sold. They want to generate as much profit as they possibly can. If a dealer isn't selling cars, then why keep it open and operate at a loss? Where do these people think that money is going to come from?

Frankly I don't see how it could come as a surprise to any dealership owner if his/her franchise is being canceled. The writing ought to have been on the wall for a while now.

Where do these people think that money is going to come from?

It's coming from us taxpayers. GM has accepted $15 billion in bailout funds.

It's coming from us taxpayers. GM has accepted $15 billion in bailout funds.

And yet it's still collapsing. Why should they continue to maintain unprofitable, and even loss inducing, relationships with dealers who are doing a crummy job at selling cars. As a taxpayer, I'd expect them to behave responsibly with that money, rather than to merely squander it and kill the company in the process. The net gain from continued long term operation is greater than keeping a few thousand more people temporarily employed at a dying enterprise.

And yet it's still collapsing. Why should they continue to maintain unprofitable, and even loss inducing, relationships with dealers who are doing a crummy job at selling cars. As a taxpayer, I'd expect them to behave responsibly with that money, rather than to merely squander it and kill the company in the process. The net gain from continued long term operation is greater than keeping a few thousand more people temporarily employed at a dying enterprise.

You have evidence that all of these dealers are unprofitable? I don't think we can rely on the business savvy of a company currently in bankruptcy.

You have evidence that all of these dealers are unprofitable? I don't think we can rely on the business savvy of a company currently in bankruptcy.

Chrysler is systemically unprofitable, because they make awful cars and try to sell them at ridiculous prices. All the same, it's fairly easy to determine which dealerships are making more money and which dealerships are making less money, and have done so systemically.

Chrysler is systemically unprofitable, because they make awful cars and try to sell them at ridiculous prices. All the same, it's fairly easy to determine which dealerships are making more money and which dealerships are making less money, and have done so systemically.

That's not really an answer. While it may be easy to determine which franchises are profitable and which are unprofitable, you don't have any evidence that they're only killing the unprofitable ones. In Chrysler's case, it's largely true, as the dealers being closed account for just 14% of total sales, while representing almost 25% of total franchises (http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/14/autos/chrysler_dealer_closings/index.htm?postversion=2009051410), but for GM, it is less clear cut, because it does not have such a disparity in profitability ofr franchises.

At any rate, there's still the legal question of whether dealership agreements qualify as the type of contract that can be voided by a bankruptcy court, as the agreement does not actually require any sort of expenditure by the automaker. In fact, there's a question of whether closing franchises will actually accomplish anything, as they are independently owned businesses. The automakers will not save much money by closing down unprofitable franchises; the unprofitability of the franchise only really directly impacts the owner of the franchise. If those small business owners want to continue operating at a loss, then let them.

All told, the reason the government wants to get involved in preventing these closures is mostly political. For representatives in districts that are impacted by these closures, it's really very hard to tell your constituents that we need to give billions of dollars in bailout money to the companies that just laid them off. The taxpayers have a vested interest in these companies now (literally), and as such, they deserve to see their interests defended. If this were just a regular, un-bailout-ed company, then there would be no argument. But the moment they went to Washington, hat in hand, and grovelled for public funds to keep themselves in business, they stopped being private companies.

...or so says my delightful Congresswoman Mary Jo Kilroy, a perennial has-run who finally made it in when Pryce retired.

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wosu/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=1506545

Does she honestly think that the auto industry has a responsibility to provide jobs, and has she totally lost sight of the goal of a business enterprise? I seriously have to ask why the some people seem to get all outraged when companies try to cut costs so that they don't suffer and die.

/blog
Question: Precisely how do you suppose a car manufacturer is ever going to get profitable if it does not provide jobs -- such as jobs, oh, you know, manufacturing and selling the cars?

It is my opinion that the attitude that labor is nothing but a drain on profits is a major contributing factor to the collapse of American businesses. In other words, putting executives in charge who do not understand just what it takes to run a business.

It is my opinion that the attitude that labor is nothing but a drain on profits is a major contributing factor to the collapse of American businesses. In other words, putting executives in charge who do not understand just what it takes to run a business.

Surely it's a balancing act. On the one hand, if the work and the money just isn't there, then downsizing is going to be necessary, therefore there immediate reaction that occasionally does happen of any job loss = work of satan is clearly unrealistic. On the other, and more important, hand I thoroughly agree that the bulimic and sometimes downright insane hiring practices observed in US businesses, and to a lesser extent bsusinesses worldwide is highly counter-productive. Particularly the classic 'lay everyone off then hire them back as temps/contractors' which a lot of people go for. Employees are a valuable asset as much as any other form of material investiment for the company and arguably any gains made by laying people off are liable to be lost in reduced efficiency and lost expertise.

It is my opinion that the attitude that labor is nothing but a drain on profits is a major contributing factor to the collapse of American businesses..

Labor that does not produce enough value to make up for what it receives in wages and benefits and training and whatnot is indeed a drain on profits, and it's that labor that is (rightly) shed, if not hemorrhaged.

The UAW was the death of the car companies. The notion of paying tens of thousands of people NOT to work and sit in a room and play cards isnt even on the same planet as the notion of an efficient work force.

Poor design and slow model turnaround were also of course large issues but when you get down to brass tacks and look at the labor costs per car, it was far far higher then any foreign competitors. This was almost exclusively due to the greed of the UAW who all think they are entitled to $80,000 a year and cradle to grave care.

It is my opinion that the attitude that labor is nothing but a drain on profits is a major contributing factor to the collapse of American businesses. In other words, putting executives in charge who do not understand just what it takes to run a business.

Isn't it funny the talk of overpriced labor doesn't include executive pay packages?

Does she honestly think that the auto industry has a responsibility to provide jobs, and has she totally lost sight of the goal of a business enterprise? I seriously have to ask why the some people seem to get all outraged when companies try to cut costs so that they don't suffer and die.

/blog

I am confused. Car companies need to make money so how is this done by eliminating the people that are supposed to sell your product?

The UAW was the death of the car companies. The notion of paying tens of thousands of people NOT to work and sit in a room and play cards isnt even on the same planet as the notion of an efficient work force.

Poor design and slow model turnaround were also of course large issues but when you get down to brass tacks and look at the labor costs per car, it was far far higher then any foreign competitors. This was almost exclusively due to the greed of the UAW who all think they are entitled to $80,000 a year and cradle to grave care.

What about executive pay packages? I remember the Chrysler CEO made 10 times more then the Daimler CEO.

Isn't it funny the talk of overpriced labor doesn't include executive pay packages?

Executive pay packages arnt bankrupting companies. The Job Bank ALONE was 12,000 unemployed but on payroll workers x $80,000 year (this is way low balled) = 1 BILLION annually a year JUST for a small group of people sitting around doing nothing. This doesnt even TOUCH the labor costs of the hundreds of thousands of dramatically overpaid factory workers. Its simply mind boggling.

Question: Precisely how do you suppose a car manufacturer is ever going to get profitable if it does not provide jobs -- such as jobs, oh, you know, manufacturing and selling the cars?
Oh, my objection is not to the reality that you need employees to build and sell cars. That's not it at all. My objection is the attitude that a company has a social responsibility to employ as many people as possible, regardless of its effect on profit and productivity margins.

I am confused. Car companies need to make money so how is this done by eliminating the people that are supposed to sell your product?

Because it costs them more to maintain the relationships with the dealerships than they are receiving from the dealerships.

Question: Precisely how do you suppose a car manufacturer is ever going to get profitable if it does not provide jobs -- such as jobs, oh, you know, manufacturing and selling the cars?


GM is going to buy its cars in china, re badge them and sell them through a smaller dealer network.

Chrysler is going to be strip mined by fiat.

That's not really an answer. While it may be easy to determine which franchises are profitable and which are unprofitable, you don't have any evidence that they're only killing the unprofitable ones. In Chrysler's case, it's largely true, as the dealers being closed account for just 14% of total sales, while representing almost 25% of total franchises (http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/14/autos/chrysler_dealer_closings/index.htm?postversion=2009051410), but for GM, it is less clear cut, because it does not have such a disparity in profitability ofr franchises.

GM has been opaque, but it would seem that it's behaving in fashion by which the goal is to reduce the competition amongst its own franchises.

At any rate, there's still the legal question of whether dealership agreements qualify as the type of contract that can be voided by a bankruptcy court, as the agreement does not actually require any sort of expenditure by the automaker. In fact, there's a question of whether closing franchises will actually accomplish anything, as they are independently owned businesses. The automakers will not save much money by closing down unprofitable franchises; the unprofitability of the franchise only really directly impacts the owner of the franchise. If those small business owners want to continue operating at a loss, then let them.

Except that that's not an accurate description of the relationship between the dealers and the auto producers, given that the dealers tend to act as the warehouses of the automakers, and by keeping vehicles on the lots of the weakest dealers, the auto manufacturers are in effect reducing net sales, increasing inventory and therefore costs.

All told, the reason the government wants to get involved in preventing these closures is mostly political. For representatives in districts that are impacted by these closures, it's really very hard to tell your constituents that we need to give billions of dollars in bailout money to the companies that just laid them off. The taxpayers have a vested interest in these companies now (literally), and as such, they deserve to see their interests defended. If this were just a regular, un-bailout-ed company, then there would be no argument. But the moment they went to Washington, hat in hand, and grovelled for public funds to keep themselves in business, they stopped being private companies.

They are neither purely private nor purely public entities right now, and while they've increasingly begun to swing towards the public side they are still dominantly private concerns in the nature of their operation, their operation in the market and the primary sources of revenue, as well as the federal expectation that they should shore up their financial situation within the private sector, or be forced, like any other firm, into Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection.

If these were a primarily public concern, then Chapter 11 protection would be irrelevant, and the losses derived from not closing these dealerships would be fully subsidized by federal funding.

GM is going to buy its cars in china, re badge them and sell them through a smaller dealer network.

Chrysler is going to be strip mined by fiat.

Just like what Daimler did to them.

I am confused. Car companies need to make money so how is this done by eliminating the people that are supposed to sell your product?

They are not eliminating all of them.
Only those who are not producing enough returns to cover the cost.

It is like Starbucks. Somewhere between 3 and 6 Starbucks per mall was too much once the coolness factor wore off. Now most malls have one or two. The unprofitable ones closed down.
The volume of sales are down you need to focus the sellers who turn the most profit. In many areas there were too many car dealerships per customers.

Just like what Daimler did to them.

Yes the bankruptcy was Daimler's fault clearly.
In fact Europe better produce the next bailout or we will embargo their auto industry.

Oh, my objection is not to the reality that you need employees to build and sell cars. That's not it at all. My objection is the attitude that a company has a social responsibility to employ as many people as possible, regardless of its effect on profit and productivity margins.
I have never heard anyone make such an argument, aside from the occasional 12-year-old net-commie.

What I have heard is that the Big Three car makers spent decades making themselves indispensible employers of millions of people (directly and indirectly) so that now, if they fail suddenly, the effect on the US will be catastrophic. Nobody forced them to bloat themselves into the corporate monsters they are. They did that chasing profit -- which apparently, they chased right into a ditch.

The serious debate is not over whether they have an obligation to keep on employing people. The debate is how to respond to their obvious inability to keep functioning at all -- whether they should be saved or let go, and if let go, how.

My own personal opinion is that they should be let go, for two reasons: (1) too big to fail = too big to tolerate; and (2) they are badly run businesses, not fit enough to survive. That said, however, I favor intervention that is geared towards controlling the speed of their collapse so as to allow the greatest number of American workers to get out of the way -- getting new jobs and/or shifting their business direction. But NOT any intervention that is geared towards keeping these useless, lurching beasts alive any longer than nature intended.

That's not really an answer. While it may be easy to determine which franchises are profitable and which are unprofitable, you don't have any evidence that they're only killing the unprofitable ones. In Chrysler's case, it's largely true, as the dealers being closed account for just 14% of total sales, while representing almost 25% of total franchises (http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/14/autos/chrysler_dealer_closings/index.htm?postversion=2009051410), but for GM, it is less clear cut, because it does not have such a disparity in profitability ofr franchises.


It doesn't necessarily have to be only unprofitable dealer franchises being canceled. I don't doubt there are several profitable ones on the list as well (and this would apply to GM too) but if the manufacturer is selling fewer total units, they may have decided their best bet is to consolidate on only the most profitable outlets and cancel the rest.

bear in mind that dealerships are independent companies. If you have a Chevy dealer and you lose your Chevy franchise, you may be able to keep your dealership open and switch to something else like Toyota if they're willing to extend the opportunity.

The UAW was the death of the car companies. The notion of paying tens of thousands of people NOT to work and sit in a room and play cards isnt even on the same planet as the notion of an efficient work force.

Poor design and slow model turnaround were also of course large issues but when you get down to brass tacks and look at the labor costs per car, it was far far higher then any foreign competitors. This was almost exclusively due to the greed of the UAW who all think they are entitled to $80,000 a year and cradle to grave care.

^This. This is also a major reason for American assembly lines going to places like Mexico. If they didn't, the cost per unit of their product would make it impossible to compete with foreign manufacturers.

What blew my mind was an interview I was listening to with a union boss who insisted that the unions did NOT play a significant role in bringing the company down, and that it was purely bad management. He said with better management the company could have been much more profitable and would have had no problems...

The mind blower is we all know perfectly damn well if the company was making such big profits and the UAW knew it, they'd demand more money for the workers and make sure to take as big a cut of those higher profits as they possibly could.

Just like what Daimler did to them.

Part of me thinks that a Fiat/Chrysler merger is not as stupid as it sounds. Daimler/Chrylser was a silly idea, but in combining the two most useless volume car manufacturers they may be onto something.

I foresee a coming need in the US for horrible tiny cheap cars, and Fiat can provide that expertise. Also Fiat's management has literally decades of experience dealing with corrupt government that changes its mind every two seconds. There's potential synergy there if you stop and think about it. :p

The UAW was the death of the car companies. The notion of paying tens of thousands of people NOT to work and sit in a room and play cards isnt even on the same planet as the notion of an efficient work force.

Poor design and slow model turnaround were also of course large issues but when you get down to brass tacks and look at the labor costs per car, it was far far higher then any foreign competitors. This was almost exclusively due to the greed of the UAW who all think they are entitled to $80,000 a year and cradle to grave care.

Blaming the unions in any situation is nonsensical. In any negotiation when the union pushes, the company pushes back twice as hard. When you hear management complaining about unions, it's because they are either cry babies or incompetent.

Keep the dealerships open, just melt down those stupid SUVs that get 9 MPG and make them into hybrids. Problem solved.

Here's a new idea: sacrifice the CEOs to the gods and ask for fortune.

Blaming the unions in any situation is nonsensical. In any negotiation when the union pushes, the company pushes back twice as hard. When you hear management complaining about unions, it's because they are either cry babies or incompetent.

Yeah? You think the ridiculously high salaries and massive benefits union members gets comes as a result of the company pushing so hard?

Dude, I used to be a mechanic, which required schooling and certifications and I still made less money and had fewer benefits than the guy at the Chevy plant in Baltimore who did nothing all day but stand there with an impact wrench attaching lugnuts.

Also don't forget the unions typically have the government on their side. They can strike and laws prevent the factories from hiring labor to fill the gap. Unions have all the advantages.

When a car manufactory has to close its doors, it is not only their employees that get the sack, but it means usually that other companies and its employees fall together. By instance car seats are mostly produced by another company, sometimes exclusive for one single client. And then you have the uncountable jobs like, the pizza delivery man and all kind of others. There's a good reason that the US government is trying to help them out: it would affect too much people and the economy in its whole. And there's no replacement, because most of the other American car companies are in bad weather as well. European and Asian cars could fill the supply car gap, but that doesn't necessarily means jobs INSIDE Usa. Don't forget there's a crisis going on, those fired people will not find a new job and will cost the government a lot of money as well when they are not working.

Maybe some hardcore capitalist should wake up and face reality.

When a car manufactory has to close its doors, it is not only their employees that get the sack, but it means usually that other companies and its employees fall together. By instance car seats are mostly produced by another company, sometimes exclusive for one single client. And then you have the uncountable jobs like, the pizza delivery man and all kind of others. There's a good reason that the US government is trying to help them out: it would affect too much people and the economy in its whole.

When the government forcibly reallocates resources to actors that do not produce more than they take in (which is the case, because otherwise they wouldn't need government help), EVERYONE HURTS, and aggregate loss is more than the aggregate loss felt by a few individuals if these companies go under. Keeping these companies afloat is a net loss to the economy.

European and Asian cars could fill the supply car gap, but that doesn't necessarily means jobs INSIDE Usa.
So lots of people lose their job, but lots more people get cheaper goods such that the sum total more than outweighs what was lost by those who lost their jobs.

will cost the government a lot of money as well when they are not working.
So end government assistance. It has no moral right to exist anyway.

Maybe some hardcore capitalist should wake up and face reality.
Actually, it is you who needs to learn to understand reality.

When the government forcibly reallocates resources to actors that do not produce more than they take in (which is the case, because otherwise they wouldn't need government help), EVERYONE HURTS, and aggregate loss is more than the aggregate loss felt by a few individuals if these companies go under. Keeping these companies afloat is a net loss to the economy.

Sure and what if the plan works. It's not the first time in history that the government helps out a death company and that it is surviving.


So lots of people lose their job, but lots more people get cheaper goods such that the sum total more than outweighs what was lost by those who lost their jobs.

Maybe American cars will be concurential in 3 or 4 years with cars from Europe or Asia. Just wait.


So end government assistance. It has no moral right to exist anyway.


It's indeed very moral to make sure that thousands of people lose their job, probably for ever.


Actually, it is you who needs to learn to understand reality.

Sure. The reality is that the US government is actual helping those companies. In which reality are you living?

Sure and what if the plan works. It's not the first time in history that the government helps out a death company and that it is surviving.


And if it doesn't? Then what? How long would you float the company, which now has very little incentive to improve now that it's so deeply entrenched that you're prepared to turn the entire corporation into one giant welfare case indefinitely?

And if it doesn't? Then what? How long would you float the company, which now has very little incentive to improve now that it's so deeply entrenched that you're prepared to turn the entire corporation into one giant welfare case indefinitely?

The problems are huge an not solved in a few months. Besides new cars are not researched, designed and devoleped in a few months. Think in years.

The problems are huge an not solved in a few months. Besides new cars are not researched, designed and devoleped in a few months. Think in years.

That is exactly why Bluth Corporation has a point.

And that still doesn't address the lack of incentive.

That is exactly why Bluth Corporation has a point.

And that still doesn't address the lack of incentive.

Maybe, it's better that they, maybe, waste money on saving the households of ten thousand of people than spending it once more on new army stuff.

Any government is doing stuff or spending money on stuff you don't like. Get over it.

And Bluth would talk different if his father or himself was losing his job at Chrysler, isn't?

Blaming the unions in any situation is nonsensical. In any negotiation when the union pushes, the company pushes back twice as hard. When you hear management complaining about unions, it's because they are either cry babies or incompetent.

Are you suggesting that management WANTED to pay 1 billion a year for 12,000 people to sit around in a room playing cards? Or dont you think it might be slightly more likely it was because the Unions had these companies over a barrel?

So, instead of investing the money in projects that could create replacement jobs that actually have a chance of surviving, she'd rather spend it to keep open places that have no chance in hell of ever succeeding? The truth is that these companies aren't facing a cyclical downturn, but rather a structural shift that is unavoidable unless they actually succeed at changing themselves to face new market conditions. I'd rather see these workers paid to build infrastructure or learn new skills than to sit around collecting government money while selling next to nothing.

Now, I bet if ExxonMobil were closing gas stations because it was in trouble, nobody would give a shit...

Maybe, it's better that they, maybe, waste money on saving the households of ten thousand of people than spending it once more on new army stuff.

How many thousands of households do you think are employed in the defense industry?

Are you suggesting that management WANTED to pay 1 billion a year for 12,000 people to sit around in a room playing cards? Or dont you think it might be slightly more likely it was because the Unions had these companies over a barrel?

No, I'm suggesting that management was incompetent and when people blame their problems on unions they need to KTE.

How many thousands of households do you think are employed in the defense industry?

A lot. And if the US government wouldn't buy their toys, the employees could go to home as well.

In a way it's also a kind of subsidising. Alone, I prefer cars above weapons.

A lot. And if the US government wouldn't buy their toys, the employees could go to home as well.

Go home and starve, I presume?

Go home and starve, I presume?

Or eating their welfare checks and moving to a trailer park.

Or eating their welfare checks and moving to a trailer park.

Very productive. Lowers crimes as well, and can't forget about those higher standards of living too! And wow, all those people going out on Welfare couldn't hurt the economy. Or the National Debt. Honestly, do you think about what could hurt the USA the most, or do you just blurt out whatever you're thinking at the time?

or eating their welfare checks and moving to a trailer park.

:( :(

Very productive. Lowers crimes as well, and can't forget about those higher standards of living too! And wow, all those people going out on Welfare couldn't hurt the economy. Or the National Debt. Honestly, do you think about what could hurt the USA the most, or do you just blurt out whatever you're thinking at the time?

I don't know what could hurt the USA the most. Maybe a collapse of the porn industry, since they are the biggest consumers and producers of that commodity? Aliens? A white president? I don't know.

I only blurt when I see ridiculous opinions of others.

Wait, I have to blurt now.

Or eating their welfare checks and moving to a trailer park.

Your dislike of the US is exaggerated and ridiculous and your total ignorance of what that country is, who it's people are is outstanding. I disagree with its leaders, but by no means do I go on ridiculing its people. Your behaviour is both nasty and childish. I'm European, proud of it. That doesn't mean I will belittle another country. You should follow suit, little pussy cat.

:( :(

You are eating welfare checks and living in a trailer park?

You are eating welfare checks and living in a trailer park?

Does anyone eat paper? Aside from the poor, I mean.

Your dislike of the US is exaggerated and ridiculous and your total ignorance of what that country is, who it's people are is outstanding. I disagree with its leaders, but by no means do I go on ridiculing its people. Your behaviour is both nasty and childish. I'm European, proud of it. That doesn't mean I will belittle another country. You should follow suit, little pussy cat.

Tsuki, it not mentioned as an insult.

What would happen with people that lose their job in a country without jobs?

And btw I like Americans.

I don't know what could hurt the USA the most. Maybe a collapse of the porn industry, since they are the biggest consumers and producers of that commodity? Aliens? A white president? I don't know.

Oooh, Kitty gots claws! Too bad you're making no sense, beyond stereotyping the USA and using that as hard economic data.
Wait, have to blurt now.
I don't need to hear about your sex life.

Tsuki, it not mentioned as an insult.

No, no, that was an insult. No chance of covering it up.

What would happen with people that lose their job in a country without jobs?
In a country without jobs, there would be no jobs to lose, presumably.


And btw I like Americans.
Could have fooled me. Either that or you're spewing absolute bullshit, pardon my language.

I don't need to hear about your sex life.

But we're talking about yours in the other thread, whether you come back and participate or not. :p

Tsuki, it not mentioned as an insult.

Don't sugar-coat it. You referred to people on welfare and in trailer parks in an mean way. We all know that is something seen in the US.

What would happen with people that lose their job in a country without jobs?

There will be a lot of people without jobs. What happens depends on what the government does.

And btw I like Americans.

You certainly got a funny way of showing your liking of them.

But we're talking about yours in the other thread, whether you come back and participate or not. :p
>.>

<.<

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/i_am_not_a_ninja.png

Oooh, Kitty gots claws! Too bad you're making no sense, beyond stereotyping the USA and using that as hard economic data.

I don't need to hear about your sex life.

You are mixing up things together. I know what the EC is, you don't. It is not that I know something, that I know all.

But tell me what is the biggest danger for USA?

But tell me what is the biggest danger for USA?
Ignorance. From both inside it's borders and outside.

Don't sugar-coat it. You referred to people on welfare and in trailer parks in an mean way. We all know that is something seen in the US.

So? And then it's not allowed to speak about it?
Sure it's hard for those people, I hope I will never in that position.


There will be a lot of people without jobs. What happens depends on what the government does.

So they will probably eat welfare checks and if they can't pay the rent, they have to move. This is just reality and happens everyday. Also in Europe. But if you say this, you are a bad person, anti-American and stuff. Sure.


You certainly got a funny way of showing your liking of them.

Maybe I care for their future. I don't see the car industry end with a happy end. They are producing outdated cars and now their president ruled that they will continu producing outdated cars. Cars that can't be sold to the world.

Ignorance. From both inside it's borders and outside.

Can you be more specific?

Can you be more specific?

Yes. Ignorance, foolishness, sticking your head in the sand and refusing to accept the facts. Stereotypes, Bigotry, and outright refusal to see the truth. America is it's own enemy, but the World is the USA's enemy as well. We are all enemies, enemies of each other, and of ourselves. Every country faces this threat from within and without. No country is free of it. The problem is, you are continuing this problem. You refuse to search for the facts, for the truth. For what really is going on. Instead, you base your opinions of America's economy on common stereotypes including the 'evil fat Americans who are completely heartless idiots and have no clue of what they're doing. Anywhere.'.

So? And then it's not allowed to speak about it?
Sure it's hard for those people, I hope I will never in that position.



So they will probably eat welfare checks and if they can't pay the rent, they have to move. This is just reality and happens everyday. Also in Europe. But if you say this, you are a bad person, anti-American and stuff. Sure.



Maybe I care for their future. I don't see the car industry end with a happy end. They are producing outdated cars and now their president ruled that they will continu producing outdated cars. Cars that can't be sold to the world.

Your problem isn't that you comment on issues regarding the US. I do. Your problem is that you don't know how to express yourself if it isn't by using ridicule and plain insults. There are ways and there are ways. You choose the worst, btw.

Your problem isn't that you comment on issues regarding the US. I do. Your problem is that you don't know how to express yourself if it isn't by using ridicule and plain insults. There are ways and there are ways. You choose the worst, btw.

Whatever. I don't get it when you use analogies that people are upset.

I think that you are taking yourself too serious.

Whatever. I don't get it when you use analogies that people are upset.

I think that you are taking yourself too serious.

See, ridicule once again. And since I don't deal with inane shit like this, you are dismissed.

Yes. Ignorance, foolishness, sticking your head in the sand and refusing to accept the facts. Stereotypes, Bigotry, and outright refusal to see the truth. America is it's own enemy, but the World is the USA's enemy as well. We are all enemies, enemies of each other, and of ourselves. Every country faces this threat from within and without. No country is free of it. The problem is, you are continuing this problem. You refuse to search for the facts, for the truth. For what really is going on. Instead, you base your opinions of America's economy on common stereotypes including the 'evil fat Americans who are completely heartless idiots and have no clue of what they're doing. Anywhere.'.

And you are the enlighten one?

Maybe you are ingorant for what is happening around the world. Usa is not thé world, Usa is just a player on a big globe. Europe is already a bigger consumer market as Usa and other regions are closing the gap. Maybe you are ingorant for this fact.

I think that most Americans are not evil and that most are not completely heartless idiots and that most really have a clue what they are doing. The fatness, that's another animal :)

See, ridicule once again. And since I don't deal with inane shit like this, you are dismissed.

Sorry that I'm not your puppet. You are taking yourself indeed too serious.

And you are the enlighten one?

Maybe you are ingorant for what is happening around the world. Usa is not thé world, Usa is just a player on a big globe. Europe is already a bigger consumer market as Usa and other regions are closing the gap. Maybe you are ingorant for this fact.

I think that most Americans are not evil and that most are not completely heartless idiots and that most really have a clue what they are doing. The fatness, that's another animal :)

Thank you for not only proving my point, but ignoring every post I've made. Ever. I'd like to thank you for your participation in wasting Jolt Forum space, and bid you adieu.

Thank you for not only proving my point, but ignoring every post I've made. Ever. I'd like to thank you for your participation in wasting Jolt Forum space, and bid you adieu.

And you are the cleaner?

You are putting words in my mouth I never said.

And you are ignorant for the world, you barely know what the European Community is. If one is taking time to explain it and backing it up with sources, the least what you could do is doing something with it, instead of fighting silly games.

The UAW was the death of the car companies. The notion of paying tens of thousands of people NOT to work and sit in a room and play cards isnt even on the same planet as the notion of an efficient work force.

Poor design and slow model turnaround were also of course large issues but when you get down to brass tacks and look at the labor costs per car, it was far far higher then any foreign competitors. This was almost exclusively due to the greed of the UAW who all think they are entitled to $80,000 a year and cradle to grave care.This argument has been thoroughly demolished numerous times already. Why do people persist in bringing it up?

What blew my mind was an interview I was listening to with a union boss who insisted that the unions did NOT play a significant role in bringing the company down, and that it was purely bad management. He said with better management the company could have been much more profitable and would have had no problems.The union boss is correct.

Yeah? You think the ridiculously high salaries and massive benefits union members gets comes as a result of the company pushing so hard?Union workers don't receive ridiculously high salaries and massive benefits.

Also don't forget the unions typically have the government on their side. They can strike and laws prevent the factories from hiring labor to fill the gap. Unions have all the advantages.Unions typically have the government on their side? You mean like when the government forced the ILWU and the air traffic controllers back to work?

S.

It's all for show.

It is always for show. Nothing else really.

This argument has been thoroughly demolished numerous times already.


By who? The President of the UAW? Let me get this straight just so we are on the same page. The UAW insisted that 12,000 workers get paid 1 billion dollars a year for playing cards in a room. On what planet do you live on where this not a ridiculous situation to force the car companies into? Do you think they just like handing out 1 billion dollars for fun? Or do you think maybe the union had just a TINY TINY TINY bit to do with it? Where do you think that billion a year came from? If you said increased labor costs forced into the cost per car you are correct.

A lot. And if the US government wouldn't buy their toys, the employees could go to home as well.

In a way it's also a kind of subsidising. Alone, I prefer cars above weapons.

Even though weapons require far more well-educated workers than car manufacturing? We can offshore screwing bolts on cars but we sure as hell can't offshore the skills necessary to develop advanced weapons...the level of skill and intelligence needed in that industry is a massive boon to the American economy.

Maybe, it's better that they, maybe, waste money on saving the households of ten thousand of people than spending it once more on new army stuff.
The best solution is for the government not to take it at all, because that way it will be used in the most efficient way possible.

Any government is doing stuff or spending money on stuff you don't like. Get over it.
"Like it or lump it" is not a valid argument.

And Bluth would talk different if his father or himself was losing his job at Chrysler, isn't?
No, I wouldn't. I have principle on my side; that trumps all.

Union workers don't receive ridiculously high salaries and massive benefits.

Their total compensation can be as high as six figures even for manual labor in an automotive plant...that's well more than I'll be making for a while unless I suddenly get promoted to a partner at KPMG. While I firmly believe workers have a right to unionize and negotiate for such high benefits, the reality is that those benefits are utterly unsustainable given the situation at the Big (a bit of a stretch) Three. Of course, part of this is due to managerial incompetence but it's also true that the unions consistently fought innovation in the company's production system and product lines to save jobs.

Remember, the unions were some of the biggest opponents of increasing fuel economy standards, so they're hardly innocent victims of their current situation.

Hell, I was making $75,000 after three years as a line worker at a non-union manufacturer (Toyota).

Exactly. There didnt need to be a Union for you to receive a fair wage. Is it coincidence that Toyota doesnt need a bailout and GM does? I think not.

Maybe, it's better that they, maybe, waste money on saving the households of ten thousand of people than spending it once more on new army stuff.
But do you imagine how many jobs are involved in building that new army stuff?

They don't bring money to a mystical portal and have tanks jump out of it. Money is labor. Every thousand dollar you ever spend ultimately ends up spread as wages. If something costs $N million, it means it takes $N/(avg_wage+tax%) million man-hours to create. All capital and raw materials costs are ultimately the wages of the workers building the hangars and mining the materials.

Their total compensation can be as high as six figures even for manual labor in an automotive plant...that's well more than I'll be making for a while unless I suddenly get promoted to a partner at KPMG.


I am curious to these numbers you claim. My uncle and cousins were in the union. They lived an average middle class life. By your description they should be kings.

I worked in the aerodense industry. I remember the manager showing me a chart in a disagreement over salary and he showed that basically I was compensated to the sum of $175000 a year. He could not give the break down as my salary was probably about 55000 (If I remember right). I wasn't union as I was a mainframe guy.

From what I could gather it appeared the numbers were based on what I would pay for insurence on my own and not in the case of the company the negotiated rates. Never mind the fact that is what they were charging the government.

While I firmly believe workers have a right to unionize and negotiate for such high benefits, the reality is that those benefits are utterly unsustainable given the situation at the Big (a bit of a stretch) Three.

Oh I agree. But one thing I find interesting is how easily executive compensation packages are ignored in such discussions. If you see the management bilking the company at will, would not the union think "hey why not me?"

Even with recent examples over the banker bonuses. "Hey those were legal contract, negotiated, blah blah blah." Ignore the fact the untion contracts were legal and were expected to be reduced before bailouts would happen.

Of course, part of this is due to managerial incompetence but it's also true that the unions consistently fought innovation in the company's production system and product lines to save jobs.

Wouldn't you if you were looking out for people? I saw such a situation with robot tape loaders. The union lost people because they were stupid about it. They were lazy and caused a high job failure rate. They refused to change and many were replaced by the robots. Rightfully so.

However, the company did nothing to train people with the new technology. Here it is. Oh wait. You don't know how to use it? Guess we can't use you.

Not exactly a good way to introduce a new technology. People that would have accepted the new approach as it did make their jobs simpler became hostile.

Remember, the unions were some of the biggest opponents of increasing fuel economy standards, so they're hardly innocent victims of their current situation.

Eh? I thought that was more by the fact oil was on the boards of the car makers? Seriously, I am curious to this claim. If you assemble a car; why would fuel standards change that? You are still assembling a car.

So in all who has the majority of the blame IMHO. Management. If a company was properly managed, there wouldn't be a union.

As long as there are people who think "hey I provide these jobs and I can do whatever I want!;" there will be unions......

I am curious to these numbers you claim. My uncle and cousins were in the union. They lived an average middle class life. By your description they should be kings.


$35 an hour wage seems to be in the ballpark on wage average. This equals $72,800 a year with NO benefits whatsoever. Add another 20k in benefits and your looking pretty close to 6 digit income.

Question: Precisely how do you suppose a car manufacturer is ever going to get profitable if it does not provide jobs -- such as jobs, oh, you know, manufacturing and selling the cars?


You can not be profitable selling cars only to the people that work for you, to imply such is make think the economy runs like a perpetual motion machine.
In order to make profit you have to target markets other then your own employees.

The car companies need to be smaller and more nimble.

By who? The President of the UAW? Let me get this straight just so we are on the same page. The UAW insisted that 12,000 workers get paid 1 billion dollars a year for playing cards in a room.And why were the workers "playing cards in a room"? Shouldn't they have been building cars?

If you said increased labor costs forced into the cost per car you are correct.And yet GM sold its cars for $2-3000 less than comparable Hondas and Toyotas.

Source (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122669956277929471.html?mod=yahoo_hs&ru=yahoo).

Their total compensation can be as high as six figures even for manual labor in an automotive plant...that's well more than I'll be making for a while unless I suddenly get promoted to a partner at KPMG. I'm uncertain why you're fixed on the manual labor aspect, unless you think there should be a direct correlation between years of schooling and salary.

Exactly. There didnt need to be a Union for you to receive a fair wage. Is it coincidence that Toyota doesnt need a bailout and GM does? I think not.

I don't think you understand what the purpose of a union is. It's not a union's job to try to get it's workers a "fair wage." A union has one job, and only one job - to protect the interests of its workers. If they were doing anything less than getting the highest pay and benefit levels for their employees that they could, the union reps wouldn't be doing their jobs and should be fired. Likewise, management in a public corporation has a responsibility, and a legal obligation to increase profits and increase the value of the companies stock. If they were doing anything less, then the shareholders should fire them. Businesses have no obligation to "protect American jobs" or "provide a fair wage." When you hear politicians on tv talking about that stuff, they are full of shit.

I don't think you understand what the purpose of a union is. It's not a union's job to try to get it's workers a "fair wage." A union has one job, and only one job - to protect the interests of its workers.

Are you familiar with the term cutting off your nose to spite your face? Just like the banking crisis, UAW was more interested in the short term benefits of its workers then the larger picture that would insure they would have a place to work period in the future.

And why were the workers "playing cards in a room"? Shouldn't they have been building cars?


They were playing cards in a room because the automakers wanted to automate the production lines and make their operations more efficient. I know making a business more efficient is a crazy concept for the UAW to understand. So the UAW had a cow and insisted the efficiencies gained be destroyed by employing these people regardless. They had nothing to do because machines were nicely and efficiently running the lines and the UAW blackmailed the car companies to pay 12,000 people to sit in an empty room and play cards.

So now ill sit here and wait for you to justify this insanity on the UAWs part and you can explain to me how it ended up working out in everybodys best long term interest.

They were playing cards in a room because the automakers wanted to automate the production lines and make their operations more efficient. I know making a business more efficient is a crazy concept for the UAW to understand. So the UAW had a cow and insisted the efficiencies gained be destroyed by employing these people regardless. They had nothing to do because machines were nicely and efficiently running the lines and the UAW blackmailed the car companies to pay 12,000 people to sit in an empty room and play cards.

So now ill sit here and wait for you to justify this insanity on the UAWs part and you can explain to me how it ended up working out in everybodys best long term interest.

I think you ought to provide a source for this card playing 12,000. While it is true that, if a factory was forced to close down for a period of time because of no dealer orders, the UAW contract required the automakers to pay 90% of salary and benefits for all the affected workers, I'm having a hard time believing this story that any automaker kept employing 12,000 people whose jobs were completely phased out. I'll accept any reputable source.

I don't think you understand what the purpose of a union is. It's not a union's job to try to get it's workers a "fair wage."

Noooooooooooooo...

The purpose of the union is to get its members the maximum compensation possible. Profit chasing, in the words of some other posters here.

In doing so, unions tend to have extended their scope to include other activities. Things like political activism, non-member intimidation, community concerns, organized crime, member social events, extortion, community organizing and breaking windows.

And yet GM sold its cars for $2-3000 less than comparable Hondas and Toyotas.

Source (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122669956277929471.html?mod=yahoo_hs&ru=yahoo).



Market forces in action, indicative of the fact that Toyota's and Honda's are perceived as more desirable than vehicles from GM for a whole host of reasons. Combining the increased labor costs with the decreased demand results in quite a shortfall, if I do say so myself.

"Members of the United Auto Workers union enjoy a one-of-a-kind deal with U.S. car makers: Idled workers do community service or watch videos and play cards -- all while earning full pay."

Ford has 1,100 workers in its jobs bank. Analysts estimate General Motors has more than 5,000. But GM CEO Rick Wagoner has said his company can't keep up with the costs, which he says runs to $400 million a year.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5194984

another cite that quotes the figure at 15,000...

As you read this, there are about 3,000 unionized workers -- down from about 15,000 two years ago -- employed by the Detroit 3 getting paid, despite the fact that they aren't working.

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/12/01/u...idled-workers/

And from the Wall Street Journal

Labor leaders and auto makers insist that the much-criticized program to pay idled workers has been dwindling away on its own, thanks to new, stricter terms under the current union contract. The size of the revamped program, which pays nonworking employees almost their full wages at General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC, has dropped to about 3,000 hourly employees, according to the companies. That's down from 15,000 workers just two years ago,

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1228...googlenews_wsj

"Members of the United Auto Workers union enjoy a one-of-a-kind deal with U.S. car makers: Idled workers do community service or watch videos and play cards -- all while earning full pay."

Ford has 1,100 workers in its jobs bank. Analysts estimate General Motors has more than 5,000. But GM CEO Rick Wagoner has said his company can't keep up with the costs, which he says runs to $400 million a year.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5194984

another cite that quotes the figure at 15,000...

As you read this, there are about 3,000 unionized workers -- down from about 15,000 two years ago -- employed by the Detroit 3 getting paid, despite the fact that they aren't working.

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/12/01/uaw-considers-dropping-job-bank-for-idled-workers/

And from the Wall Street Journal

Labor leaders and auto makers insist that the much-criticized program to pay idled workers has been dwindling away on its own, thanks to new, stricter terms under the current union contract. The size of the revamped program, which pays nonworking employees almost their full wages at General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC, has dropped to about 3,000 hourly employees, according to the companies. That's down from 15,000 workers just two years ago,

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122808354143667317.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Sounds like a pretty sweet deal. You see, when I worked for the state and we had a budgetary shortfall, they just put folks on furlough for a couple of weeks and said "Hope you can cover your bills, oh, and when you all come back, you're coming back at part time".

That's why I now work for the feds.

Sdaeriji- "I'm having a hard time believing this story that any automaker kept employing 12,000 people whose jobs were completely phased out. "

Yea we all have a hard time believing it.

Market forces in action, indicative of the fact that Toyota's and Honda's are perceived as more desirable than vehicles from GM for a whole host of reasons. Combining the increased labor costs with the decreased demand results in quite a shortfall, if I do say so myself.How much of these 'whole host of reasons' are due to management decisions?

How much of these 'whole host of reasons' are due to management decisions?

A not insubstantial number, but some of them can't be helped either. Perception issues pertaining to quality persist even though the American automakers have long since undertaken substantial improvements in quality.

And, coincidentally, I feel that the fundamental problem the American automakers face is a set of consumer perception issues, and of the Big Three, only Ford has taken strides to really address and overcome them.

I do admit, I do have some substantial anti-GM bias from personal experiences with a pair of awful vehicles my parents owned during my childhood.

Are you familiar with the term cutting off your nose to spite your face? Just like the banking crisis, UAW was more interested in the short term benefits of its workers then the larger picture that would insure they would have a place to work period in the future.

BS. In 2006, GM had 1.9 billion in net losses. In 2007, they had over 38 billion in net losses. That's the UAW's fault? The UAW didn't cause any company to go down the shitter, they were already heading there for a long time. As for short term benefits, the UAW got their workers a rather large amount PBGC insured benefits, a lot better than some of the people currently losing their jobs in this economy.

More broadly, though, I've seen people express this attitude in all sorts of places, including this forum. That because a company is making a profit (or, in the case of GM and Chrysler, merely functioning) they owe society as many jobs as they can create. It bugs me a whole frickin' lot.
There's a good editorial in the WSJ, today, about why government can't run a business. The crux of it is that government needs headlines and business needs profits.

People in government have no idea about how to make profits, but they sure can make headlines.

It's not all the fault of the unions but I guess they are, till a certain level, part of the problems.

I worked several times for car manufactories and all of them can improve 5% to 10% in production. Each year! And thus you need less people as well.

I don't know how unions work in Usa, but in Belgium and the Netherlands they will not accept a drop in employees. So management waits till there's some (little or big) crisis (they happen each 5 to 7 years) and then they can remove the unwanted flesh with thousands. Everyone is shouting, the media is in panic, politicians say brave words, but the next day the sun is shining and the company is working with less employees.

There's a good editorial in the WSJ, today, about why government can't run a business. The crux of it is that government needs headlines and business needs profits.

People in government have no idea about how to make profits, but they sure can make headlines.

Still fail to see your point when the businessmen are driving the business into the ground.

BS. In 2006, GM had 1.9 billion in net losses. In 2007, they had over 38 billion in net losses. That's the UAW's fault? The UAW didn't cause any company to go down the shitter, they were already heading there for a long time. As for short term benefits, the UAW got their workers a rather large amount PBGC insured benefits, a lot better than some of the people currently losing their jobs in this economy.

Then explain why the UAW is demanding 55% ownership in a reorganized GM when they are only willing to give bondholders 8 cents on the dollar? What makes GMs obligation to UAW 7x more important then people who lent them money and now want it back at least in the same % of return that the UAW is demanding? Its just another chapter of UAW arrogance and it will directly lead to GMs bankruptcy filing.

BS. In 2006, GM had 1.9 billion in net losses. In 2007, they had over 38 billion in net losses. That's the UAW's fault? The UAW didn't cause any company to go down the shitter, they were already heading there for a long time.
Oh, it totally did. Not alone, but it was one of the major driving forces behind it. When you can't fire workers, you not only lose money directly by paying them, but it also becomes pointless to improve the manufacturing process. Any improvement you make will only bring losses. Hence, the management turns into mollusks who have no need or space to do anything and so they don't.
Why build smaller cars, when the labor costs are the same? Why use newer equipment? Why do a serious redesign, if you'll need to find new workers (with different skills), while having to still employ the old ones?

Of course it's, circularly, also part the management's fault for not taking hard action against the unions, but that would be too rough a step to even consider for companies built following the welfare corporation principle, not to mention a hard one to pull off when unions enjoy legal protections beyond their already massive leverage.



But the truth of the matter is, companies the size of GM are naturally inflexible - and then the UAW deprives them of whatever flexibility they have left. Unions by their very nature resist change. In a dynamic capitalist economy, companies restricted to following a straight line cannot compete.

BS. In 2006, GM had 1.9 billion in net losses. In 2007, they had over 38 billion in net losses. That's the UAW's fault? The UAW didn't cause any company to go down the shitter, they were already heading there for a long time. As for short term benefits, the UAW got their workers a rather large amount PBGC insured benefits, a lot better than some of the people currently losing their jobs in this economy.

(Not so)Small holes sink big ships.

I am curious to these numbers you claim. My uncle and cousins were in the union. They lived an average middle class life. By your description they should be kings.

Total benefits, like you mentioned later. Their actual salaries are only a portion of the total; the rest comes from things like health benefits, pension plans, and vacation days. So, their total compensation, the total cost of these benefits plus their salaries, is significantly higher per year. They might not be able to afford more than a middle-class life on their salary, but their benefits are so extensive that they (would be) basically secure in both retirement and health care costs.

So, basically, their economic situation is a lot more comparable to someone earning $100,000 a year (for example) because they're insulated from having to pay significant health-care costs or to contribute to their retirement savings.

I worked in the aerodense industry. I remember the manager showing me a chart in a disagreement over salary and he showed that basically I was compensated to the sum of $175000 a year. He could not give the break down as my salary was probably about 55000 (If I remember right). I wasn't union as I was a mainframe guy.

From what I could gather it appeared the numbers were based on what I would pay for insurence on my own and not in the case of the company the negotiated rates. Never mind the fact that is what they were charging the government.

My guess is that they took the cost of benefits adjusted for the opportunity cost of paying for them instead of investing them somewhere else. I couldn't say for sure since it's not my area of expertise but no doubt that was a

Oh I agree. But one thing I find interesting is how easily executive compensation packages are ignored in such discussions. If you see the management bilking the company at will, would not the union think "hey why not me?"

Even with recent examples over the banker bonuses. "Hey those were legal contract, negotiated, blah blah blah." Ignore the fact the untion contracts were legal and were expected to be reduced before bailouts would happen.

Exactly. GM's executives get a ridiculous amount of money despite losing their company billions of dollars and consistently losing significant amounts of market share every year. If a production-line worker or supervisor was not only making a large number of errors but their error rate was worsening every year, they'd have been fired a long, long time ago.

I mean, people like to blame Rick Wagoner but the truth is that he did more to save the company than destroy it...his predecessors so completely and utterly mismanaged the company that he couldn't do a whole lot more than he did. We're talking 30+ years, an entire generation, of arrogance, incompetence, and downright ignorance.

Wouldn't you if you were looking out for people? I saw such a situation with robot tape loaders. The union lost people because they were stupid about it. They were lazy and caused a high job failure rate. They refused to change and many were replaced by the robots. Rightfully so.

However, the company did nothing to train people with the new technology. Here it is. Oh wait. You don't know how to use it? Guess we can't use you.

Not exactly a good way to introduce a new technology. People that would have accepted the new approach as it did make their jobs simpler became hostile.

Oh, I agree. Failure to invest in training in favor of simply eliminating workers (often requiring them to hire less experienced ones later on at higher
wages) is stupid.

It's just like how GM stripped their design and engineering departments down to the bone in favor of letting the finance side have sway over new products; as a result, you got the same badge-engineered, ugly crap regardless of brand because it was cheaper and they assumed that the market would not easily be able to switch to other companies.


Eh? I thought that was more by the fact oil was on the boards of the car makers? Seriously, I am curious to this claim. If you assemble a car; why would fuel standards change that? You are still assembling a car.

As long as there are people who think "hey I provide these jobs and I can do whatever I want!;" there will be unions......

Smaller, more fuel-efficient cars require less materials, less direct labor, less manufacturing space and less production equipment than bigger models like SUVs and trucks or larger cars. So, if GM had shifted a lot of its production mix towards smaller models, they would have redundant plants, workers, and materials capacity. Plus, the cost of retooling those plants would have likely impacted the workforce as they sought to keep costs down, especially when producing new products that have yet to establish marketshare.

Oh, it totally did. Not alone, but it was one of the major driving forces behind it. When you can't fire workers, you not only lose money directly by paying them, but it also becomes pointless to improve the manufacturing process. Any improvement you make will only bring losses.Because it's impossible to increase your market share at the same time you improve manufacturing processes?

Why build smaller cars, when the labor costs are the same?To increase market share.

Why do a serious redesign, if you'll need to find new workers (with different skills), while having to still employ the old ones?Why not retrain the workers you already have?

Of course it's, circularly, also part the management's fault for not taking hard action against the unions, but that would be too rough a step to even consider for companies built following the welfare corporation principle, not to mention a hard one to pull off when unions enjoy legal protections beyond their already massive leverage.Unions don't have massive leverage.

Because it's impossible to increase your market share at the same time you improve manufacturing processes?

You really drank the Union Koolaid didnt you.

During poor economic times it should be much easier to improve manufacturing processes then it would market share. Even BMW sales are down 45%.


Why not retrain the workers you already have?

The car companies, thru automation, wanted to ELIMINATE jobs. You save money by having LESS workers not remixing the same workers in a different order.

Unions don't have massive leverage.

Are you saying this with a straight face or just trying to get a rise out of people? The very PURPOSE of a Union is to create leverage. Thats the primary reason for their existence. I suppose it was the companies idea to create job banks because they like paying people 1 billion a year to play cards. Has nothing whatsoever, not even a little bit to do with satisfying UAW demands. No massive leverage there, no indeed. The companies LOVE to pay $100,000 a year to employees. Yup. No massive UAW leverage there either, no indeed.

Because it's impossible to increase your market share at the same time you improve manufacturing processes?
How do you increase your market share? Cast a Fortify Market Share for 10 years on Self spell?

You need to take sales away from others, and they're not giving them up willingly. It's a hard fight to win when they're better than you in every aspect.


To increase market share.
You're talking like increasing the market share is a matter of just making more cars. But new cars are a buyer's market, not a seller's one.
You need to build a car that is cheaper and better than the competition. Otherwise it will sit in storage until it turns to rust.


Why not retrain the workers you already have?
First, you can't do that without consent. Will they give it? It's much more fun to watch videos than study and work.

Second, retraining isn't always possible, let alone easy.
How do you retrain a 50 year old nut tightener that can't even use a computer into an Oracle database administrator, a C++ programmer, or even just a simple QNX Neutrino operator?

Third, what's the economic point of spending a lot of money on new equipment, training, and new personnel, if you have to pay the freed-up employees for doing nothing anyway?


Unions don't have massive leverage.
Ones like UAW do. You can't even fire their members. Even if they aren't working. The union becomes a dictator with more power than the whole management and stockholders combined.

Really, if I were at the top of a company and my employees demanded a contract by which I can't fire them even if they become redundant, I'd take the risk and take them up on their threats (let them all quit), then hire new workers for less money. Actually, most of these new workers would be the old ones, running back as their bank accounts and stock portfolios dry up. Except for half the wage and no special benefits.

But the Big 3 were in no position to take such risks. It would be an endurance race, who can last longer, the company without old workers, or the old workers without income, and it takes a company that stands on both legs to win.
Besides, the UAW have already gradually secured protections against firing.

There's a good editorial in the WSJ, today, about why government can't run a business. The crux of it is that government needs headlines and business needs profits.

People in government have no idea about how to make profits, but they sure can make headlines.

Belgacom is doing very well in Belgium and so is Proximus.

Belgacom is doing very well in Belgium and so is Proximus.

Wasn't Proximus a De Facto Monopoly for a decade ?
And isn't Belgacom still a monopoly on land lines ?

You really drank the Union Koolaid didnt you.

During poor economic times it should be much easier to improve manufacturing processes then it would market share. Even BMW sales are down 45%.




The car companies, thru automation, wanted to ELIMINATE jobs. You save money by having LESS workers not remixing the same workers in a different order.



Are you saying this with a straight face or just trying to get a rise out of people? The very PURPOSE of a Union is to create leverage. Thats the primary reason for their existence. I suppose it was the companies idea to create job banks because they like paying people 1 billion a year to play cards. Has nothing whatsoever, not even a little bit to do with satisfying UAW demands. No massive leverage there, no indeed. The companies LOVE to pay $100,000 a year to employees. Yup. No massive UAW leverage there either, no indeed.

You really drank the anti-union kool aid, didn't you? For the most part, the big 3 have been making shitty cars. It doesn't matter how efficiently you make a shitty car if no one wants to buy it. You see on the news now that a lot of these dealerships are going out of business and they're discounting their cars, and especially their SUVs by up to 40%. And you know what? I still don't want to buy one. 40% off on a piece of shit it is still a piece of shit.

You really drank the anti-union kool aid, didn't you? For the most part, the big 3 have been making shitty cars.

But what is the cause of this decline in quality?

The decline in quality of the products of American automakers coincides with the beginning of the massive union contracts. Their products were just fine until these new union contracts came along that forced the companies to devote more of their limited revenue to labor costs and less to improved engineering, processes, quality control, and materials. This began a vicious circle--the union contracts caused the initial decline in quality, which led to a decline in sales, which meant less money available, but the same amount (or more) was going to labor, which meant still less for maintaining quality, which meant quality went down even more, which meant sales declined even more, etc., etc.

Not to mention that these union contracts allow employees to simply do bad work with impunity.

You really drank the anti-union kool aid, didn't you? For the most part, the big 3 have been making shitty cars. It doesn't matter how efficiently you make a shitty car if no one wants to buy it.
Not true. If you can make the car real cheap, and reasonably fuel-efficient and reliable, you'll find a market for it, even if it's crap to drive and be in. The people who would otherwise buy worn-out used cars. 16 year olds. The Eastern Europe.

The problem is that while GM and Chrysler did manage to make their cheapest cars cost a bit less than ones from the best Japanese manufacturers, it's still a lot more than they're worth.

Now, offer $7,000 on a new car, and you'll get a flood of buyers.

But what is the cause of this decline in quality?
bbbbbbbaaaaaaaaaaaddddddddd mmmmmmmmmaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnaaaaaaaaaaaggggggggeeeeeeeemmmmmmmmmeeeeeeeeeennnnnnnnnnnttttttttttt.

There's a reason CEOs don't write in their companies 10k "We really did our best but we got shafted by the union and there was nothing we could do about it." It's the responsibility of MANAGEMENT to design profitable products and sell those products. It is the responsibility of MANAGEMENT to negotiate with the unions. In the real world, companies with union workers can, and often are, still profitable. If a company went under and tried to blame it on the unions, they would be laughed at. It's complete nonsense.

The decline in quality of the products of American automakers coincides with the beginning of the massive union contracts. Their products were just fine until these new union contracts came along that forced the companies to devote more of their limited revenue to labor costs and less to improved engineering, processes, quality control, and materials. This began a vicious circle--the union contracts caused the initial decline in quality, which led to a decline in sales, which meant less money available, but the same amount (or more) was going to labor, which meant still less for maintaining quality, which meant quality went down even more, which meant sales declined even more, etc., etc.

Not to mention that these union contracts allow employees to simply do bad work with impunity.

post hoc ergo propter hoc.

It is the responsibility of MANAGEMENT to negotiate with the unions.
Which can't be done when unions possess an illegitimate legal advantage which the employer cannot respond to in kind.

In the real world, companies with union workers can, and often are, still profitable.
If the union is sane and reasonable, yes. That's not the case with UAW.

post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Not at all. That only applies when one tries to argue that the mere fact that B occurred after A is in itself conclusive proof that A caused B. I made no such argument--I actually gave substantial reasons why union contracts led to decline in quality.

Knowing your formal fallacies is great, but it's equally important to know what isn't an instance of a given fallacy, lest you reveal yourself to be a fool masquerading as an intellectual.

Which can't be done when unions possess an illegitimate legal advantage which the employer cannot respond to in kind.


If the union is sane and reasonable, yes. That's not the case with UAW.



Not at all. That only applies when one tries to argue that the mere fact that B occurred after A is in itself conclusive proof that A caused B. I made no such argument--I actually gave substantial reasons why union contracts led to decline in quality.

Knowing your formal fallacies is great, but it's equally important to know what isn't an instance of a given fallacy, lest you reveal yourself to be a fool masquerading as an intellectual.

All you did was explain how union workers pay might increase costs and decrease profits for the automakers. You did not quantify that in any way, so yes, you committed a logical fallacy.

My uncle and cousins were in the union. They lived an average middle class life. By your description they should be kings.
Doesn't it strike you as odd that working class people lived a middle class life?

I mean, people living better than they're supposed to is, of course, nice - but only as long as it doesn't destroy the company or the economy.


All you did was explain how union workers pay might increase costs and decrease profits for the automakers. You did not quantify that in any way, so yes, you committed a logical fallacy.
GM has 252,000 employees.

Considering most UAW workers are overpaid, there are 200,000+ overpaid workers in GM. Costing $100,000 (inc.taxes) instead of the $50,000 normal cost for their social class, they result in $10+ billion of extra expense. But that's just the actual workers.
GM also spends $1,600 per vehicle in so-called legacy costs, mostly retiree health and pension benefits (NOT working employees). That's another $13 billion lost.
And there are major benefits for employees as well, which bring further billions.

Can 25-30 billion in unnecessary expenses bring a company down? Yes, even one as large as GM.



GM and Chrysler need to be liquidated. It's not an option, it's a necessity. Only that way can UAW be eliminated and the US auto industry start a new life.

Liquidation doesn't mean dropping a bomb on Detroit, it means the existing assets will be sold to companies that actually work.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that working class people lived a middle class life?


Not at all.


I mean, people living better than they're supposed to is, of course, nice - but only as long as it doesn't destroy the company or the economy.


More money means more money in the economy.


GM has 252,000 employees.

Considering most UAW workers are overpaid, there are 200,000+ overpaid workers in GM. Costing $100,000 (inc.taxes) instead of the $50,000 normal cost for their social class, they result in $10+ billion of extra expense. But that's just the actual workers.


The management is overpaid; the workers are overpaid. So what's your point?

GM also spends $1,600 per vehicle in so-called legacy costs, mostly retiree health and pension benefits (NOT working employees). That's another $13 billion lost.
And there are major benefits for employees as well, which bring further billions.

Can 25-30 billion in unnecessary expenses bring a company down? Yes, even one as large as GM.

You forgot golden parachutes and gold coffins.....


GM and Chrysler need to be liquidated. It's not an option, it's a necessity. Only that way can UAW be eliminated and the US auto industry start a new life.

Liquidation doesn't mean dropping a bomb on Detroit, it means the existing assets will be sold to companies that actually work.

It can't start a new life. You still have the same management and they will do the same thing.

No matter how much you scream "dem damn commie socialistic unions". They aren't the sole reason for the problems.

Smaller, more fuel-efficient cars require less materials, less direct labor, less manufacturing space and less production equipment than bigger models like SUVs and trucks or larger cars. So, if GM had shifted a lot of its production mix towards smaller models, they would have redundant plants, workers, and materials capacity. Plus, the cost of retooling those plants would have likely impacted the workforce as they sought to keep costs down, especially when producing new products that have yet to establish marketshare.

Ok was that the case or did it involve what you describe and a little "hey we need to build a new plant and it's going to be non-union!" I happened to email my uncle and he remembered a situation like that.

Not at all.
It does strike me.


More money means more money in the economy. ...which means inflation.

You don't gain profit from inflation.


The management is overpaid; the workers are overpaid. So what's your point?
Is executive compensation now going to be a versatile scapegoat to hold everyone else blameless?


You forgot golden parachutes and gold coffins.....
The CEO costs 25 million. The workers' extra pay and benefits cost 25 billion.
And their "golden parachute", proportionally, is more than a rival to CEOs' ones.

CEO pay is not a significant drain on the company's resources, because there's just one. It's the bulk of the employees that is the real cost.


It can't start a new life. You still have the same management and they will do the same thing.
You don't have the same management. If the companies are liquidated and dissolved, the buyers or the new startups will not seek out the old management. They'll have new management that, among other things, won't bend to the unions.


No matter how much you scream "dem damn commie socialistic unions". They aren't the sole reason for the problems.
No. Just the final blow.

It does strike me.

You have a rather limited view of people in the unions. Do you seriously think that is all they do is stay there forever and in the uaw case, only turn a wrench? My uncle didn't. My cousins didn't.

...which means inflation.

You don't gain profit from inflation.


So it's best that people don't have money to spend?

Is executive compensation now going to be a versatile scapegoat to hold everyone else blameless?

You seem to hold executives blameless.

Explain how an executive deserves 220 million in "retirement" pay for driving a company into the ground?

Executive compensation is a blaring example of misguided placement of intentions. Obscene compensation shows they are not there to improve the company. Especially when you have a nice fat "retirement" package.

Personally; I have no problems when you earn it. There are people that bring companies back from death! They deserve a mint. Then you have people that warm a seat such as the former CEO of exxon. I think his "retirement" was 400 million.

The CEO costs 25 million. :D You left out the rest of the management.

The workers' extra pay and benefits cost 25 billion.
And their "golden parachute", proportionally, is more than a rival to CEOs' ones.

Wow. I am in the wrong profession.

CEO pay is not a significant drain on the company's resources, because there's just one. It's the bulk of the employees that is the real cost.

:D The CEO isn't an employee?

You don't have the same management. If the companies are liquidated and dissolved, the buyers or the new startups will not seek out the old management. They'll have new management that, among other things, won't bend to the unions.

You still need car people to run a car company.

No. Just the final blow.

Unions only happen because of bad management.

You have a rather limited view of people in the unions. Do you seriously think that is all they do is stay there forever and in the uaw case, only turn a wrench? My uncle didn't. My cousins didn't.
Of course. But did their jobs require, for instance, a college degree?


Explain how an executive deserves 220 million in "retirement" pay for driving a company into the ground?
Explain how does an employee deserve 90% of his salary for playing cards and watching TV for months on end?


So it's best that people don't have money to spend?
It's best when the amount of money matches the value of the products created. No more, no less. If it's more, inflation ensures, if it's less, deflation.


Executive compensation is a blaring example of misguided placement of intentions. Obscene compensation shows they are not there to improve the company. Especially when you have a nice fat "retirement" package.
You don't quite understand the CEO's role. It's not just a regular employee. Effectively, he does what is otherwise done by the owner. Head of the company. In some ways, he's made a co-owner. And the co-owners have special privileges.


You left out the rest of the management.
Executive pay reaches millions only at the absolute top. At that level, they are assets that are auctioned off (by themselves), so it's more of a price than a salary.


Wow. I am in the wrong profession.
Of course you are.


You still need car people to run a car company.
Of course you don't. Except at the lowest levels. The car people have shown themselves incapable of running a car company.


Unions only happen because of bad management.
Whoa. I didn't expect such an anti-union statement from you.

Indeed, good management won't let them form.

All you did was explain how union workers pay might increase costs and decrease profits for the automakers.
Precisely--I made a coherent argument that consisted of substantially more than "B occurred after A, so B must have been caused by A." Therefore, no post hoc ergo propter hoc.

You did not quantify that in any way,
Not necessary.

so yes, you committed a logical fallacy.
Nope, neither of the specific brand already mentioned nor of any other sort.

More money means more money in the economy.

Unless the automakers are paying their employees by actually printing money, paying their employees more doesn't put more money into the economy...it merely shifts it from one group to another.

You have a rather limited view of people in the unions. Do you seriously think that is all they do is stay there forever and in the uaw case, only turn a wrench? My uncle didn't. My cousins didn't.

Yes, its just like teachers unions, once an employee gets in its almost impossible to get them out again.



So it's best that people don't have money to spend?

Its neither here nor there, its not a companies job to stimulate the economy, its thier job to deliver profits to their shareholders. Period.



You seem to hold executives blameless.

Explain how an executive deserves 220 million in "retirement" pay for driving a company into the ground?

Executive compensation is a blaring example of misguided placement of intentions. Obscene compensation shows they are not there to improve the company. Especially when you have a nice fat "retirement" package.

CEO packages are a tiny tiny fraction of total labor costs. As a rational intelligent action, do you go after the huge part of your labor costs or do you worry about the tiny %?

Then you have people that warm a seat such as the former CEO of exxon. I think his "retirement" was 400 million.

Exxon? as in Mobil Exxon? Its the most profitable Corporation on the planet.




Wow. I am in the wrong profession.

There are a few hundred people in the entire country that has the capability to run a multibillion dollar business. You might as well try out for shortstop for the NY Yankees.




Unions only happen because of bad management.

You must be young and bright eyed and bushy tailed. Imagine the day the UAW says "Hey your company seems fair , lets pack it up and leave you alone." Snicker.

Yes, its just like teachers unions, once an employee gets in its almost impossible to get them out again.

Ahh no. They don't get 10 year which to a point I agree they should have. Schools had a habbit of tossing seasoned teachers because they cost too much. But thats best for the kids right? Why have a good costly teacher when you can have a cheap inexperienced one.

Having said that; I would modify 10 year. Make it kind of like a certification that the teacher must actively train or what not to keep.

Its neither here nor there, its not a companies job to stimulate the economy, its thier job to deliver profits to their shareholders. Period.
Hogwash. That is nothing more then an excause of the excess. For years I have listened to the responsibilty to the shareholders. However, when you bring up that maybe the shareholders should have say in the pay packages, most go ballistic. Some companies do that but most do not.

CEO packages are a tiny tiny fraction of total labor costs. As a rational intelligent action, do you go after the huge part of your labor costs or do you worry about the tiny %?

CEO pay packages are a statement of the problem. If they are to excess and frequently abused; the work force will follow suit in their own way.

Exxon? as in Mobil Exxon? Its the most profitable Corporation on the planet.

Look up into the sky! That's the point flying over your head.

The CEO did not make it profitable. My 5 year old daughter at the time could have been CEO and seen the same profits.

He did not deserve 400 million to retire.

There are a few hundred people in the entire country that has the capability to run a multibillion dollar business. You might as well try out for shortstop for the NY Yankees.

Wow that was left field.

You must be young and bright eyed and bushy tailed. Imagine the day the UAW says "Hey your company seems fair , lets pack it up and leave you alone." Snicker.

:D you just keep telling yourself that.

Unions would not exist if the company was properly managed.

Since your answers are text book based. Look to the coal industry of the 1800s; factory practices, railroads and you see why unions happened.

Sorry to tell you that a completely free market is impossible to achieve.

Unless the automakers are paying their employees by actually printing money, paying their employees more doesn't put more money into the economy...it merely shifts it from one group to another.

In a consumer based economy; that's a good thing no?

Of course. But did their jobs require, for instance, a college degree?


Of course not. My relations worked in the union to pay for school. You have waste cases in the union. Any union person will tell you that. Suggesting they are all overpiad is simply wrong. My relations were not paid that much when they entered the union.

Explain how does an employee deserve 90% of his salary for playing cards and watching TV for months on end?
You going to suggest all execs earn the pay every day? They never wast company resources or time?

Waste happens at all levels.


You don't quite understand the CEO's role. It's not just a regular employee. Effectively, he does what is otherwise done by the owner. Head of the company. In some ways, he's made a co-owner. And the co-owners have special privileges.
Actually I do a little more then you think. I was once a President of a nonprofit. 300 employees in all. Doesn't match the auto industry of course but I have been in the board room at least.

A ceo is not a coowner well unless he founded the company. Especially if it's publically held. He is still an employee. He is supposed to be highly paid to make the tough decessions. Many think they deserve the big bucks simply because they have the title.

Don't get me wrong. I have no problems for big salaries when they are earned. For example the guys who restore a company to profitability. The exxon ceo mentioned? No.


Executive pay reaches millions only at the absolute top. At that level, they are assets that are auctioned off (by themselves), so it's more of a price than a salary.

Which is the problem. They are actioned of to fellow board members. Turn the pay packages over to the shareholders since we are supposed to give them profits. How many business execs would buy into the propisition.


Of course you don't. Except at the lowest levels. The car people have shown themselves incapable of running a car company.

That we are in agreement. But can you take say the ceo of Chilies and make him CEO of Ford? Or worst yet, investor groups.

Whoa. I didn't expect such an anti-union statement from you.

Indeed, good management won't let them form.

You miss the point. People wouldn't want a union if they felt they were getting a fair shake. Unions still need enough votes from good employees as well as the screwups.

Believe me I am not a believer of unions. I don't want to be in one. Even my father-in-law says they have problems. He was an electrician. He will tell you that many problems in buildings and injuries are in part due to the management and the pursuit of total profit. When he started out a job site would have one journeyman for every 4 apprentices. Now you will have one journeyman for up to 20 apprentices(mind I am talking the big building projects and not homes, etc). He said the smart businessmen see that electricity is a thing you want done right and accept a few salaries being bigger. The ones that look only at the salaries fail to see inexperience leads to more costs.

Even in my own world; I remember once case of two deaths back in aerodefense company. Two guys were sent into a hole to deal with an electrical issue. It was a major line and it was supposed to have been off. It wasn't and one guy touched the line. The other one decided to help by pulling him off. You know the human body does not smell good cooked. *shudders* It's not a smell you forget. Anyway, I told my father-in-law about it and he shook his head and said they were probably inexperienced. He said the very first lesson he learned as an apprentice was to make sure the power was off and to not simply listen to somebody say it was.

The funny thing was he was right. I didn't tell him that they were young guys.

Of course not.
So, they're working class, hence, a fair wage is a working-class one, unless they were doing particularly hard work.

You have waste cases in the union. Any union person will tell you that.
So... what point is the presence of waste cases supposed to make?

You going to suggest all execs earn the pay every day? They never wast company resources or time?
Just because someone else is wrong doesn't make it right. The executives have their share of the blame, the unions their. Now we are talking about the unions.


A ceo is not a coowner well unless he founded the company. Especially if it's publically held.
Well, I said, "in some ways, they're made a co-owner" - i.e. they're not the same, but they're on the same level of significance, and replace the co-owners as the executive management, so the corporate system rewards them with some of the same privileges as the co-owners naturally have.


Don't get me wrong. I have no problems for big salaries when they are earned. For example the guys who restore a company to profitability. The exxon ceo mentioned? No.
Is there a magic 8-ball that can tell whether the said CEO will earn their big salary? No.

When the companies hire a CEO for a large package, they always believe he'll be worth his price.


That we are in agreement. But can you take say the ceo of Chilies and make him CEO of Ford? Or worst yet, investor groups.
That's what the business always does, CEO move between companies and fields.

And a really good CEO like Steve Jobs would probably be able to run a car company more successfully than the CEO of Chrysler does/did.


You miss the point. People wouldn't want a union if they felt they were getting a fair shake. Unions still need enough votes from good employees as well as the screwups.
The Ford Motor Company started out giving its employees a very fair share. And kept doing it. Yet UAW is there as well.

No one ever thinks they're getting a fair share, people always think they deserve more. So the union never stops trying to conquer more pay and benefits.


Believe me I am not a believer of unions. I don't want to be in one. Even my father-in-law says they have problems. He was an electrician. He will tell you that many problems in buildings and injuries are in part due to the management and the pursuit of total profit.
Well - if all the managers were infallible, they would be called gods or something like that. But the thing is, the blame in most cases isn't their alone.
Specifically, considering the US car industry, UAW's carelessness in milking the companies was a major factor in the collapse.

So, they're working class, hence, a fair wage is a working-class one, unless they were doing particularly hard work.


There lies the problem. A fair wage vs a living wage. The opinions of a fair wage tends to be significantly less then a living wage.


So... what point is the presence of waste cases supposed to make? You mentioned it first. You tell me.

Just because someone else is wrong doesn't make it right. The executives have their share of the blame, the unions their. Now we are talking about the unions.

Yes but expecting only only one group to stop is not right either. Executives do have their share of blame but what are they losing for it?

Yes we are talking about unions. I don't buy they are the sole reason or most of the reasons why the companies have problems.

Well, I said, "in some ways, they're made a co-owner" - i.e. they're not the same, but they're on the same level of significance, and replace the co-owners as the executive management, so the corporate system rewards them with some of the same privileges as the co-owners naturally have.

Then that has to change. You yourself said people think they should be paid more. Right now they basically decide their own salary. If they are a private company? Well they get more of that privilege. A public company? I believe the packages should be a sharehodler issue. Especially since we are beholden to them.

Is there a magic 8-ball that can tell whether the said CEO will earn their big salary? No.
Should they be rewarded for failure? That is what a golden paracheute and even the gold coffin does all the time.

When the companies hire a CEO for a large package, they always believe he'll be worth his price.
Then he should earn it. If he fails, he should not be rewarded.

That's what the business always does, CEO move between companies and fields.

And a really good CEO like Steve Jobs would probably be able to run a car company more successfully than the CEO of Chrysler does/did.
Has Jobs worked with a union setup? No point. Just a question.

No one ever thinks they're getting a fair share, people always think they deserve more. So the union never stops trying to conquer more pay and benefits.

Hmmmm just like the magement and the executives.

Well - if all the managers were infallible, they would be called gods or something like that. But the thing is, the blame in most cases isn't their alone.
Specifically, considering the US car industry, UAW's carelessness in milking the companies was a major factor in the collapse.

They did but they still make concessions. Just did today in fact. Have the execs abandoned any seriuos compensation to help the company?

There lies the problem. A fair wage vs a living wage. The opinions of a fair wage tends to be significantly less then a living wage.
Well. People live on working-class wages. A whole class of people, nearly half the nation.

You mentioned it first. You tell me.
Ah, you're about those playing cards.
Well, if there was no union, they could just be downsized.


Then that has to change. You yourself said people think they should be paid more. Right now they basically decide their own salary. If they are a private company? Well they get more of that privilege. A public company? I believe the packages should be a sharehodler issue. Especially since we are beholden to them.
But it is a shareholder issue, more specifically board of directors, which is appointed by the major shareholders.


Should they be rewarded for failure? That is what a golden paracheute and even the gold coffin does all the time.
That is not a reward. It's what they get in either case.


Then he should earn it. If he fails, he should not be rewarded.
Then make the contract with your CEO this way.


Has Jobs worked with a union setup? No point. Just a question.
Note I said "a car company", not "an UAW-controlled car company".


Hmmmm just like the magement and the executives.
And they are responsible for the fall as well, just like the management and the executives.


They did but they still make concessions. Just did today in fact. Have the execs abandoned any seriuos compensation to help the company?
That's not really concessions to help the company. That's spreading the taxpayer money a bit thinner so the companies can last a bit longer.

Well. People live on working-class wages. A whole class of people, nearly half the nation.

Indeed and union pay scales evil as they are; helped raised that level.

Ah, you're about those playing cards.
Well, if there was no union, they could just be downsized.

Meh. And execs should be punished for failing to do their job and not rewarded.

But it is a shareholder issue, more specifically board of directors, which is appointed by the major shareholders.

:D So you think the shareholders shouldn't decide on pay packages.


That is not a reward. It's what they get in either case.

Sure it is. The home depot CEO is a great example. Under his leadership the company lost profit as was said in his termination. FAILED TO MEET ALL OBJECTIVES. His punishment? Two hundred and twenty million dollars!

But hey I am not that greedy. Fire me and I will be happy with 3 million.

Then make the contract with your CEO this way.

:D

Note I said "a car company", not "an UAW-controlled car company".

So not just anybody can run a car company.

[qipte]And they are responsible for the fall as well, just like the management and the executives.[/quote]

So what's the message? Don't excel at your job because you shouldn't be rewarded for the good of the company?

Cap runaway executive salaries and I am on board for caping worker salaries.

That's not really concessions to help the company. That's spreading the taxpayer money a bit thinner so the companies can last a bit longer.

:D Nothing a union does is any good for you eh?

Indeed and union pay scales evil as they are; helped raised that level.
No. Only redistribute the income.

execs
CEO
executive
"As long as others did wrongs, I'm blameless!"
Don't dodge the subject. There are another threads about them.


But hey I am not that greedy. Fire me and I will be happy with 3 million.
Why would anyone give you 3 million? You're not a CEO.
Fired UAW workers, though, receive money and benefits.

So not just anybody can run a car company.
Well, this answers your question of why CEO are paid a lot, does it not?


Nothing a union does is any good for you eh?
Without a union that would be done yet in 2006.

Particularly the classic 'lay everyone off then hire them back as temps/contractors' which a lot of people go for.

Our company is going to do that within the next weeks. A group is going to be losing a few hundred people, which, to be fair, are going to be compared against their peers to decide who gets to be fired. But once those hundreds of people are off the project, the project still has funding for months and work to go with it so they are likely going to hire a bunch of contractors to do it.

During poor economic times it should be much easier to improve manufacturing processes then it would market share. Even BMW sales are down 45%.And how about during booming economic times? They could have improved their manufacturing processes at the same time they were selling lots of cars.

The car companies, thru automation, wanted to ELIMINATE jobs. You save money by having LESS workers not remixing the same workers in a different order.You could also save money by using automation to make the workers you have more productive.
Nonetheless, Vault 10's point talked of hiring new workers to run the improved machinery.

Are you saying this with a straight face or just trying to get a rise out of people? The very PURPOSE of a Union is to create leverage. Thats the primary reason for their existence.Certainly. And some of them obtain leverage. They do not obtain massive leverage.

How do you increase your market share? Cast a Fortify Market Share for 10 years on Self spell?

You need to take sales away from others, and they're not giving them up willingly. It's a hard fight to win when they're better than you in every aspect. Then you should manage your company and make decisions in such a way that the other companies lose their advantage.

You're talking like increasing the market share is a matter of just making more cars. But new cars are a buyer's market, not a seller's one.
You need to build a car that is cheaper and better than the competition. Otherwise it will sit in storage until it turns to rust.Making the car cheaper and better would be one result of improving manufacturing processes.

First, you can't do that without consent. Will they give it? It's much more fun to watch videos than study and work. Many workers would accept on-the-job training if it meant a bigger paycheck.

Second, retraining isn't always possible, let alone easy.
How do you retrain a 50 year old nut tightener that can't even use a computer into an Oracle database administrator, a C++ programmer, or even just a simple QNX Neutrino operator?Simply because an individual employee couldn't be retrained doesn't mean a certain percentage of employees couldn't. A large company like GM has thousands of employees.

Third, what's the economic point of spending a lot of money on new equipment, training, and new personnel, if you have to pay the freed-up employees for doing nothing anyway?There wouldn't be freed-up employees. Some of them would be doing their new jobs. The rest would be productive because the efficiency gains from the new equipment led to bigger sales.

But the Big 3 were in no position to take such risks. It would be an endurance race, who can last longer, the company without old workers, or the old workers without income, and it takes a company that stands on both legs to win. And whose fault is this?

You could also save money by using automation to make the workers you have more productive.
You have to fire unnecessary workers to save money that. Either that, or lower the wages.

Certainly. And some of them obtain leverage. They do not obtain massive leverage.
No, "enormous", "ridiculous", or "stupendous" describe it better in the UAW case.

Then you should manage your company and make decisions in such a way that the other companies lose their advantage.
"Hi, I'm between 84 and 106 years old, I'm fat and I have never seriously competed with anyone since 1930. How can I win a world championship?"
"You should control your car and make decisions in such a way that the other racers lose their advantage."


Making the car cheaper and better would be one result of improving manufacturing processes.
Better? Yes.
Cheaper? No.

Cost is not an inherent property of a product. It's the combined expenses of the company, divided by the number of units sold, plus the profit margin.

If your expenses can only increase (as you can't fire people), and you can't conquer a lot more sales, then the cost will increase as well.


Many workers would accept on-the-job training if it meant a bigger paycheck.
An even bigger paycheck. They already earn more than a good M.Sc., Ph.D., or another ultra-high-qualification employee.

And on-the-job training even to a Bachelor's degree level is not really in the realms of things that work. You'll get underqualified employees that cost you more than the cream of the crop of the job market.


Simply because an individual employee couldn't be retrained doesn't mean a certain percentage of employees couldn't. A large company like GM has thousands of employees.
And yet you can't practically retrain an assembly line worker into a programmer, a database administrator, an engineer, or any other of the professions that are required to run modern equipment.

Perhaps you could retrain the best workers to perform maintenance on the servers and other electronic equipment, but the problem is that these workers are the ones you need for building modern highly computerized cars, not the ones made redundant.


There wouldn't be freed-up employees. Some of them would be doing their new jobs. The rest would be productive because the efficiency gains from the new equipment led to bigger sales.
Really? So, if GM gains efficiency from some new equipment, I'm going to buy a GM car instead of a Porsche AG (or Acura, or Nissan, or BMW) one? Or will I buy a GM car in addition to a good one? Why would that be?

How possibly can I even know that they have improved the efficiency and why should I care?

Efficiency improvement alone means nothing. You have to offer the customers a better and a cheaper car. And since your expenses have just skyrocketed, you can't offer a cheaper car, even despite an increase in volume.


And whose fault is this?
Of everyone involved. Unions did play a major part in leaving GM barely alive.

However, when you bring up that maybe the shareholders should have say in the pay packages
If they wanted it, they'd elect a board of directors that deferred to them on that point.

The CEO did not make it profitable. My 5 year old daughter at the time could have been CEO and seen the same profits.

He did not deserve 400 million to retire.
Obviously the shareholders and the board of directors--who have a vested interest in making the right decisions on these matters, and so put a lot more time and effort and research into these decisions than you do--think otherwise, or they wouldn't have done it.

Who is a more reliable source for this matter--the people whose day job is to get these decisions right because they have a vested interest in so doing, or some random joker on the Internet?

Sorry to tell you that a completely free market is impossible to achieve.

Incorrect.

In a consumer based economy; that's a good thing no?

Why would it matter, as far as the economy as a whole is concerned, who gets it? In the end, it all gets spent.

If they wanted it, they'd elect a board of directors that deferred to them on that point.

:D It's probably never occurred to them before. But it's happening now. More companies are doing it much to the chagrin of the executives.

Obviously the shareholders and the board of directors

Ahh no. The oil shortages and gas price hikes did that. He warmed a seat.

--who have a vested interest in making the right decisions on these matters, and so put a lot more time and effort and research into these decisions than you do--think otherwise, or they wouldn't have done it.


:D You think the execs researched that data?

Who is a more reliable source for this matter--the people whose day job is to get these decisions right because they have a vested interest in so doing, or some random joker on the Internet?

Wow that was pretty simple minded.

Incorrect.

No it is true.

Human nature makes it impossible. To have a free market; you need regulation.

No. Only redistribute the income.

Yup. Poverty wages to working wages. Sounds good to me.

"As long as others did wrongs, I'm blameless!"
Don't dodge the subject. There are another threads about them.

Versus "Do as I say; not as I do"

Unions are not the whole problem for this mess.

Why would anyone give you 3 million? You're not a CEO.

So? It's nothing compared to receiving 220 million for failing to do your job.

Fired UAW workers, though, receive money and benefits.
Yes laid off people do. Part of the union thing.

Well, this answers your question of why CEO are paid a lot, does it not?

:D Nobody says that don't deserve a large salary. They shouldn't be rewarded for failure.

Without a union that would be done yet in 2006.

Sorry. I don't follow. 2006?

Yup. Poverty wages to working wages. Sounds good to me.
Even half their pay, $37,000, is far from a poverty wage. It's more than the average American earns.

Their current pay, $75,000, is putting them into the top 10% of the nation by income - along with Ph.D. and professionals who have spent 6+ years in college, are working 10 hours a day, have to pay off their college loans, and receive no union-style protection and benefits.

Good for them, but it's as blatant a ripoff as CEOs' packages, and such high a cost of labor drives any company uncompetitive.


So? It's nothing compared to receiving 220 million for failing to do your job.
How do you know you would have done that job better, and not even worse?


:D Nobody says that don't deserve a large salary. They shouldn't be rewarded for failure.
They aren't rewarded for failure. Their pay includes certain components, some dependent on performance, some independent of performance. Just like union pay and benefits.


Sorry. I don't follow. 2006?
Their pay and benefits would have been cut as soon as the industry took a severe downturn.

Even half their pay, $37,000, is far from a poverty wage. It's more than the average American earns.

Their current pay, $75,000, is putting them into the top 10% of the nation by income -


Ok. Are you trying to suggest that a new worker gets 75000?

along with Ph.D. and professionals who have spent 6+ years in college, are working 10 hours a day, have to pay off their college loans, and receive no union-style protection and benefits.

Bad comparison. PhDs are notoriously underpaid in science. Hmmm Free market!.

A friend finished her PhD in organic chem which alone garners respect as that is an insane topic. She cleared 55 gs.

So who is to blame for that? Seems like Management doesn't respect that much. There are execs that don't even have a PhD that make 10 times more then that.

Good for them, but it's as blatant a ripoff as CEOs' packages,

That we are in agreement. As said, cap the executive compensation and I am on board for caping labor costs.

and such high a cost of labor drives any company uncompetitive.

To some degree but the management has a large part of that. Here is an example I read this morning.

The newspaper had an article about GM about to file chapter 11. On the next page was the newest GM creation. An SUV with tons of power, pickup, 6 speed gear, etc. One thing noticeably missing from the stats. Gas mileage. Which probably means this is yet another gas pig to try and sell to the gas conscious consumers.

How do you know you would have done that job better, and not even worse?

I am willing to try for that kind of package.

They aren't rewarded for failure. Their pay includes certain components, some dependent on performance, some independent of performance. Just like union pay and benefits.

Yes they are rewarded. Again, 220 million for failing to meet all objectives.

When the golden parachutes and golden coffins are eliminated, I am all for restructuring union compensation.

Their pay and benefits would have been cut as soon as the industry took a severe downturn.

Ah ok.

Well if the execs do it; it's only fair the workers do it as well....

Ok. Are you trying to suggest that a new worker gets 75000?
It's enough that the average one gets it.


Bad comparison. PhDs are notoriously underpaid in science. Hmmm Free market!
Try any other profession. $75,000 is in the top 10% - that's a high pay by any means. That's not a fair wage for an assembly line dude whose job is to push the sole button on an electric screwdriver.


So who is to blame for that?
UAW for the most part.

Top management pay is only a tiny part of the overall expenses.


That we are in agreement. As said, cap the executive compensation and I am on board for caping labor costs.
Neither is needed. Market can sort it out by itself. Just stop pumping taxpayer money into the corpses of dead dinosaurs and let them rest in peace.


I am willing to try for that kind of package.
Go ahead then, if anyone will let you.


Well if the execs do it; it's only fair the workers do it as well....
Well, it's their choice. Just as long as I am not forced to pay for their greed with my taxes.


These bailouts are outrageous. I will probably do what I can to dodge taxes this year. Not because I need the money all that badly. It's just that the current government does only harm with its discretionary budget, like making the long dead GM corpse walk around and stink, and so, the lower that budget is, the better.

Well, it's their choice. Just as long as I am not forced to pay for their greed with my taxes.

These bailouts are outrageous. I will probably do what I can to dodge taxes this year. Not because I need the money all that badly. It's just that the current government does only harm with its discretionary budget, like making the long dead GM corpse walk around and stink, and so, the lower that budget is, the better.

On that note. I think we can bring the discussion to a close.

Else, we start a demo vs repub "discussion" ;)

Cheers.

Wasn't Proximus a De Facto Monopoly for a decade ?
And isn't Belgacom still a monopoly on land lines ?

For a decade? For ages you mean. :)

Currently they have no monopoly anymore.

For a decade? For ages you mean. :)

Currently they have no monopoly anymore.

Then they are going well if you consider them losing market share from 100% to less then 50% ?
sounds like a soon to be failing business that never would have gotten its start if not for a government monopoly.

Then they are going well if you consider them losing market share from 100% to less then 50% ?
sounds like a soon to be failing business that never would have gotten its start if not for a government monopoly.

I do not know their market share right now, but it is rather normal when a state owned company has to give up its monopoly that its market share is dropping.

Belgacom isn't having a monopoly anymore since a long time. While they are the market leader, they have a strong competition. The market situation is rather stable now.

Market share is important, in matter of grow, but it isn't the only figure. Turnover and profits after taxes are other (basic) ones. Their turnover and profits are very healthy and do promise more for the future.

Belgacom was a monopoly, but isn't now anymore and they do it very well. They produce similar ratios as private owned companies.

Those state companies aren't like 30 or 40 years ago. Present times, most are wearing a modern jacket, with a management structure comparable to that of private companies.

The CEO's and key management people are often attracted from private competition. Sure it is not always 'perfect' and yes some of those companies have some advantage due their former old monopoly, but stating that a government can't run a business is just not right and this for diverse reasons.

Are you aware that running a country has several similarities with running a business?

You have to fire unnecessary workers to save money that. Either that, or lower the wages. Not if you're making more money from increased sales.

No, "enormous", "ridiculous", or "stupendous" describe it better in the UAW case.Not hardly. They couldn't even shut down a city if they wanted to.

"Hi, I'm between 84 and 106 years old, I'm fat and I have never seriously competed with anyone since 1930. How can I win a world championship?"
"You should control your car and make decisions in such a way that the other racers lose their advantage."Are you saying GM is inherently incapable of making sound business decisions?

Cost is not an inherent property of a product. It's the combined expenses of the company, divided by the number of units sold, plus the profit margin.Yes. And if the updating of the manufacturing equipment reduces combined expenses, cost can be lowered.

If your expenses can only increase (as you can't fire people), and you can't conquer a lot more sales, then the cost will increase as well.Your belief that they couldn't conquer a lot more sales is erroneous.

An even bigger paycheck. They already earn more than a good M.Sc., Ph.D., or another ultra-high-qualification employee.So are you saying that salary is inherently related to level of education? Or merely that it should be?

And on-the-job training even to a Bachelor's degree level is not really in the realms of things that work. You'll get underqualified employees that cost you more than the cream of the crop of the job market.Then pay for the employees' schooling if additional training is needed. Companies do it all the time.

Really? So, if GM gains efficiency from some new equipment, I'm going to buy a GM car instead of a Porsche AG (or Acura, or Nissan, or BMW) one? Or will I buy a GM car in addition to a good one? Why would that be?I'm unsure of why someone would by a Porsche, so I can't answer that question.

How possibly can I even know that they have improved the efficiency and why should I care?

Efficiency improvement alone means nothing. You have to offer the customers a better and a cheaper car. And since your expenses have just skyrocketed, you can't offer a cheaper car, even despite an increase in volume.One would assume that if GM advertises their cars as being better, and has the data to back it up, that some people might be intrigued. This intrigue, if it pans out, would lead to further sales by word-of-mouth.

Of everyone involved. Unions did play a major part in leaving GM barely alive.If unions played any part at all, it's miniscule.

Not if you're making more money from increased sales.
GM struggles as it is to sell the cars they make. Making more cars won't increase the sales.


Are you saying GM is inherently incapable of making sound business decisions?
I'm saying that conquering a market share from another manufacturer generally requires winning a competition against them - not merely knowing your MBA. And on today's world market, it's a worldwide championship. Not everyone can win one just because they try.


Yes. And if the updating of the manufacturing equipment reduces combined expenses, cost can be lowered.
But it doesn't reduce combined expenses. It's not that good as to achieve that merely through raw material economy. The majority of the savings come from reducing the personnel requirements, and that's just what GM can't take advantage of.


Your belief that they couldn't conquer a lot more sales is erroneous.

Interesting how you seem to know. Did the Usenet Oracle tell you that? I call source/explain here - how specifically do you expect them to reliably conquer a lot more sales?


So are you saying that salary is inherently related to level of education? Or merely that it should be?
It generally is strongly correlated, and for a good reason. Employees that have more education can perform more difficult work.

When that correlation is broken, it's usually the lower-education job being particularly hard, in particular demand, or having longer hours. But UAW jobs are neither. It's not the company who has decided to pay them more, it's they who have coerced the company, using the union laws, to pay them more than they're worth on the market.


Then pay for the employees' schooling if additional training is needed. Companies do it all the time.
It's expensive. They don't do it all the time, they do it when they have talented employees who could be of much more use if they filled the critically required positions with higher education level required.
You're proposing it on a mass scale and for the currently useless (i.e. often less talented) workers, as if GM was printing money.

In case of trying to school old UAW geezers into becoming 21st century workforce for an IT-centered environment, you'll get substandard and uncompetitive results if not outright dropouts, with little time left to recoup the investment before they retire. They'll also demand a higher salary than fresh high-quality workforce does. It's a bad idea all along.


I'm unsure of why someone would by a Porsche, so I can't answer that question.
But I'm very sure of why, and why I would buy a German or Japanese car in general. I'm unsure of why would I buy any of the GM cars.


One would assume that if GM advertises their cars as being better, and has the data to back it up, that some people might be intrigued. This intrigue, if it pans out, would lead to further sales by word-of-mouth.
You have to actually improve the cars to back it up. Everyone already advertises their cars as being better, explicitly or implicitly. And actually improving the cars usually leads to higher cost, especially if you're used to making trucks rather than cars.


If unions played any part at all, it's miniscule.
Of course, they did nothing bad, except for keeping the company in the stone age and drying its coffers so it couldn't leap forward.

GM struggles as it is to sell the cars they make. Making more cars won't increase the sales.Not in and of itself, no. Making better cars most likely would.

I'm saying that conquering a market share from another manufacturer generally requires winning a competition against them - not merely knowing your MBA. And on today's world market, it's a worldwide championship. Not everyone can win one just because they try.GM has won in the past.

But it doesn't reduce combined expenses. It's not that good as to achieve that merely through raw material economy. The majority of the savings come from reducing the personnel requirements, and that's just what GM can't take advantage of.By shifting some of the older workers over to the newer jobs and making the workers more productive, they would reduce the overall personnel requirements.

Interesting how you seem to know. Did the Usenet Oracle tell you that? I call source/explain here - how specifically do you expect them to reliably conquer a lot more sales?In the same way they drastically increased sales in the late '90s by making SUVs - by making cars that people want.
It would have been helpful if management hadn't killed the EV1, of course. Especially given that GM was putting its hopes for revitalizing the company on the Chevy Volt. It would seem that killing the EV1 did more harm to the company than the UAW ever could.

It generally is strongly correlated, and for a good reason. Employees that have more education can perform more difficult work.Great. Let's pay teachers and social workers more, then.

When that correlation is broken, it's usually the lower-education job being particularly hard, in particular demand, or having longer hours. But UAW jobs are neither. It's not the company who has decided to pay them more, it's they who have coerced the company, using the union laws, to pay them more than they're worth on the market.It's more that they used the power of the union to get a bigger share of what they deserve, as opposed to the union laws.

It's expensive. They don't do it all the time, they do it when they have talented employees who could be of much more use if they filled the critically required positions with higher education level required.
You're proposing it on a mass scale and for the currently useless (i.e. often less talented) workers, as if GM was printing money.

In case of trying to school old UAW geezers into becoming 21st century workforce for an IT-centered environment, you'll get substandard and uncompetitive results if not outright dropouts, with little time left to recoup the investment before they retire. They'll also demand a higher salary than fresh high-quality workforce does. It's a bad idea all along.I'm proposing it as an alternative to hiring new people to run the new equipment.

But I'm very sure of why, and why I would buy a German or Japanese car in general. I'm unsure of why would I buy any of the GM cars.Most likely a combination of price and performance.

You have to actually improve the cars to back it up. Everyone already advertises their cars as being better, explicitly or implicitly. And actually improving the cars usually leads to higher cost, especially if you're used to making trucks rather than cars.And since we're talking about a situation where GM has improved their cars, they would be able to back it up.

Of course, they did nothing bad.Fixed.

Not in and of itself, no. Making better cars most likely would.
GM has won in the past.
Well, yes. It did. In the past.

By shifting some of the older workers over to the newer jobs and making the workers more productive, they would reduce the overall personnel requirements.
But THEY CAN'T FIRE the personnel. They can't take advantage of the reduced requirements. That's the problem.


In the same way they drastically increased sales in the late '90s by making SUVs - by making cars that people want.
It would have been helpful if management hadn't killed the EV1, of course.
EV1 was notable for being the first practical electric car, but the 'practical' here is relative. The technology required to make it competitive didn't even exist yet, and even now it's firmly in the high-end segment.

Yes, they increased the sales by making SUVs - lorries that no one else expected people to want to drive.


It's more that they used the power of the union to get a bigger share of what they deserve, as opposed to the union laws.
Well, yeah. They made that share exceed 100%. With predictable results.

If they "deserved" that, the company would not be in the need of a bailout.


I'm proposing it as an alternative to hiring new people to run the new equipment.
You don't understand.

You can't turn a 50 year old nut twister into someone who can run the new equipment. You can't teach him to write program code, manage data storage, repair electronic circuits, or even monitor the operations of a RTOS that controls the machinery.

What he can be taught to do is oil the robots, but the problem is that you have more workers good for nothing else than the robots need oil changes.

You need 25-30 year olds who have studied in the 2000s and have contemporary knowledge. You need the primary job market. You can't survive on the old workers alone.


Most likely a combination of price and performance.
You mean a fairly upmarket price and disappointingly lackluster performance.


And since we're talking about a situation where GM has improved their cars, they would be able to back it up.
Except they have to improve their cars, which isn't an easy task to accomplish without a jackup in price.

Well, yes. It did. In the past.So was it a good management decision or did they just get lucky?

But THEY CAN'T FIRE the personnel. They can't take advantage of the reduced requirements. That's the problem.They reduce their requirements by retraining the old workers, instead of hiring new ones to tkae the jobs in the expanded business.

EV1 was notable for being the first practical electric car, but the 'practical' here is relative. The technology required to make it competitive didn't even exist yet, and even now it's firmly in the high-end segment.So why is GM vaunting the Volt as being the car that will save them?

Well, yeah. They made that share exceed 100%. With predictable results.It isn't possible for the workers' compensation to exceed 100% of what they deserve.

If they "deserved" that, the company would not be in the need of a bailout.Yes, it would, since the reason the company needs the bailout was due to incompetent management.

You don't understand.

You can't turn a 50 year old nut twister into someone who can run the new equipment. You can't teach him to write program code, manage data storage, repair electronic circuits, or even monitor the operations of a RTOS that controls the machinery.

What he can be taught to do is oil the robots, but the problem is that you have more workers good for nothing else than the robots need oil changes.They could oil the robots, and do minor repair work, and still do the things that the robots can't do.

You need 25-30 year olds who have studied in the 2000s and have contemporary knowledge. You need the primary job market. You can't survive on the old workers alone.Are you under the impression that there are no young workers there?

You mean a fairly upmarket price and disappointingly lackluster performance.Not really - if they improved their MPG, that would be a major part of improving their performance.

Except they have to improve their cars, which isn't an easy task to accomplish without a jackup in price.They managed to have "Employee Pricing Deals" a few times, which were somewhat successful. Imagine how much better they'd be if the cars were better, too.

So was it a good management decision or did they just get lucky?
They didn't have serious competition and didn't suck so bad these days.


They reduce their requirements by retraining the old workers, instead of hiring new ones to tkae the jobs in the expanded business.
You don't understand. Expanding business has to follow an increase in demand. They aren't expanding the business. They are shrinking it. They need to shrink it because of the recession. Everyone is doing that.


It isn't possible for the workers' compensation to exceed 100% of what they deserve.
It is. Right now, GM and Chrysler workers' 'compensation' exceeds 100% of what they deserve.


They could oil the robots, and do minor repair work, and still do the things that the robots can't do.
You see, the whole point of robots is that they reduce the personnel requirements. They could do this, and that, and the remainder, but there's still more obsolete workers than there's work they can do.


Are you under the impression that there are no young workers there?
Most young people who wish to go to college just do so.


Not really - if they improved their MPG, that would be a major part of improving their performance.
Their cars may look new, but their engines are 70 year old designs. They're not even OHC - a technology used in 1940s already. No VVT, no DFI, no nothing, just junk. Good luck improving the mpg on that.

Now, Porsche - these retain 70 years-old style, but the technology under that body is second to none. Full electronic control, direct fuel injection, variocam, variable geometry turbochargers. Their engines are the most advanced units mounted in any production car, including far more expensive ones. No surprise they pull out 500hp with less fuel than GM needs to get 250.
And the Porsche engine, as well as all other heavy parts, sits so close to the ground that the car never feels its weight. It springs into the corners and rushes out of them. It passes the smoother chicanes like if they weren't there. It's planted on the track, and at the same time incredibly responsive to the wheel, the throttle, the brakes, to any touch.

That's what I call performance.



They managed to have "Employee Pricing Deals" a few times, which were somewhat successful. Imagine how much better they'd be if the cars were better, too.
Ah, yes. Their own employees are probably the only people who have a good reason to buy their cars.

GM is dying, and has been dying for decades (a "slow, ORRible death"), because its corporate culture sucks. It is run by people who don't know anything about cars: these aren't the kids who used to love tearing cars apart and rebuilding them; they aren't even people who love watching NASCAR, or love driving sporty vehicles. Most of the people in management probably don't even have any conception of how the internal combustion engine works. They come out with all kinds of Bus-Ad-school bafflegab about "strategic initiatives to incentivize product innovation for maximized customer satisfaction" but they are incapable of improving anything because THEY DON'T HAVE A CLUE WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT!

They didn't have serious competition and didn't suck so bad these days.They didn't have serious competition in the late 1990s?

You don't understand. Expanding business has to follow an increase in demand. They aren't expanding the business. They are shrinking it. They need to shrink it because of the recession. Everyone is doing that.I understand that part. However, we haven't been in a perpetual recession. The business could have been expanded prior to these troubles.

It is. Right now, GM and Chrysler workers' 'compensation' exceeds 100% of what they deserve.Again, it isn't possible for the workers' compensation to exceed 100% of what they deserve. And not because it isn't mathematically possible to exceed 100%, either.

You see, the whole point of robots is that they reduce the personnel requirements. They could do this, and that, and the remainder, but there's still more obsolete workers than there's work they can do. They would reduce the personnel requirements in that one area, yes. Since the business as a whole would be expanding, there would be plenty of places for the displaced workers to go.

Most young people who wish to go to college just do so.But not all of them. Further, there would be the additional incentive of moving up in the company.

Their cars may look new, but their engines are 70 year old designs. They're not even OHC - a technology used in 1940s already. No VVT, no DFI, no nothing, just junk. Good luck improving the mpg on that.

Now, Porsche - these retain 70 years-old style, but the technology under that body is second to none. Full electronic control, direct fuel injection, variocam, variable geometry turbochargers. Their engines are the most advanced units mounted in any production car, including far more expensive ones. No surprise they pull out 500hp with less fuel than GM needs to get 250.
And the Porsche engine, as well as all other heavy parts, sits so close to the ground that the car never feels its weight. It springs into the corners and rushes out of them. It passes the smoother chicanes like if they weren't there. It's planted on the track, and at the same time incredibly responsive to the wheel, the throttle, the brakes, to any touch.

That's what I call performance. So then what you're saying is that sometime in the past 70 years, management should have hired somebody to redesign their engines?

Ah, yes. Their own employees are probably the only people who have a good reason to buy their cars.The "employee pricing deal" was the campaign GM had where non-employees could buy their cars at the prices they'd sell them to their employees. (Employees get lower prices than non-employees.)