For openers, I am not a Michael Moore fan. In fact, I can't stand the
opportunistic self-promoter.
BUT.. fair is fair and he does make a point here that kinda makes sense.
The topic is close to me as I have contact with a lot of people from the
automotive industry. Small tool & die guys and one big upholstery shop.
When the big 3 go down, the ****-storm will roll across the border into
Canuckistan as there really is no border because AutoPact and NAFTA.

A big part of me thinks they should just collapse just like any other
****-poorly managed company. In this case the consequences would be just
too ginormous to even contemplate.

The big 3 corporate automotive clusterfarks need to be taught a lesson,
but so does the UAW. Let the blames begin!

No free lunch.

r

Amen,

cm


"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
For openers, I am not a Michael Moore fan. In fact, I can't stand the
opportunistic self-promoter.
BUT.. fair is fair and he does make a point here that kinda makes sense.
The topic is close to me as I have contact with a lot of people from the
automotive industry. Small tool & die guys and one big upholstery shop.
When the big 3 go down, the ****-storm will roll across the border into
Canuckistan as there really is no border because AutoPact and NAFTA.

A big part of me thinks they should just collapse just like any other
****-poorly managed company. In this case the consequences would be just
too ginormous to even contemplate.

The big 3 corporate automotive clusterfarks need to be taught a lesson,
but so does the UAW. Let the blames begin!

No free lunch.

r

"Robatoy" wrote in message
The big 3 corporate automotive clusterfarks need to be taught a lesson,

Absolutely. Included in that lesson should be a sizable contingent of CEO's
and every other person in the companies with golden parachutes and ludicrous
$$$ plus salaries.

but so does the UAW. Let the blames begin!

Yeah, I've got a problem with unions too. I was reading a number of comments
by the general public, many of them university grads making less than these
auto workers. The vast majority commented on how auto workers with basically
minimal education and essentially qualified to do one job only were making
$30 an hour and were not willing to take any part of a pay cut to save their
jobs. That's greed. There's been times in my life where I'd have happily
given up 10% of my wages to save my job. Not these people.

The only downside to letting the auto makers take a big hit is what it will
cost all the other small businesses and people down the road who thrive on
the money that the auto workers spend.

Upscale wrote:

There's been times in my life where I'd have happily given up 10% of
my wages to save my job.

On the local news this past weekend: About 80% of Iowans surveyed said
they'd be willing to take a pay cut in order to save the job of the
person sitting /next/ to them...

....and Iowa wages are already sub-par.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
Upscale wrote:

There's been times in my life where I'd have happily given up 10% of
my wages to save my job.

On the local news this past weekend: About 80% of Iowans surveyed said
they'd be willing to take a pay cut in order to save the job of the person
sitting /next/ to them...


That's my problem with the (modern) unions. It's no longer about supporting
the workers, it's about maintaining the union... sometimes at the expense
of the workers!

Ed

I have always felt Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell would make a great
couple. But I have heard two wrongs don't make a right!

cm


"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
For openers, I am not a Michael Moore fan. In fact, I can't stand the
opportunistic self-promoter.
BUT.. fair is fair and he does make a point here that kinda makes sense.
The topic is close to me as I have contact with a lot of people from the
automotive industry. Small tool & die guys and one big upholstery shop.
When the big 3 go down, the ****-storm will roll across the border into
Canuckistan as there really is no border because AutoPact and NAFTA.

A big part of me thinks they should just collapse just like any other
****-poorly managed company. In this case the consequences would be just
too ginormous to even contemplate.

The big 3 corporate automotive clusterfarks need to be taught a lesson,
but so does the UAW. Let the blames begin!

No free lunch.

r

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 09:04:33 -0600, Morris Dovey wrote:

Upscale wrote:

There's been times in my life where I'd have happily given up 10% of
my wages to save my job.

On the local news this past weekend: About 80% of Iowans surveyed said
they'd be willing to take a pay cut in order to save the job of the
person sitting /next/ to them...

...and Iowa wages are already sub-par.

Morris.. Hate to bring a rain cloud over your sunny thought, but in my
experience, saying you'll take a pay cut and actually doing it are 2 different
things..
Sort of like saying that you'd die for someone and then rethinking it if the
choice is presented..


mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

On Dec 15, 10:35*am, "Ed Edelenbos" wrote:
"Morris Dovey" wrote in message

...

Upscale wrote:

There's been times in my life where I'd have happily given up 10% of
my wages to save my job.

On the local news this past weekend: About 80% of Iowans surveyed said
they'd be willing to take a pay cut in order to save the job of the person
sitting /next/ to them...

That's my problem with the (modern) unions. *It's no longer about supporting
the workers, it's about maintaining the union... *sometimes at the expense
of the workers!

Ed

When it comes to unions, there is no doubt that they were needed at
one time to put a stop to sending mine-workers into unsafe mines and
also to stop railroad barons from working their labourers to death
without adequate pay..... then again, the argument exists that those
barons would do that again if given the chance. And yet, the plants
operated by Toyota and Honda seem to be doing just fine...here in
Ontario at least. They're talking a few lay-offs even there

On Dec 15, 10:45*am, "cm" wrote:
I have always felt Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell would make a great
couple. But I have heard two wrongs don't make a right!



WHOA, dude.... can you even imagine what their kids would be like?

*shudder*

cm wrote:
Amen,

cm


"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
For openers, I am not a Michael Moore fan. In fact, I can't stand
the
opportunistic self-promoter.
BUT.. fair is fair and he does make a point here that kinda makes
sense. The topic is close to me as I have contact with a lot of
people from the automotive industry. Small tool & die guys and one
big upholstery shop. When the big 3 go down, the ****-storm will
roll across the border into Canuckistan as there really is no
border
because AutoPact and NAFTA.

A big part of me thinks they should just collapse just like any
other
****-poorly managed company. In this case the consequences would be
just too ginormous to even contemplate.

The big 3 corporate automotive clusterfarks need to be taught a
lesson, but so does the UAW. Let the blames begin!

No free lunch.

r

Typical liberalism--unions demand contracts that make the company
noncompetitive, and the goverment passes laws that force them to make
products that they have to sell below cost, and then when it all goes
sour, the company's mismanaged.

Would serve us all right if the people who had to try to keep a
company afloat with all this crap being forced on them took their ball
and went home.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Ed Edelenbos wrote:
"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
Upscale wrote:

There's been times in my life where I'd have happily given up 10% of
my wages to save my job.

On the local news this past weekend: About 80% of Iowans surveyed said
they'd be willing to take a pay cut in order to save the job of the
person sitting /next/ to them...

That's my problem with the (modern) unions. It's no longer about
supporting the workers, it's about maintaining the union... sometimes
at the expense of the workers!

Too often true. One possible remedy in this case might be to also
require reorganization of the UAW chapters into independent
(unaffiliated) plant unions, so that workers could retain the
protections and benefits of collective bargaining without a single union
having a strangle hold on such a large portion of the economy...

....just a thought.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

mac davis wrote:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 09:04:33 -0600, Morris Dovey wrote:

Upscale wrote:

There's been times in my life where I'd have happily given up 10% of
my wages to save my job.
On the local news this past weekend: About 80% of Iowans surveyed said
they'd be willing to take a pay cut in order to save the job of the
person sitting /next/ to them...

...and Iowa wages are already sub-par.

Morris.. Hate to bring a rain cloud over your sunny thought, but in my
experience, saying you'll take a pay cut and actually doing it are 2 different
things..

Very true - but who's to say how many actually meant what they said?

Sort of like saying that you'd die for someone and then rethinking it if the
choice is presented...

Same deal - and of the people I knew who said they'd put their life on
the line, many did - and died honoring that commitment.

I don't think you make a convincing argument.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

On Dec 15, 11:16*am, Morris Dovey wrote:
mac davis wrote:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 09:04:33 -0600, Morris Dovey wrote:

Upscale wrote:

There's been times in my life where I'd have happily given up 10% of
my wages to save my job.
On the local news this past weekend: About 80% of Iowans surveyed said
they'd be willing to take a pay cut in order to save the job of the
person sitting /next/ to them...

...and Iowa wages are already sub-par.

Morris.. Hate to bring a rain cloud over your sunny thought, but in my
experience, saying you'll take a pay cut and actually doing it are 2 different
things..

Very true - but who's to say how many actually meant what they said?

Sort of like saying that you'd die for someone and then rethinking it if the
choice is presented...

Same deal - and of the people I knew who said they'd put their life on
the line, many did - and died honoring that commitment.

I don't think you make a convincing argument.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USAhttp://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Many have died for people not even knowing who they were/are.
Those kind of people fit my definition of the word hero. Then again,
in my world there are no sports 'heroes'.
Even astronauts and people like them don't really fit the hero bill.
Mind you, standing beside a Mercury Redstone (a bit bigger than a
telephone pole) and trying to imagine what that must have been like.
To sit in a can, on top of a controlled explosion...and telling the
boys on the ground to go ahead and light the wick... that takes balls,
faith and a bit of crazy. I will have to think about that some more.

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
For openers, I am not a Michael Moore fan. In fact, I can't stand the
opportunistic self-promoter.
BUT.. fair is fair and he does make a point here that kinda makes sense.
The topic is close to me as I have contact with a lot of people from the
automotive industry. Small tool & die guys and one big upholstery shop.
When the big 3 go down, the ****-storm will roll across the border into
Canuckistan as there really is no border because AutoPact and NAFTA.

A big part of me thinks they should just collapse just like any other
****-poorly managed company. In this case the consequences would be just
too ginormous to even contemplate.

The big 3 corporate automotive clusterfarks need to be taught a lesson,
but so does the UAW. Let the blames begin!

No free lunch.

r

For the most part, the Big 3 have already fallen, they have not exactly been
in the game for the last 4 or 5 years. They all talk like there will be a
huge problem if they go down. Suppliers will simply have to find new
customers as they probably already have or should have. The writing has
been on the wall for several now.

"cm" wrote in message
...
I have always felt Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell would make a great
couple. But I have heard two wrongs don't make a right!


I wonder which one would be on top!

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
On Dec 15, 11:16 am, Morris Dovey wrote:
mac davis wrote:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 09:04:33 -0600, Morris Dovey
wrote:

Upscale wrote:

There's been times in my life where I'd have happily given up 10%
of
my wages to save my job.
On the local news this past weekend: About 80% of Iowans surveyed
said
they'd be willing to take a pay cut in order to save the job of the
person sitting /next/ to them...

...and Iowa wages are already sub-par.

Morris.. Hate to bring a rain cloud over your sunny thought, but in
my
experience, saying you'll take a pay cut and actually doing it are 2
different
things..

Very true - but who's to say how many actually meant what they said?

Sort of like saying that you'd die for someone and then rethinking
it if the
choice is presented...

Same deal - and of the people I knew who said they'd put their life on
the line, many did - and died honoring that commitment.

I don't think you make a convincing argument.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USAhttp://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Many have died for people not even knowing who they were/are.
Those kind of people fit my definition of the word hero. Then again,
in my world there are no sports 'heroes'.
Even astronauts and people like them don't really fit the hero bill.
Mind you, standing beside a Mercury Redstone (a bit bigger than a
telephone pole) and trying to imagine what that must have been like.
To sit in a can, on top of a controlled explosion...and telling the
boys on the ground to go ahead and light the wick... that takes balls,
faith and a bit of crazy. I will have to think about that some more.

And, as one them once replied when asked what he was thinking as the
final seconds to lift-off ticked down, "I was thinking about how this
thing was built by the lowest bidder." Or words to that effect.

Dave in Houston

cm wrote:

I have always felt Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell would make a great
couple. But I have heard two wrongs don't make a right!

cm


Please, there are some mental images that are too horrible to contemplate.



"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
For openers, I am not a Michael Moore fan. In fact, I can't stand the
opportunistic self-promoter.
BUT.. fair is fair and he does make a point here that kinda makes sense.
The topic is close to me as I have contact with a lot of people from the
automotive industry. Small tool & die guys and one big upholstery shop.
When the big 3 go down, the ****-storm will roll across the border into
Canuckistan as there really is no border because AutoPact and NAFTA.

A big part of me thinks they should just collapse just like any other
****-poorly managed company. In this case the consequences would be just
too ginormous to even contemplate.

The big 3 corporate automotive clusterfarks need to be taught a lesson,
but so does the UAW. Let the blames begin!

No free lunch.

r

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Leon wrote:


"cm" wrote in message
...
I have always felt Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell would make a great
couple. But I have heard two wrongs don't make a right!


I wonder which one would be on top!

You are a sick man.

/me applies brain scrub
--
Froz...

"Leon" suggests a horrendous picture!

"cm" wrote in message
...
I have always felt Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell would make a great
couple. But I have heard two wrongs don't make a right!


I wonder which one would be on top!
Stop that Leon! I just ate.

Trying hard to keep it down.

My wife, who is usually pretty level headed, just hates Rosie. She gets very
irate if she appears on the TV screen.

On Dec 15, 11:10 am, "Leon" wrote:

They all talk like there will be a
huge problem if they go down. Suppliers will simply have to find new
customers as they probably already have or should have. The writing has
been on the wall for several now.

As a kid, I used to study and read about American businesses and how
they were formed starting with the late 1890s.

Shakespeare couldn't write better stories of greed, deception,
generosity, back stabbing, immense wealth, altruism, and outright
immoral activities. Many things that were done in business 100+ years
weren't illegal here simply because no one thought they needed a law
for people to behave.

Set aside outright thievery (mostly by management!!), business has
been running its course in a very steady way here in the USA. But
due to its age, there are some old business practices that have hung
around as traditions, probably because of the age of the company. Two
of these traditions carried over with the Big Three today are arrogant
management, and immutable labor demands.

As you say Leon, the writing has been on the wall for many years now,
probably about 25 or so. I remember reading many serious
dissertations concerning the demise of the Big Three as early as the
80s. Poor quality cars, silly labor costs, bad management, etc.,
etc., created a monster cancer that has slowly killed the industry.

Even protectionist taxes couldn't kill the foreign cars or their
makers. They invested billions here in our own country to build
better cars here with our own labor forces at a better price. They
beat us at our own game with quality, design, pricing, reliability,
and most importantly a long term business model.

Compare that the first meeting of the Big Three with the Senators to
beg for money a month or so ago (when they flew up to meet in their
private jets to be greeted by private limos) revealed they literally
had no written, no verbal, or even an objective for a plan that would
save them. They simply wanted the money to pay bills, base on "or
else the public would all pay for this".

I remember sitting in my office reading The WSM in the late 80s when
the housing market was crashing, as well as the commercial
construction market. My friends were going out of business because
the economy had slowed so much and they had built companies they
couldn't sustain. Some lost everything. I kept this in mind while I
was reading that the UAW wouldn't budge on the issue of "cross
training".

GM wanted the bumper guy to be able to put on fenders, for which he
would be trained. The fender guy would be cross trained as well. The
cross training gave an automatic raise to each. At no time were the
cross trained folks to be working cross platforms on the same day. If
you started with bumpers, you stayed with bumpers for your shift.

The union said "no". If we need more workers, you must hire more
workers. They would not budge. GM caved. It resulted in double
digit growth of the unionized labor force.

The biggest sticking point in this last round of negotiations seems to
be something that is incredulous to me. The union will not come off
their wage plan, nor will they accept layoffs. The union rep said
that if either of those happen, they will strike. No matter how much
money we throw at the car makers, without reduction of costs, they
won't make it. And if they strike.... game over.

How could you give any of them money that has management that has no
hard, written plan to reverse their current woes, and a labor force
that feels like they shouldn't put anything in the pot for the company
to survive?

Remember, they are begging for money FROM US. Would anyone here let
your city government bail out a construction company that used archaic
equipment, had no cash reserves (just enough for management bonuses,
though) an overpaid labor force for the market and no guaranteed
projects on the books? Worse, no plan for recovery?

Together with management the unions are just as guilty in having bled
the domestic care industry dry.

The recent conduct of all sides, management, union and the Congress
show they have learned nothing.

In each case, they deserve nothing. Certainly none of my tax money.
I would rather see the money spent on ALL the people, not just car
industry people.

Let 'em all sink. They won't go away. Some of the business
economists are settling on the number of 30%. That number represents
the percentage of the cost to do business if they go through
bankruptcy reorganization.

Sounds good to me!

Robert

If unions go down you can count on 10$ an hour as a high wage for the
middle class as the greedy 5% scoop up all the easy cash.
It has happened in the forest industry. they broke the unions by contracting
out. Now the company takes bids for the work and contractors lowball each
other so much, they end up going bankrupt and not paying there workers. The
company still gets the same money for the logged area as the logs are sold
through them. I like the Chinese but if you think some Chinese company isn't
going to lowball you to get your job,good luck to you.GM has plans for a big
plant in Russia, is it with bailout money? Bankers just took us for 850 000
000 000 if not more and no regulation and you think they have your interests
in mind? They have transferred all the cash from public to private hands now
they are transferring private dept to the public.I can think of nothing
since Regan that has been done by the neo-conservative powers that control
the republican party that has helped the middle class.The republican party
isn't conservative anymore they are just greedy and power hungry praying on
the stupid.



No free lunch.

r

Upscale wrote:
"Robatoy" wrote in message
The big 3 corporate automotive clusterfarks need to be taught a lesson,

Absolutely. Included in that lesson should be a sizable contingent of CEO's
and every other person in the companies with golden parachutes and ludicrous
$$$ plus salaries.

If those executives worked for absolutely nothing - no base, no bonus,
no stock options - it would make NO difference in the earnings of the
companies in question. The P&L of manufacturing companies is
dominated by the cost of labor. But it's fun to hate people with
more money than you, eh?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

wrote in message
...
On Dec 15, 11:10 am, "Leon" wrote:
Snip



As you say Leon, the writing has been on the wall for many years now,
probably about 25 or so. I remember reading many serious
dissertations concerning the demise of the Big Three as early as the
80s. Poor quality cars, silly labor costs, bad management, etc.,
etc., created a monster cancer that has slowly killed the industry.


I still remember like it was yesterday working for the Oldsmobile dealer. I
was the Service Sales Manager at the time when Oldsmobile was probably the
most arrogant. Our dealership had won the Oldsmobile Service Supremacy
award. This was based mostly on customer satisfaction with the service
performed. Oldsmobile steered many customers our way because the other 4
dealers could not fix reoccurring warranty problems. Because we did more
warranty work "proportionally" in service than the other dealerships we
automatically had 10-15% of our warranty claims kick back to us. The
reason, we had more warranty claims than was our share. Never mind the fact
that the cars did have problems and we were the only ones that could do a
repair that lasted.





Even protectionist taxes couldn't kill the foreign cars or their
makers. They invested billions here in our own country to build
better cars here with our own labor forces at a better price. They
beat us at our own game with quality, design, pricing, reliability,
and most importantly a long term business model.

And the foreigh auto makers are making more money with the added taxes. If
the Big 3 workers are worth a damn they should not have a problem finding
jobs elsewhere but they are probably going to be paid a wage more in line
with what they are actually worth. Right now if they are layed off they get
up to 95% continued salary for 2 years.



Compare that the first meeting of the Big Three with the Senators to
beg for money a month or so ago (when they flew up to meet in their
private jets to be greeted by private limos) revealed they literally
had no written, no verbal, or even an objective for a plan that would
save them. They simply wanted the money to pay bills, base on "or
else the public would all pay for this".

The fools showed their hand right off the bat. You know if the leader of a
company is wasteful and ignorant the rest of the company is probably in the
same shape.

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...
Upscale wrote:
"Robatoy" wrote in message
The big 3 corporate automotive clusterfarks need to be taught a lesson,

Absolutely. Included in that lesson should be a sizable contingent of
CEO's
and every other person in the companies with golden parachutes and
ludicrous
$$$ plus salaries.

If those executives worked for absolutely nothing - no base, no bonus,
no stock options - it would make NO difference in the earnings of the
companies in question. The P&L of manufacturing companies is
dominated by the cost of labor. But it's fun to hate people with
more money than you, eh?


You can look at that way but the fact that most CEO's have a golden
parachute there is no incentive to make a company perform better.

"Lee Michaels" wrote in message
...

"Leon" suggests a horrendous picture!

"cm" wrote in message
...
I have always felt Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell would make a great
couple. But I have heard two wrongs don't make a right!


I wonder which one would be on top!
Stop that Leon! I just ate.

Trying hard to keep it down.

My wife, who is usually pretty level headed, just hates Rosie. She gets
very irate if she appears on the TV screen.

With very few exceptions I don't want to hear or care what a celebrity has
to say about anything that requires any thought. Most did good to get out
of high school and probably less than 10% started college. I'd say maybe 2%
that started college got a degree.

"Rusty" wrote in message
...

If unions go down you can count on 10$ an hour as a high wage for the
middle class as the greedy 5% scoop up all the easy cash.

I would sure like to see if that turns out to be ture or not.

If it turns out to be true, the unions will be back but for now the unions
are a big part of the problem. I't probably not a bad thing to get paid for
your actual worth.

wrote:

I remember reading many serious dissertations concerning the demise
of the Big Three as early as the 80s.

It wasn't news even then. In the early 70's the UAW managed a 30%
across-the-board increase for its members and the auto-makers made the
decision to just pass the cost increase on to purchasers.

[ Hmm - anyone else remember how GM tried to offset part of the
increased costs by using cheaper steel? And how a few years later it was
hard to find a Chevy pickup without rusted-out fenders?

And I can remember that earlier Ford had been proud of how the unibody
construction of the Falcon allowed selling sedans for less than $2000,
and I rember hearing how the UAW hadn't liked the unibody approach
because it reduced labor content of the vehicle... ]

Briefly, the auto workers benefited - but by the time everyone else's
income had adjusted to the inflated cost of living (and purchase of
automobiles was a significant component of that inflation), the auto
workers were right back where they'd started.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Leon wrote:
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...
Upscale wrote:
"Robatoy" wrote in message
The big 3 corporate automotive clusterfarks need to be taught a lesson,
Absolutely. Included in that lesson should be a sizable contingent of
CEO's
and every other person in the companies with golden parachutes and
ludicrous
$$$ plus salaries.
If those executives worked for absolutely nothing - no base, no bonus,
no stock options - it would make NO difference in the earnings of the
companies in question. The P&L of manufacturing companies is
dominated by the cost of labor. But it's fun to hate people with
more money than you, eh?


You can look at that way but the fact that most CEO's have a golden
parachute there is no incentive to make a company perform better.


I am not "looking at it" in any particular way. Businesses exist
solely to make money for their owners. When they fail to make money,
we who own a piece of them (as most of us with retirement funds and/or
multual funds and/or ETF postions ... i.e., Most of the working
class), should be asking *why* they are not profitable, not flogging
the anti-Capitalist Marxism so popular with the new administration,
not to mention many of th the voices here on the Wreck.

The reason the Big 3 are in trouble financially has *nothing* to do
with executive compensation. It also has very little to do with the
quality of their cars or whether people like their products. In actual
fact, Detroit has never built better, more reliable cars that today
are easily on par with the best of Japan or Europe. (Despite what the
half wits in the media and those who believe them on their face say to
the contrary.) No, Detroit is in trouble because their labor costs are
out of control, and the structure of their bargaining unit labor deals
is flatly insane. If you want to blame the executives for something,
blame them for not standing down the sleazy, greedy union leadership
and membership and forcing them to live in the real world.

Your or my lack of wealth is not caused by someone else having wealth.
This is a lie to its foundations, but it is subtly peddled as fact
by misbegotten threads like this. I do not begrudge anyone any amount
of wealth so long as they did not steal or defraud to get it. The
reason the corporate CEOs get these big exit packages isn't that
hard to figure out:

1) There are few people in the world with the experience and brains
to run a $100+ Billion company. Constrained supply creates high
salaries and packages.

2) It used to be that execs made most of their money on stock options.
Then the 1990s came along and people saw these options vault into
the stratosphere in value - mostly in the IT sector. The usual
class warrior crybabies started whining about "execessive CEO pay"
and many companies stopped handing out options and paid higher
salaries instead. This is tragic, as stock options and grants
are the best way I know to incent a leader to make the company grow.

3) It is the Board Of Directors that sets executive compensation. The
BOD answers to the stockholders. Guess what? Most of the stockholders
are actually fine with the current executive comp. If they were not,
they'd stage a stockholder revolt and throw out the incumbent board
and executives. The stockholders, BTW, are mostly folks like us -
individuals who own a piece of these big companies via some kind
of fund or aggregate investment vehicle. If everyone is so upset
about executive comp, why do they not rise up and do something
about it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Dec 15, 1:09*pm, "Leon" wrote:


The fools showed their hand right off the bat. *You know if the leader of a
company is wasteful and ignorant the rest of the company is probably in the
same shape.

Well said.

And on another note, FINALLY someone put p3en to paper to figure
out the real cost of the bailout of GM alone. The other two were left
out.

Our "throw money at it" Congress didn't come up the numbers. GM
didn't come up with the numbers. But one of GM's biggest creditor
did, and it is twice the number asked for by all the BT combined. And
most of it is simply for debt service.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081215/bs_nm/
us_generalmotors_loan_bankofamerica

So if Congress gives them all just 14 B, how will that fix anything?
BOA actually stepped in only as a means to protect their own interest
or we would never really know the real cost for GM.

I am wondering what it will cost to bail out all of them... I don't
believe there is a bottom to this this, especially if we wind up with
all three on deck with their hands out.

And now that the additional (on top of the TARP 700 B) stimulus/
bailout money is approaching an additional TRILLION before stewardship
of the country has even changed hands, I am wondering myself when all
of this will stop.

Robert







Robert

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...
Leon wrote:

You can look at that way but the fact that most CEO's have a golden
parachute there is no incentive to make a company perform better.


I am not "looking at it" in any particular way. Businesses exist
solely to make money for their owners. When they fail to make money,
we who own a piece of them (as most of us with retirement funds and/or
multual funds and/or ETF postions ... i.e., Most of the working
class), should be asking *why* they are not profitable, not flogging
the anti-Capitalist Marxism so popular with the new administration,
not to mention many of th the voices here on the Wreck.

Not profitable because of **** poor management and decision making.



The reason the Big 3 are in trouble financially has *nothing* to do
with executive compensation.

Yeah, it kinda does. Had they had to balls to run a business like a
business should be run there would be fewer problems.



It also has very little to do with the
quality of their cars or whether people like their products.

And that is BS also. Having made my living selling GM products and retired
at 40 I can assure you that the quality of the competition blows away the
Big 3 quality.

In actual
fact, Detroit has never built better, more reliable cars that today
are easily on par with the best of Japan or Europe.

Partially true, they have never built better, a few of their vehicles are on
par but as a whole, still way behind.


(Despite what the
half wits in the media and those who believe them on their face say to
the contrary.) No, Detroit is in trouble because their labor costs are
out of control, and the structure of their bargaining unit labor deals
is flatly insane. If you want to blame the executives for something,
blame them for not standing down the sleazy, greedy union leadership
and membership and forcing them to live in the real world.

Well that "is" what I am blaming the executives for, **** poor management
and no balls.



Your or my lack of wealth is not caused by someone else having wealth.
This is a lie to its foundations, but it is subtly peddled as fact
by misbegotten threads like this. I do not begrudge anyone any amount
of wealth so long as they did not steal or defraud to get it. The
reason the corporate CEOs get these big exit packages isn't that
hard to figure out:

1) There are few people in the world with the experience and brains
to run a $100+ Billion company. Constrained supply creates high
salaries and packages.

Correct and beggs the question why we are paying these inept CEO's these
large salaries and give them golden parachures. They absolutely do not
qualify to run these companies or draw that kind of salary.


2) It used to be that execs made most of their money on stock options.
Then the 1990s came along and people saw these options vault into
the stratosphere in value - mostly in the IT sector. The usual
class warrior crybabies started whining about "execessive CEO pay"
and many companies stopped handing out options and paid higher
salaries instead. This is tragic, as stock options and grants
are the best way I know to incent a leader to make the company grow.

And back then we had decent execs, pay plans these days attract the rif
raff.


3) It is the Board Of Directors that sets executive compensation. The
BOD answers to the stockholders. Guess what? Most of the stockholders
are actually fine with the current executive comp. If they were not,
they'd stage a stockholder revolt and throw out the incumbent board
and executives.

Apparently this is not true, there has been no revolt. Having a sizeable of
money in the market for the last 15 years, my little proportion has little
influnce on their decision making.


The stockholders, BTW, are mostly folks like us -
individuals who own a piece of these big companies via some kind
of fund or aggregate investment vehicle. If everyone is so upset
about executive comp, why do they not rise up and do something
about it?

Because we each probably own less than .00001% of the total shares and that
does not have much pull with the decision makers.

wrote in message
...
On Dec 15, 1:09 pm, "Leon" wrote:




http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081215/bs_nm/
us_generalmotors_loan_bankofamerica

So if Congress gives them all just 14 B, how will that fix anything?
BOA actually stepped in only as a means to protect their own interest
or we would never really know the real cost for GM.

I am wondering what it will cost to bail out all of them... I don't
believe there is a bottom to this this, especially if we wind up with
all three on deck with their hands out.

And now that the additional (on top of the TARP 700 B) stimulus/
bailout money is approaching an additional TRILLION before stewardship
of the country has even changed hands, I am wondering myself when all
of this will stop.

U

I'm afraid to say that a majority of the Big 3 workers are not totally
unlike the majority of the people that bought houses that were way beyond
their pay grade. It all catches up with you sooner or later. Later has
arrived.

On Dec 15, 2:08*pm, "
wrote:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081215/bs_nm/
us_generalmotors_loan_bankofamerica

Munged. Goin' back to tinyurl.

If you are suspicious of the link, don't click it.

http://tinyurl.com/6q6rka

Robert

Leon wrote:
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...
Leon wrote:

You can look at that way but the fact that most CEO's have a golden
parachute there is no incentive to make a company perform better.


I am not "looking at it" in any particular way. Businesses exist
solely to make money for their owners. When they fail to make money,
we who own a piece of them (as most of us with retirement funds and/or
multual funds and/or ETF postions ... i.e., Most of the working
class), should be asking *why* they are not profitable, not flogging
the anti-Capitalist Marxism so popular with the new administration,
not to mention many of th the voices here on the Wreck.

Not profitable because of **** poor management and decision making.

Almost *all* of which surrounds the question of labor costs.
The rest is just rounding error.



The reason the Big 3 are in trouble financially has *nothing* to do
with executive compensation.

Yeah, it kinda does. Had they had to balls to run a business like a
business should be run there would be fewer problems.

You've obviously never actually run a company of any size. You cannot
"run a business like a business" when every do-gooder, union wart,
anti-Capitalist, earth hugger, and various other societal bottom feeders
are demanding you do things their way even if it is irrational or, possibly
even (in the case of the UAW), insane. The Big Three are not free to run
their business to the satisfaction of their shareholders. They have
a culture full of science dropouts and closet Marxists in their face
on a regular basis telling them what to do.




It also has very little to do with the
quality of their cars or whether people like their products.

And that is BS also. Having made my living selling GM products and retired
at 40 I can assure you that the quality of the competition blows away the
Big 3 quality.

And I can tell your from immediate and recent experience that you're
dead wrong - at least for trucks. We have owned many Japanese products
in my household as well as a number of GM, I am in pretty good
position to have seen the span of quality. What you say was true 20
years ago, it's not any more. My 2008 Chev Tahoe is easily the better
of my previously owned Nissan Pathfinder. This Tahoe replaces a 1995
model that gave me 138000 miles of happy trails with only two major
mechanical malfunctions.

Cars are another matter. No one in Detroit seems to know how to
build a car worth a crap until you get into the luxury segment, and
even there, they're not incredible. Honda consistently builds
outstanding cars and if I wanted a car, that's what I'd buy.
Toyota is overrated and is starting to look like GM 20 years ago
with their maintenance problems and poor customer service. Nissan
has been fine, if a little disconnected in their customer support.
(The new 2008 Tahoe would have been a 2008 Pathfinder if the dealer
had ever called me back as he promised.)

But again, I don't think this is the major problem with the Big Three
money issues. They just can't afford to be competitive, invest in
new technology, reengineer their cars regularly, and so on when
they're paying layed off workers full salary and benefits for
life (not an exaggeration).


In actual
fact, Detroit has never built better, more reliable cars that today
are easily on par with the best of Japan or Europe.

Partially true, they have never built better, a few of their vehicles are on
par but as a whole, still way behind.

As I said, they build the best trucks in the world, and most of their cars
are uninspiring. How they can manage to get the fit and finish right on
a light truck, but not a Malibu is just beyond me.



(Despite what the
half wits in the media and those who believe them on their face say to
the contrary.) No, Detroit is in trouble because their labor costs are
out of control, and the structure of their bargaining unit labor deals
is flatly insane. If you want to blame the executives for something,
blame them for not standing down the sleazy, greedy union leadership
and membership and forcing them to live in the real world.

Well that "is" what I am blaming the executives for, **** poor management
and no balls.

Easy to say (and I agree), but hard to do. When you have closet
Marxists running the unions, the universities, the media, and now,
finally, the new Presidency, its hard to stand up and say "Everyone
has to earn their own keep." In truth, the Auto "Bailout" is a UAW
bailout promoted by the congressional pigs on the left (but I repeat
myself) and with the assent of many parts of the right as well. This
is happening because a depressing proportion of the population believes
in some version of the execrable "Labor Theory Of Value." This same
population is either to dumb or dishonest to acknowledge that the LTV
is an essentially Marxist construct.


Your or my lack of wealth is not caused by someone else having wealth.
This is a lie to its foundations, but it is subtly peddled as fact
by misbegotten threads like this. I do not begrudge anyone any amount
of wealth so long as they did not steal or defraud to get it. The
reason the corporate CEOs get these big exit packages isn't that
hard to figure out:

1) There are few people in the world with the experience and brains
to run a $100+ Billion company. Constrained supply creates high
salaries and packages.

Correct and beggs the question why we are paying these inept CEO's these
large salaries and give them golden parachures. They absolutely do not
qualify to run these companies or draw that kind of salary.


Because the alternatives are worse, and finding quality people even willing
to do it is hard. I was once an executive in a very small private firm
with visions of becoming a public company. I would *never* serve as
an exec in a public firm in today's whining political climate. I don't
need to work 70 hr weeks, and then have some smelly hippie retread tell
me I make too much money. No thanks. And I am not alone in this. I
know a good number of capable, honest, and hard working people who
have lost all taste for being in leadership roles in any public company.


2) It used to be that execs made most of their money on stock options.
Then the 1990s came along and people saw these options vault into
the stratosphere in value - mostly in the IT sector. The usual
class warrior crybabies started whining about "execessive CEO pay"
and many companies stopped handing out options and paid higher
salaries instead. This is tragic, as stock options and grants
are the best way I know to incent a leader to make the company grow.

And back then we had decent execs, pay plans these days attract the rif
raff.

You're kidding yourself. There were plenty of bad execs back in the
day (I know, I worked for some of them). But there were good ones then
as well. The difference, as I said above, is that good people are
getting leary about working for public companies because the general
culture, the government, and the regulatory environment make doing so
not worth it. (You will see the same thing happen as people exit the
medical profession when Our Lord and Savior Comrade Obama turns in
into a socialist gulag.)


3) It is the Board Of Directors that sets executive compensation. The
BOD answers to the stockholders. Guess what? Most of the stockholders
are actually fine with the current executive comp. If they were not,
they'd stage a stockholder revolt and throw out the incumbent board
and executives.

Apparently this is not true, there has been no revolt. Having a sizeable of
money in the market for the last 15 years, my little proportion has little
influnce on their decision making.

Have you ever once complained to the BOD? To your mutual fund? To anyone
associated with the companies you think are overpaying their execs
and/or badly run?



The stockholders, BTW, are mostly folks like us -
individuals who own a piece of these big companies via some kind
of fund or aggregate investment vehicle. If everyone is so upset
about executive comp, why do they not rise up and do something
about it?

Because we each probably own less than .00001% of the total shares and that
does not have much pull with the decision makers.

But together, we own an overwhelming amount of the stock. Our "together"
is expressed in collective investment vehicles which we CAN influence.
It is ironic that the execs actually should be paid MORE if we want
them to be better at what they do. Instead of paying them huge salaries,
they should own more of the companies they run. If their primary source
of income was determined based on their company's long term performance,
they'd do a much better job. But, as I said, the class warrior whiners
made sure that stock options with long vesting cycles got more-or-less
eliminated.










--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

wrote

Shakespeare couldn't write better stories of greed, deception,
generosity, back stabbing, immense wealth, altruism, and outright
immoral activities. Many things that were done in business 100+ years
weren't illegal here simply because no one thought they needed a law
for people to behave.

Hell, Bubba ... just last Friday morning, probably the "most well known",
"most respected", "most revered" member of the Wall Street financial
community, a man held in the highest regard and esteem by hundreds of
thousands of the smartest, savviest, richest folks in the world, a founder
of NASDAQ and one its past Chairman ...

..... turned out to be nothing but, a THIEF!

Now, just what does that say about those not so "well respected", "revered",
etc, eh? About the only thing good about it, on the surface, is that it is
the elite who got taken.

Problem is, it will more than likely end up doing a superb job finally
proving the "domino theory".

Damn, damn! ... I can't believe I did that!! I replied to a thread with
the words "Michael Moore" in the header ... now I'm going to go take a ****
just to get the stink off ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

How are unions the problem? Gm I believe has some of the best productivity
levels in the auto industry.It's about a liveable wage ,you can always find
someone to do it cheaper. If that ceo that ran GM into the ground is worth
15 million a year. I'm sure you or I could run GM into the bankruptcy for
allot less.

"Leon" wrote in message
...

"Rusty" wrote in message
...

If unions go down you can count on 10$ an hour as a high wage for the
middle class as the greedy 5% scoop up all the easy cash.

I would sure like to see if that turns out to be ture or not.

If it turns out to be true, the unions will be back but for now the unions
are a big part of the problem. I't probably not a bad thing to get paid
for your actual worth.

.... don't waste your time, buddy!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)


"Tim Daneliuk" wrote
Leon wrote:

Destroy the unions so we can all do worse. The only thing wrong with union
jobs is I don't have one.

Rusty wrote:
How are unions the problem? Gm I believe has some of the best productivity
levels in the auto industry.It's about a liveable wage ,you can always find
someone to do it cheaper. If that ceo that ran GM into the ground is worth
15 million a year. I'm sure you or I could run GM into the bankruptcy for
allot less.


You are conveniently ignoring the elephant in the room. GM
productivity is high because of very high levels of automation,
not because the union 'workers' are working harder. Moreover,
GM is stuck paying ridiculous benefits that no other working
group in America enjoys. Among these are - for some classes
of UAW members - being paid full salary and benefits forever
after being laid off. This is not a living wage, it is
insanity. More to the point, some bolt tightener in a factory
isn't worth something in the area of $80/hr (depending whose
numbers are accurate) when you take into account base and
benefits.

I've seen more than one company ruined by union greed.
Fortunately, this time, the UAW has their fellow Communists
running the congress and will likely get a "UAW Bailout" bill
passed in some form with minimal concessions on their part.
Instead of just running the companies into the ground, the UAW
will simply waddle up to the public trough like all the other
pigs and demand the rest of us maintain their quality of life.
The problem is, with all the swine at the trough, just who is
going to be left to actually produce new wealth so the old, lazy
pigs (the execs, the unions, the financial companies, the
individuals in excessive debt ...) can continue to eat for
"free"?????

P.S. The CEO didn't run GM into the ground, the UAW did. The
CEO just didn't do his job and the tell the union to go
scratch. The best part of all this may be that these
jobs will be lost forever and end up in China or
Indonesia. I'd love to see the UAW idiots take on the
Chinese government...


"Leon" wrote in message
...
"Rusty" wrote in message
...
If unions go down you can count on 10$ an hour as a high wage for the
middle class as the greedy 5% scoop up all the easy cash.
I would sure like to see if that turns out to be ture or not.

If it turns out to be true, the unions will be back but for now the unions
are a big part of the problem. I't probably not a bad thing to get paid
for your actual worth.







--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Rusty wrote:
Destroy the unions so we can all do worse. The only thing wrong with union
jobs is I don't have one.





Right, because unions are a magic potion that create wealth out of
thin air. The laws of economics are superseded by the demands of
the unions. As long as the union is there, there will always be
lots of wealth and productivity. Right.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...

You've obviously never actually run a company of any size. You cannot
"run a business like a business" when every do-gooder, union wart,
anti-Capitalist, earth hugger, and various other societal bottom feeders
are demanding you do things their way even if it is irrational or,
possibly
even (in the case of the UAW), insane. The Big Three are not free to run
their business to the satisfaction of their shareholders. They have
a culture full of science dropouts and closet Marxists in their face
on a regular basis telling them what to do.

You obviousely are out of the loop. I have only run 2 companies. Both
made/make a very nice return on investment, bottom line. I mave managed
numerous departments in several companies.



It also has very little to do with the
quality of their cars or whether people like their products.

And that is BS also. Having made my living selling GM products and
retired
at 40 I can assure you that the quality of the competition blows away the
Big 3 quality.

And I can tell your from immediate and recent experience that you're
dead wrong - at least for trucks. We have owned many Japanese products
in my household as well as a number of GM, I am in pretty good
position to have seen the span of quality. What you say was true 20
years ago, it's not any more. My 2008 Chev Tahoe is easily the better
of my previously owned Nissan Pathfinder. This Tahoe replaces a 1995
model that gave me 138000 miles of happy trails with only two major
mechanical malfunctions.

I drove a 97 Chev PU for 10 years, traded last year. I had great incentive
to purchase GMC or Chevrolet. My son worked for the Chevrolet dealer until
the dealership folded 2 months ago. Not a problem, he has 2 other jobs. I
had deep employee priceing incentives + hundreds of dollare crdits through
the GM CCard program. I test drove a GMC and Checy PU last summer. They
really were no more comfortable or felt any better while driving than amy
older truck. The GMC dealer even offered to sell me a GMC PU with power
doore windows. etc, V8, take my 97 Chev in trade, "sight unseen" for a drive
out price of $18K, inc TTL. We test drove 6 different GMC trucks moving up
in trim levels each time trying to find one that was comfortable to sit in
and to find one that did not have a back door that moved while on the
freeway. You could literally see the door rack inside the opening while the
vehicle was going down the freeway. I walked away discusted and decided not
to buy a new truck.
Then we honored our appointment with the Toyota dealer and drove the Tundra.
At the time I did not like the looks of the new Tundra but all it took was 1
test drive. I gladly paid $6k more for the New Tundra over the similarily
equipped GMC. Since I have had it, 18 months, it has been in for warranty
work 1 time for a break light switch. No other warranty work needed.
My neighbor has a 3 year old Yukon, a totally different animal. Its drive
quality is totally different from that of a Pickup.



Cars are another matter. No one in Detroit seems to know how to
build a car worth a crap until you get into the luxury segment, and
even there, they're not incredible. Honda consistently builds
outstanding cars and if I wanted a car, that's what I'd buy.

Yeah, I own an Accord too.

Toyota is overrated and is starting to look like GM 20 years ago
with their maintenance problems and poor customer service.


That is a dealer problem, Have worked as a manager at all the positions in
an Oldsmobile dealership, I know what to look out for. My Toyota dealer is
better than most any dealership I have purchased from. Service is great and
that is not only focusing on the repair work. I am treated like I own the
place.



Nissan
has been fine, if a little disconnected in their customer support.
(The new 2008 Tahoe would have been a 2008 Pathfinder if the dealer
had ever called me back as he promised.)

Nissan is getting ready to have Dodge build their Titan, the Titan is
plagued with problems.


But again, I don't think this is the major problem with the Big Three
money issues. They just can't afford to be competitive, invest in
new technology, reengineer their cars regularly, and so on when
they're paying layed off workers full salary and benefits for
life (not an exaggeration).

Totally agree however it has been management that got them in this
situation. They operate like our government does. It's the what's in it
form me right now attitude.



In actual
fact, Detroit has never built better, more reliable cars that today
are easily on par with the best of Japan or Europe.

Partially true, they have never built better, a few of their vehicles are
on
par but as a whole, still way behind.

As I said, they build the best trucks in the world, and most of their cars
are uninspiring. How they can manage to get the fit and finish right on
a light truck, but not a Malibu is just beyond me.

I wuld say they probably did build good trucks but the Tundra has been
gaining momentum for several years now and for the first time I did not buy
a GM truck.